It really is the ideal RPing interface ever made, though. It's a sprite-based world with elegant, fairly high-fantasy graphics that you can edit however you like-- we built barricades out of chairs and lumber. When it was time to shear sheep, we could shear them and toss the wool on the ground and the person you were RPing with while you did this could pick that wool up and do whatever they wanted-- they could toss it around, they could pocket it themselves. It was there. When you said something, the words appeared above you. It wasn't possible to hear people through walls, so structure had a purpose.
There were houses, and now we have customizable houses that you can make anything out of-- gardens, arenas, watchtowers. There's a super-flexible system of guilds, guild alliances, guild wars, with definable attributes for "victory" and "loss," even.
It's just... beautiful. It's so sad that it's by and large died.
EDIT: I mean, some of my fondest UO roleplaying memories were just grinding up skill with someone else-- we wandered the wilderness idly chatting how I would idly chat with someone in real life. We'd fight a bear together, or something else, and it was appropriately difficult. Night would fall, and it would be too dark to continue so we'd set up camp and hunker by the campfire so we could spot any approaching monsters. It was just... amazing.
The game I've mentioned is actually designed by former UO people, so it has a similar system, though not nearly as sophisticated. I think the main thing is that it's hard to make money with heavily RP-oriented games unless you do a lot of micropayment stuff... and it's really hard to make SERIOUS money with them because spending hours on end writing stories doesn't appeal to most people.
Pre-fab content is king, and if it aint 3D it had better be Mario.
Edit: To further hash out this idea, the reason so many of us are bitter, and tend to lash out, is because this argument tends to remind us of the kid that threw a hissyfit when he was losing. "I don't want to play that way!" "But Timmy, those are the rules!" "Well then I'm not playing! *flips monopoly board and goes to count his play-money in the corner*". That's why the PvPcrowd tends to call name etc, they treat you like babies. They treat you like the socially awkward who are incapable of interacting with others inside a game where it is within the rule set to play that way.
I'm not saying that's what I see, I'm trying to bridge the gap to help you understand where this perceived hostility comes from the other PvPosters.
Yeah see, that's completely wrong. "PVP" is not "the rule". WoW made PVE servers the "Normal" servers, and is insanely successful. PVP is nothing but a leisure time activity in this game, although this is changing due to the addition of arenas and blizzard's (kind of silly) attempts do balance small-group pvp.
Furthermore, I do find dungeons fun and challenging. Or are you going to tell me that beating vashj/kael'thas or whateber is easy?
For starters, you whining carebears, you make me sick, you really do.
Seriously go back to Tic, Tac, Toe or go play hangman with your mommy, if you can't handle real PVP.
I agree with the main poster. The market is desperately in need of real PVP like Pre Trammel Ultima Online, 10six and Eve Online.
There are many different types of PVP.
But there are basically two types of PVP out there. Lossless PVP/PVE and Asset Loss/Gain PVP, for the simpletons out there who need everything spelled out to them in baby speak and can't work out that each individual game is it's own permutation of dimensions, drawn from an essentially infinite number of factors. Ie - each game is different and can be designed in an infinite number of ways based upon the person or group of people, who are designing the games, wishes.
There is definitely room for lossless PVP and Asset Loss/Gain PVP type game designs in the marketplace.
Lossless PVP - One fights against players but nothing is really gained or lost of any real significance. Ie WOW.
Asset Loss/Gain PVP - There are real assets in the game that can be won and lost by killing your opponent.
The latter is the only PVP that really matters to me. I like to feel the gain and loss of my personal assets. I like the rush of fear when I am under attack or defending. I want to feel genuine fear when I am wardecced by a superior force. I want to feel something when I play a game.
All you whining carebear babies who can't handle Asset Loss PVP always act superior, like somehow being a total happy happy, joy joy carebear is the be all and end all of gaming. There is more than enough room in the market right now for well designed Asset Loss/Gain PVP.
The thing with Asset Loss/Gain PVP is the game has to be completely designed around the concept. You can't have items so hard to get that losing it is to high of a risk to fight with it. Then again you have to be able to design the game with items that actually have enough value that losing it will hurt. Asset Loss/Gain pvp is a whole game design ethos in itself. The game has to be designed around the concept. You can't have the nigh on impossible to get legendary gear from WOW being able to be looted of your corpse the second you step out of Org. Asset Loss/Gain PVP doesn't work in games like WOW or Everquest, but Ultima Online pulled it off wonderfully. You could go out in top end gear if you were prepared to lose it and it would give you an edge and if you lost a fight and lost the gear you felt it. Same deal with the Titans and Capital Ships in Eve you would feel it if you lost one but they can be rebuilt with time and effort.
Suck my testicles Carebears and stick to the cuddly fluffy bunny games you like but don't for a second think your little fairy floss and candyed grass Carebear huggy worlds are for everyone.
I'm sick to death of all the dull as shit game design around for the last few years.
LONG LIVE GAMES LIKE ULTIMA ONLINE, EVE ONLINE AND 10SIX/PROJECT VISITOR.
Nothing judgemental, just thought I would share.
sorry you have lost the masses have spoken and your style of pvp is just a memory. Sure there might be a game that has that style of pvp again but it will never be the top dog.
It doesn't have to be top dog. Hardware isn't handling more then like 1000 players per server or something in the first place. Any MMO with a population of say 20k-100k subs is going to be pretty big. Beyond that, you wouldn't really notice it.
The EVE style of shardless play is certainly damn important to the appeal of the game IMO.
Yesssssss eve and it's simplistic loot model and harsh penalties for pvp
Anybody can buy anything in the game for the right price, but in the same vein, anything outside a station can be blown up.
deadtear on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
edited November 2007
No, see, we have hit the prime point here. I don't think you believe there is room for compromise. You believe that our playstyle infringes on yours (nonPvP). What we are saying, is that in an MMO there has to be compromise or else you are isolating yourself and you might as well be playing a single player game. THe fact that I'm pointing out the inconsistency in the same argument ("You might as well be playing a single player game!") is just to show that one of you realizes thats the case, and the other is denying it.
Edit: To further hash out this idea, the reason so many of us are bitter, and tend to lash out, is because this argument tends to remind us of the kid that threw a hissyfit when he was losing. "I don't want to play that way!" "But Timmy, those are the rules!" "Well then I'm not playing! *flips monopoly board and goes to count his play-money in the corner*". That's why the PvPcrowd tends to call name etc, they treat you like babies. They treat you like the socially awkward who are incapable of interacting with others inside a game where it is within the rule set to play that way.
I'm not saying that's what I see, I'm trying to bridge the gap to help you understand where this perceived hostility comes from the other PvPosters.
99% of the posters here have no issue with PvP rule set servers. What the discussion was about was if "griefer" style pvp in which things are looted off of peoples bodies. It's an arguement that reminds us of the kids who tortured small animals.
PVP players have been given a bad name due to ganking, there is no denying this. From my point of view, there are two big things that make the more casual players shy away from the thought of free pvp.
1: A game with meaningful pvp is hard to pull off. You just have to look at world of warcrafts rather unambitious attempts to create outdoor pvp. To build an engaging pvp world where you are likely to get into a challenging, even and enjoyable fight is difficult, and after seeing so many failed attempts the PVE crowd just goes "meh, its impossible".
2: Each fight has a winner and a loser. Thus, if you are a casual player you are guaranteed to lose more often than you win. Most mature players can deal with this, but there is an equal number of players that hate being second rate players, always knowing they are below average.
3: Griefing. This is a huge issue. There is no way to completely avoid it, and it ruins peoples days. My strongest memories of pvp from the early days of wow on a pvp server were trying to quest, and getting ganked by stealthing rogues. People who after achieving maximum level and decent gear spent hours sneaking around and stabbing people in the back.
Now, while I do not want to go as far as to say that pvp players are all at heart griefers, the "gank" (killing of a lower level/skill/equipment player) illustrates the problems of pvp.
Lets say there are four categories of players. There are the "noobs", people who don't really have a clue what they are doing, but play as best they can and enjoy themselves. Then we have the casuals, people who reach the maximum level at their own pace. Finally we have the Hardcore gamers, and the Elite.
In a game with pvp, the casual and noob gamers are prey to the hardcore and elite players. Every death to those players is a reminder that you suck, while in a pve game you are not in an as "direct" conflict.
PVP players have been given a bad name due to ganking, there is no denying this. From my point of view, there are two big things that make the more casual players shy away from the thought of free pvp.
1: A game with meaningful pvp is hard to pull off. You just have to look at world of warcrafts rather unambitious attempts to create outdoor pvp. To build an engaging pvp world where you are likely to get into a challenging, even and enjoyable fight is difficult, and after seeing so many failed attempts the PVE crowd just goes "meh, its impossible".
2: Each fight has a winner and a loser. Thus, if you are a casual player you are guaranteed to lose more often than you win. Most mature players can deal with this, but there is an equal number of players that hate being second rate players, always knowing they are below average.
3: Griefing. This is a huge issue. There is no way to completely avoid it, and it ruins peoples days. My strongest memories of pvp from the early days of wow on a pvp server were trying to quest, and getting ganked by stealthing rogues. People who after achieving maximum level and decent gear spent hours sneaking around and stabbing people in the back.
Serious post now.
1. EVE achieves this. CCP even make it look easy. So I don't know why nobody else can manage it except that they tend to add pvp as an afterthought rather than a core mechanic in the game (you can attack anybody anywhere in eve, although in some places your assault will be very short lived).
2. EVE gets around this
3. EVE also gets around this (even although there are griefers in the game)
It achieves this via the corporation mechanic. Yes, if you play the game alone then you will loose very fight and be griefed out of the game. I recently rolled a noob alt and she got instantly ganked twice on the same gate two nights in a row by a gang of high-sp ships. If I was a real noob, I'd probably think the game was broken and had accidentally killed me or something and probably just given up. If I really was a noob, I'd probably have lost a lot - a ship, probably a fair bit of possession, maybe some implants. Luckily I was just shuttling her somewhere in a free ship so it was just a welp.
So yeah, it probably sucks to be a noob in eve. This is why we tell people to join Merch Industrial as soon as they start even with a trial account. Once you have a body of people who can show you how to do it right, plus help even the odds, plus give you a relative safe-haven to practice (perversely, being in the middle of an intergalactic war in a region of space considered lawless is actually safer than shuttling around low-sec moderately policed space lanes) then the negatives get balanced out. The more experienced players always need new recruits to lead into battle, so you can be reasonably confident that you're in a gang fighting on an even footing with it's enemy, so in general, fights are about as balanced as they can ever be when there aren't competition rules being enforced. Griefers are kept in check because the empire griefers wouldn't last five minutes down in 0.0 space and the war griefers (griefing is a logical tactic for interfering with your enemies industry and lines of communication, so it's a part of every day life in 0.0) are combated by robust intelligence, early warning and anti-griefing protocol being rigorously drilled into new recruits (red in system, GET YOUR ASS TO MARS!).
But you can defend EVE til your blue in the face to people looking for exactly what EVE offers and if they aren't already playing it they'll just respond 'It isn't for me' even although it's basically been design specifically for them. In conclusion, some people are just retarded (personally I believe it's because they want everybody else's deaths to have dire consequences but can't cope with the idea that their own death will have equally dire consequences. ie they are hypocrite faggots).
1. EVE achieves this. CCP even make it look easy. So I don't know why nobody else can manage it except that they tend to add pvp as an afterthought rather than a core mechanic in the game (you can attack anybody anywhere in eve, although in some places your assault will be very short lived).
Mostly by accident. The players created the metagame that makes EvE pvp have meaning. We can guess at what the spark was that caused it to go from small gangs to proto-nations but can be agreed on is that it was a player action rather then CCP. What CCP did do right was allow players to define where forts (stations) should be. Thus giving a personal meaning to those forts, and an actual reason to defend them. And I suspect the spark was leadership by a player which was responded to by others. How does one go about recreating that?
It achieves this via the corporation mechanic. Yes, if you play the game alone then you will loose very fight and be griefed out of the game. I recently rolled a noob alt and she got instantly ganked twice on the same gate two nights in a row by a gang of high-sp ships. If I was a real noob, I'd probably think the game was broken and had accidentally killed me or something and probably just given up. If I really was a noob, I'd probably have lost a lot - a ship, probably a fair bit of possession, maybe some implants. Luckily I was just shuttling her somewhere in a free ship so it was just a welp.
So yeah, it probably sucks to be a noob in eve. This is why we tell people to join Merch Industrial as soon as they start even with a trial account. Once you have a body of people who can show you how to do it right, plus help even the odds, plus give you a relative safe-haven to practice (perversely, being in the middle of an intergalactic war in a region of space considered lawless is actually safer than shuttling around low-sec moderately policed space lanes) then the negatives get balanced out. The more experienced players always need new recruits to lead into battle, so you can be reasonably confident that you're in a gang fighting on an even footing with it's enemy, so in general, fights are about as balanced as they can ever be when there aren't competition rules being enforced. Griefers are kept in check because the empire griefers wouldn't last five minutes down in 0.0 space and the war griefers (griefing is a logical tactic for interfering with your enemies industry and lines of communication, so it's a part of every day life in 0.0) are combated by robust intelligence, early warning and anti-griefing protocol being rigorously drilled into new recruits (red in system, GET YOUR ASS TO MARS!).
But you can defend EVE til your blue in the face to people looking for exactly what EVE offers and if they aren't already playing it they'll just respond 'It isn't for me' even although it's basically been design specifically for them. In conclusion, some people are just retarded (personally I believe it's because they want everybody else's deaths to have dire consequences but can't cope with the idea that their own death will have equally dire consequences. ie they are hypocrite faggots).
One of the things EvE did get right is that the cost of death can be negated to almost nothing by careful players. But beyond that it was the players who added a layer of meaning to the game's pvp. If you remove the alliances, then EvE's PvP really loses alot of it's meaning. In the EvE thread newbies are always told "Get out of Empire space and get your ass into the war". It's why EvE works. And it's so damn hard to recreate. If you force characters into a realm...then who cares. But if leadership doesn't arise, then you get Lord of the Flies.
The shardless nature of EvE helps in that you force all leaders into the same space, thus increasing your odds of seeing at least two rise up.
Question: If in WoW they implemented a system that gives you a "Badge of PvPness" or something whenever you kill someone of the opposite side who's green conned to you or higher, but you can only loot one from them once in a specified time limit, such as an hour or a day and you could turn in a lot of those badges to get PvP gear. Would such a system make World PvPers happy? Would it cause more griefing? Why or why not?
One of the things EvE did get right is that the cost of death can be negated to almost nothing by careful players. But beyond that it was the players who added a layer of meaning to the game's pvp. If you remove the alliances, then EvE's PvP really loses alot of it's meaning. In the EvE thread newbies are always told "Get out of Empire space and get your ass into the war". It's why EvE works. And it's so damn hard to recreate. If you force characters into a realm...then who cares. But if leadership doesn't arise, then you get Lord of the Flies.
The shardless nature of EvE helps in that you force all leaders into the same space, thus increasing your odds of seeing at least two rise up.
What I'm reading here is 'if you remove a central feature that the whole game revolves around, you loose the game'. It seems like a bit of a redundant observation to make.
If you mean EVE works because of the people in the alliances, then, well...yeah, same thing. The whole point of an online game is the premise that games are more fun when you are playing them with other people. Any successful MMO hinges on getting the right people in and that requires offering them the right toys to play with. It's not an accident, the desired player base is basically predefined as part of the design of a game. Sure, sometimes developers might get it wrong, but it's still their fault one way or another. EvE has been built from day one with the idea of giving players the tools to create their own fiefdoms with the direction firmly set for ruthlessness above all else (which is why presenting the guilds as corporations works so well), this attracts megalomaniacs who want to stake their claim and build infamous megacorporations. It's entirely on purpose that EvE works. It's not like CCP had absolutely no notion of human nature when they built the game. They're Icelanders, not aliens.
Question: If in WoW they implemented a system that gives you a "Badge of PvPness" or something whenever you kill someone of the opposite side who's green conned to you or higher, but you can only loot one from them once in a specified time limit, such as an hour or a day and you could turn in a lot of those badges to get PvP gear. Would such a system make World PvPers happy? Would it cause more griefing? Why or why not?
That just sounds uninspired to me. It drives it more towards obviously being a game and further from suspension of disbelief.
Szechuanosaurus on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
One of the things EvE did get right is that the cost of death can be negated to almost nothing by careful players. But beyond that it was the players who added a layer of meaning to the game's pvp. If you remove the alliances, then EvE's PvP really loses alot of it's meaning. In the EvE thread newbies are always told "Get out of Empire space and get your ass into the war". It's why EvE works. And it's so damn hard to recreate. If you force characters into a realm...then who cares. But if leadership doesn't arise, then you get Lord of the Flies.
The shardless nature of EvE helps in that you force all leaders into the same space, thus increasing your odds of seeing at least two rise up.
What I'm reading here is 'if you remove a central feature that the whole game revolves around, you loose the game'. It seems like a bit of a redundant observation to make.
If you mean EVE works because of the people in the alliances, then, well...yeah, same thing. The whole point of an online game is the premise that games are more fun when you are playing them with other people. Any successful MMO hinges on getting the right people in and that requires offering them the right toys to play with. It's not an accident, the desired player base is basically predefined as part of the design of a game. Sure, sometimes developers might get it wrong, but it's still their fault one way or another. EvE has been built from day one with the idea of giving players the tools to create their own fiefdoms with the direction firmly set for ruthlessness above all else (which is why presenting the guilds as corporations works so well), this attracts megalomaniacs who want to stake their claim and build infamous megacorporations. It's entirely on purpose that EvE works. It's not like CCP had absolutely no notion of human nature when they built the game. They're Icelanders, not aliens.
But the trick is that almost every griefer style MMO is built around that theory. The idea that you'll get grand wars as people build nation states. PvP will have meaning because people will carve out a grand society by force of arms. And they all fail with that odd exception of EvE. You can rattle off a list of failures and keep going for a little while. And you can go with the list of successes and stop at Eve.
The qualities for leadership are pretty rare. And the griefer MMO generally doesn't pull that kind of player in. They will get plenty of Megalomanics but they make poor leaders in large group structures. They tend to be blind to factions in larger groups if they are at the top. And that's what I'm saying is rare, and why what happened with EvE was some degree of luck and not a mechanics issue. Some mechanics helped it, but they didn't cause the spark to create it.
I disagree. EvE does two things. Firstly it's sheer level of ruthlessness and reward and punishment weeds out the people who can't cut it as a pawn, never mind a leader. Secondly, it forces you to learn how to build your power - sure, you can roll a character that can start a corp from the outset, but you aren't going to have the skills or experience to do much with it. These aspects not only attract people who want the challenge, they both cull the incapable and strengthen those with potential through harsh experience.
EvE has it's fair share of worthless corps. Incompetent pubbies who can't run a bath never mind a corporation. They plutter around empire, getting griefed (or failing to try to grief others) and never amount to much. On the other hand, the real leaders figure out what it takes, enjoy the challenge and end up expanding throughout 0.0 space.
The entire design of the game is geared towards attracting and culturing the latter. Luck played it's part as it always does, but to say luck is the main reason for EvEs success does a great injustice to the designers.
I hardly think you can say that leadership won't arise in MMOs with PvP and just about anything you can fight over. There is always some group which will rise up, the thing which constantly amazes me is the number of people who are content to bow to a superior power and assume they are undefeatable. Hell, this did happen in EVE - oh my god, about a year and a half ago "BoB is coming" was considered to be your absolute death knell. Of course it wasn't true - in fact it was never true, it was just the way they sold themselves.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I hardly think you can say that leadership won't arise in MMOs with PvP and just about anything you can fight over. There is always some group which will rise up, the thing which constantly amazes me is the number of people who are content to bow to a superior power and assume they are undefeatable. Hell, this did happen in EVE - oh my god, about a year and a half ago "BoB is coming" was considered to be your absolute death knell. Of course it wasn't true - in fact it was never true, it was just the way they sold themselves.
Aye, but if something hadn't risen to oppose them then it would have been the deathknell. One good leader isn't enough. You need at least two, ideally more.
I disagree. EvE does two things. Firstly it's sheer level of ruthlessness and reward and punishment weeds out the people who can't cut it as a pawn, never mind a leader. Secondly, it forces you to learn how to build your power - sure, you can roll a character that can start a corp from the outset, but you aren't going to have the skills or experience to do much with it. These aspects not only attract people who want the challenge, they both cull the incapable and strengthen those with potential through harsh experience.
EvE has it's fair share of worthless corps. Incompetent pubbies who can't run a bath never mind a corporation. They plutter around empire, getting griefed (or failing to try to grief others) and never amount to much. On the other hand, the real leaders figure out what it takes, enjoy the challenge and end up expanding throughout 0.0 space.
The entire design of the game is geared towards attracting and culturing the latter. Luck played it's part as it always does, but to say luck is the main reason for EvEs success does a great injustice to the designers.
Except that the vast majority of players aren't leaders. The differance between small group leadership (gang) and leading an alliance is huge. You yourself mention that there are large numbers of corps who don't matter. That leadership potential is still fairly rare, and at the BoB/RSF level it's rarer still. But those real leaders need someone to lead. If everyone is a leader then you have chaos.
So what exactly is your point? EvE is only successful because of Remedial and SirMolle? Because that's straight retarded. The design of the game pushes the strongest to the top, but it also attracts and cultivates an overall strong player base. Look inside an alliance and while it is run by one person at the top, he's also helped by various directors in it's constituent corporations. Look inside a corporation and it's rarely run by one single director but a host of directors responsible for different aspects as well as non-directors who invariably have their own side thing going on be it being a competent FC or just running their own marketing business on the side.
A corporation full of leaders doesn't lead to anarchy, it leads to structure. Only the smallest company has one solitary leader at the top, successful companies have a board of directors as well as various upper, middle and lower management plus individuals on the ground floor with enough nous to be able to excel within their own area of responsibility.
Szechuanosaurus on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
So what exactly is your point? EvE is only successful because of Shrike and SirMolle? Because that's straight retarded. The design of the game pushes the strongest to the top, but it also attracts and cultivates an overall strong player base. Look inside an alliance and while it is run by one person at the top, he's also helped by various directors in it's constituent corporations. Look inside a corporation and it's rarely run by one single director but a host of directors responsible for different aspects as well as non-directors who invariably have their own side thing going on be it being a competent FC or just running their own marketing business on the side.
There are other factors that help. And some of them came from the developers, like allowing players to decide where fortifications are placed. Nor am I saying that if it was specifically Shrike and SirMolle. Other players might have risen up to do the same thing. But it was players rising up that triggered it. And while the host of director may run a corp, you still need someone to bring them together and someone to do the roles of a CEO.
It sounds stupidly retarded on paper, but no one else has ever managed to do it. And there are alot of things you can try to do to help (abandoning PvE for the most part, etc) but you still need a player spark to trigger it.
Self-righteous poppycock. You aren't a member of BoB by any chance?
Sure if the player base was all gibbering retards the game would be shit. The point is, the design of the game attracts people who aren't gibbering retards and actively dissuades any gibbering retards who do sign up from continuing via the game mechanics. That's why you end up with a large base of players both capable of running organisation and functioning as useful members of the organisations. Both are needed, it doesn't come down to two messiahs and I don't think it was an accident that it attracts that sort of player.
Szechuanosaurus on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Self-righteous poppycock. You aren't a member of BoB by any chance?
Sure if the player base was all gibbering retards the game would be shit. The point is, the design of the game attracts people who aren't gibbering retards and actively dissuades any gibbering retards who do sign up from continuing via the game mechanics. That's why you end up with a large base of players both capable of running organisation and functioning as useful members of the organisations. Both are needed, it doesn't come down to two messiahs and I don't think it was an accident that it attracts that sort of player.
Nope, not a member of BoB, a BoB pet corp, or an ally of a BoB pet corp. I'd have to play to be one of those things.
It's not two messiahs, but you need a spark. And that spark has to be the jump from tribe to nation. Leaders can do this, and sometimes they can happen with other ways. But given the sheer, complicated nature of living and how that effects how we live, recreating is almost impossible. You'll see plenty of leaders in PvP games, in fact small gang-warfare requires it. But that's still very much the tribe level. The us against the world level. It's the metagame of EvE that takes it beyond it.
You go on about the sheer number of leaders in the game....but how many of them can't lead beyond the tribe level?
EvE is fun to watch. Playing it...didn't do much for me. But it makes a great soap opera.
Oh no, you're perfectly entitled not to play eve. That alone doesn't make you an idiot. I'm not an elitist prick. Arguing the intricacies of the game whilst having no experience of them whatsoever, on the other hand, is monumentally idiotic. Although it does explain why you can't understand how much the design of the game has been the main cause of it's success.
Szechuanosaurus on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
EvE is fun to watch. Playing it...didn't do much for me. But it makes a great soap opera.
Oh no, you're perfectly entitled not to play eve. That alone doesn't make you an idiot. I'm not an elitist prick. Arguing the intricacies of the game whilst having no experience of them whatsoever, on the other hand, is monumentally idiotic. Although it does explain why you can't understand how much the design of the game has been the main cause of it's success.
I do have some experance playing it. But I can observe it and see the reactions. I can read the writen thoughts of others who do have alot more experance playing it and see. I can read what other developers who do play, and have a pretty good idea of how to implement mechanics and see what they think and their conclusions. I can read the EvE dev's blog. I can read the academic papers written about EvE. (BTW, econ majors love writing papers on EvE. As do sociologists.)
If anything, my perspective is better because I'm not tied to the grind. Nerfing carriers doesn't effect me at all. I can look at the effects dispassionately and see the actual effects.
EvE is fun to watch. Playing it...didn't do much for me. But it makes a great soap opera.
Oh no, you're perfectly entitled not to play eve. That alone doesn't make you an idiot. I'm not an elitist prick. Arguing the intricacies of the game whilst having no experience of them whatsoever, on the other hand, is monumentally idiotic. Although it does explain why you can't understand how much the design of the game has been the main cause of it's success.
I do have some experance playing it. But I can observe it and see the reactions. I can read the writen thoughts of others who do have alot more experance playing it and see. I can read what other developers who do play, and have a pretty good idea of how to implement mechanics and see what they think and their conclusions. I can read the EvE dev's blog. I can read the academic papers written about EvE. (BTW, econ majors love writing papers on EvE. As do sociologists.)
If anything, my perspective is better because I'm not tied to the grind. Nerfing carriers doesn't effect me at all. I can look at the effects dispassionately and see the actual effects.
Experience, learn to spell jesus christ. And you're deluded if you think you know shit about eve without actually being up to your neck in the game. The same holds true for basically every game ever made, mmos especially.
This is why that economist idiot they hired is just that, an idiot. He's advocating broad sweeping changes that are really really really fucking the game up in ways he can't understand, because he doesn't play.
To be honest I found EVE to be incredibly tedious when I first started.
Then I got involved with the Penny Arcaders, and before I knew it I saw the EVE world unravel before me. It has the best meta game ever , just make sure you have good people to enjoy it with.
In no other MMO have I experienced the player made nations and factions of EvE. This in turn leads to some of the best wars and meta wars around, and I was lucky enough to get caught up in the biggest. Goons and allies vs BoB and allies
The face of EVE is shaped by the people playing it, and I love it.
It's not the meta game you're enjoying, it's the game.
That's the point with EvE. PvP, player owned corporations, player dominated market, player dominated manufacturing, player controlled regions of space - these aren't accidental meta elements, these are the intended core features of the game. It's not stuff that the devs tacked on after developing a cohesive team PvE game, with EvE the PvE is the after thought.
There's that thing though. As you mentioned, Eve weeds people out.
Weeding out is the exact opposite of making as much money as humanly possible, and making as much money as humanly possible is the reason most large companies make games. :P
But yeah, the fact that Eve's doesn't have a real PVE game is definately going to reduce the issues, since that's the only reason to go there, unlike the traditional MMOs.
Could somebody explain how people mentioning EVE and saying, "If you haven't fucking played it for the last year then you have no right speaking at all" are doing anything but having their own little mental circle-jerk?
If you don't want a discussion, don't even bring it up. You're just specifically saying, "EVE is the best game ever and disagreeing with me precludes you from having a valid opinion."
I think he's frustrated because they are arguing over game mechanics that he knows nothing about and hasn't seen in action.
It'd be like someone with a PhD on Benjamin Franklin's life arguing with someone whose only knowledge of Ben came from a wikipedia article. Of course the PhD is gonna expect you to have more than a rudimentary knowledge of the man before you pipe in with your opinion of him.
I think he's frustrated because they are arguing over game mechanics that he knows nothing about and hasn't seen in action.
It'd be like someone with a PhD on Benjamin Franklin's life arguing with someone whose only knowledge of Ben came from a wikipedia article. Of course the PhD is gonna expect you to have more than a rudimentary knowledge of the man before you pipe in with your opinion of him.
I have a PhD in you are a goddamn moron.
Let me explain again. I'm going to type this slowly for you.
People are talking about EVE. This implies that they want to start a discussion about EVE. Part of this discussion would be "is EVE good or not?" They are immediately dismissing anybody who doesn't play the game as having a worthless opinion - because they don't play the game. People who play the game will, necessarily, have similar opinions on whether EVE is good or not. Therefore, they are saying, "You are not allowed to disagree with us." This makes them pompous little fuckwits, which fits very nicely with all the other people I've seen advocating that game.
Also: I've played EVE. It sucked. Somebody is going to say, "Well that's because you lost your ship and can't deal with it you baby." That's why it sucks. Because of people like that.
Posts
There were houses, and now we have customizable houses that you can make anything out of-- gardens, arenas, watchtowers. There's a super-flexible system of guilds, guild alliances, guild wars, with definable attributes for "victory" and "loss," even.
It's just... beautiful. It's so sad that it's by and large died.
EDIT: I mean, some of my fondest UO roleplaying memories were just grinding up skill with someone else-- we wandered the wilderness idly chatting how I would idly chat with someone in real life. We'd fight a bear together, or something else, and it was appropriately difficult. Night would fall, and it would be too dark to continue so we'd set up camp and hunker by the campfire so we could spot any approaching monsters. It was just... amazing.
Pre-fab content is king, and if it aint 3D it had better be Mario.
Furthermore, I do find dungeons fun and challenging. Or are you going to tell me that beating vashj/kael'thas or whateber is easy?
sorry you have lost the masses have spoken and your style of pvp is just a memory. Sure there might be a game that has that style of pvp again but it will never be the top dog.
The EVE style of shardless play is certainly damn important to the appeal of the game IMO.
Anybody can buy anything in the game for the right price, but in the same vein, anything outside a station can be blown up.
99% of the posters here have no issue with PvP rule set servers. What the discussion was about was if "griefer" style pvp in which things are looted off of peoples bodies. It's an arguement that reminds us of the kids who tortured small animals.
1: A game with meaningful pvp is hard to pull off. You just have to look at world of warcrafts rather unambitious attempts to create outdoor pvp. To build an engaging pvp world where you are likely to get into a challenging, even and enjoyable fight is difficult, and after seeing so many failed attempts the PVE crowd just goes "meh, its impossible".
2: Each fight has a winner and a loser. Thus, if you are a casual player you are guaranteed to lose more often than you win. Most mature players can deal with this, but there is an equal number of players that hate being second rate players, always knowing they are below average.
3: Griefing. This is a huge issue. There is no way to completely avoid it, and it ruins peoples days. My strongest memories of pvp from the early days of wow on a pvp server were trying to quest, and getting ganked by stealthing rogues. People who after achieving maximum level and decent gear spent hours sneaking around and stabbing people in the back.
Now, while I do not want to go as far as to say that pvp players are all at heart griefers, the "gank" (killing of a lower level/skill/equipment player) illustrates the problems of pvp.
Lets say there are four categories of players. There are the "noobs", people who don't really have a clue what they are doing, but play as best they can and enjoy themselves. Then we have the casuals, people who reach the maximum level at their own pace. Finally we have the Hardcore gamers, and the Elite.
In a game with pvp, the casual and noob gamers are prey to the hardcore and elite players. Every death to those players is a reminder that you suck, while in a pve game you are not in an as "direct" conflict.
EDIT: I can count.
Can't blow up stargates. It's not true pvp unless you can burn your bridges as you go :colbert:
Serious post now.
1. EVE achieves this. CCP even make it look easy. So I don't know why nobody else can manage it except that they tend to add pvp as an afterthought rather than a core mechanic in the game (you can attack anybody anywhere in eve, although in some places your assault will be very short lived).
2. EVE gets around this
3. EVE also gets around this (even although there are griefers in the game)
It achieves this via the corporation mechanic. Yes, if you play the game alone then you will loose very fight and be griefed out of the game. I recently rolled a noob alt and she got instantly ganked twice on the same gate two nights in a row by a gang of high-sp ships. If I was a real noob, I'd probably think the game was broken and had accidentally killed me or something and probably just given up. If I really was a noob, I'd probably have lost a lot - a ship, probably a fair bit of possession, maybe some implants. Luckily I was just shuttling her somewhere in a free ship so it was just a welp.
So yeah, it probably sucks to be a noob in eve. This is why we tell people to join Merch Industrial as soon as they start even with a trial account. Once you have a body of people who can show you how to do it right, plus help even the odds, plus give you a relative safe-haven to practice (perversely, being in the middle of an intergalactic war in a region of space considered lawless is actually safer than shuttling around low-sec moderately policed space lanes) then the negatives get balanced out. The more experienced players always need new recruits to lead into battle, so you can be reasonably confident that you're in a gang fighting on an even footing with it's enemy, so in general, fights are about as balanced as they can ever be when there aren't competition rules being enforced. Griefers are kept in check because the empire griefers wouldn't last five minutes down in 0.0 space and the war griefers (griefing is a logical tactic for interfering with your enemies industry and lines of communication, so it's a part of every day life in 0.0) are combated by robust intelligence, early warning and anti-griefing protocol being rigorously drilled into new recruits (red in system, GET YOUR ASS TO MARS!).
But you can defend EVE til your blue in the face to people looking for exactly what EVE offers and if they aren't already playing it they'll just respond 'It isn't for me' even although it's basically been design specifically for them. In conclusion, some people are just retarded (personally I believe it's because they want everybody else's deaths to have dire consequences but can't cope with the idea that their own death will have equally dire consequences. ie they are hypocrite faggots).
Welp. If they would learn to do something other than fly t1 frigates then they could build their own jump bridges and get cyno jumping cap ships etc.
Darkfall, possible vaporware that I wont hold my breath for,
Age of Conan, with any luck this will be exactly the game I am looking for!
Mostly by accident. The players created the metagame that makes EvE pvp have meaning. We can guess at what the spark was that caused it to go from small gangs to proto-nations but can be agreed on is that it was a player action rather then CCP. What CCP did do right was allow players to define where forts (stations) should be. Thus giving a personal meaning to those forts, and an actual reason to defend them. And I suspect the spark was leadership by a player which was responded to by others. How does one go about recreating that?
One of the things EvE did get right is that the cost of death can be negated to almost nothing by careful players. But beyond that it was the players who added a layer of meaning to the game's pvp. If you remove the alliances, then EvE's PvP really loses alot of it's meaning. In the EvE thread newbies are always told "Get out of Empire space and get your ass into the war". It's why EvE works. And it's so damn hard to recreate. If you force characters into a realm...then who cares. But if leadership doesn't arise, then you get Lord of the Flies.
The shardless nature of EvE helps in that you force all leaders into the same space, thus increasing your odds of seeing at least two rise up.
What I'm reading here is 'if you remove a central feature that the whole game revolves around, you loose the game'. It seems like a bit of a redundant observation to make.
If you mean EVE works because of the people in the alliances, then, well...yeah, same thing. The whole point of an online game is the premise that games are more fun when you are playing them with other people. Any successful MMO hinges on getting the right people in and that requires offering them the right toys to play with. It's not an accident, the desired player base is basically predefined as part of the design of a game. Sure, sometimes developers might get it wrong, but it's still their fault one way or another. EvE has been built from day one with the idea of giving players the tools to create their own fiefdoms with the direction firmly set for ruthlessness above all else (which is why presenting the guilds as corporations works so well), this attracts megalomaniacs who want to stake their claim and build infamous megacorporations. It's entirely on purpose that EvE works. It's not like CCP had absolutely no notion of human nature when they built the game. They're Icelanders, not aliens.
That just sounds uninspired to me. It drives it more towards obviously being a game and further from suspension of disbelief.
But the trick is that almost every griefer style MMO is built around that theory. The idea that you'll get grand wars as people build nation states. PvP will have meaning because people will carve out a grand society by force of arms. And they all fail with that odd exception of EvE. You can rattle off a list of failures and keep going for a little while. And you can go with the list of successes and stop at Eve.
The qualities for leadership are pretty rare. And the griefer MMO generally doesn't pull that kind of player in. They will get plenty of Megalomanics but they make poor leaders in large group structures. They tend to be blind to factions in larger groups if they are at the top. And that's what I'm saying is rare, and why what happened with EvE was some degree of luck and not a mechanics issue. Some mechanics helped it, but they didn't cause the spark to create it.
EvE has it's fair share of worthless corps. Incompetent pubbies who can't run a bath never mind a corporation. They plutter around empire, getting griefed (or failing to try to grief others) and never amount to much. On the other hand, the real leaders figure out what it takes, enjoy the challenge and end up expanding throughout 0.0 space.
The entire design of the game is geared towards attracting and culturing the latter. Luck played it's part as it always does, but to say luck is the main reason for EvEs success does a great injustice to the designers.
Aye, but if something hadn't risen to oppose them then it would have been the deathknell. One good leader isn't enough. You need at least two, ideally more.
A corporation full of leaders doesn't lead to anarchy, it leads to structure. Only the smallest company has one solitary leader at the top, successful companies have a board of directors as well as various upper, middle and lower management plus individuals on the ground floor with enough nous to be able to excel within their own area of responsibility.
There are other factors that help. And some of them came from the developers, like allowing players to decide where fortifications are placed. Nor am I saying that if it was specifically Shrike and SirMolle. Other players might have risen up to do the same thing. But it was players rising up that triggered it. And while the host of director may run a corp, you still need someone to bring them together and someone to do the roles of a CEO.
It sounds stupidly retarded on paper, but no one else has ever managed to do it. And there are alot of things you can try to do to help (abandoning PvE for the most part, etc) but you still need a player spark to trigger it.
Sure if the player base was all gibbering retards the game would be shit. The point is, the design of the game attracts people who aren't gibbering retards and actively dissuades any gibbering retards who do sign up from continuing via the game mechanics. That's why you end up with a large base of players both capable of running organisation and functioning as useful members of the organisations. Both are needed, it doesn't come down to two messiahs and I don't think it was an accident that it attracts that sort of player.
Nope, not a member of BoB, a BoB pet corp, or an ally of a BoB pet corp. I'd have to play to be one of those things.
It's not two messiahs, but you need a spark. And that spark has to be the jump from tribe to nation. Leaders can do this, and sometimes they can happen with other ways. But given the sheer, complicated nature of living and how that effects how we live, recreating is almost impossible. You'll see plenty of leaders in PvP games, in fact small gang-warfare requires it. But that's still very much the tribe level. The us against the world level. It's the metagame of EvE that takes it beyond it.
You go on about the sheer number of leaders in the game....but how many of them can't lead beyond the tribe level?
Idiot.
EvE is fun to watch. Playing it...didn't do much for me. But it makes a great soap opera.
Oh no, you're perfectly entitled not to play eve. That alone doesn't make you an idiot. I'm not an elitist prick. Arguing the intricacies of the game whilst having no experience of them whatsoever, on the other hand, is monumentally idiotic. Although it does explain why you can't understand how much the design of the game has been the main cause of it's success.
I do have some experance playing it. But I can observe it and see the reactions. I can read the writen thoughts of others who do have alot more experance playing it and see. I can read what other developers who do play, and have a pretty good idea of how to implement mechanics and see what they think and their conclusions. I can read the EvE dev's blog. I can read the academic papers written about EvE. (BTW, econ majors love writing papers on EvE. As do sociologists.)
If anything, my perspective is better because I'm not tied to the grind. Nerfing carriers doesn't effect me at all. I can look at the effects dispassionately and see the actual effects.
Experience, learn to spell jesus christ. And you're deluded if you think you know shit about eve without actually being up to your neck in the game. The same holds true for basically every game ever made, mmos especially.
This is why that economist idiot they hired is just that, an idiot. He's advocating broad sweeping changes that are really really really fucking the game up in ways he can't understand, because he doesn't play.
Then I got involved with the Penny Arcaders, and before I knew it I saw the EVE world unravel before me. It has the best meta game ever , just make sure you have good people to enjoy it with.
In no other MMO have I experienced the player made nations and factions of EvE. This in turn leads to some of the best wars and meta wars around, and I was lucky enough to get caught up in the biggest. Goons and allies vs BoB and allies
The face of EVE is shaped by the people playing it, and I love it.
That's the point with EvE. PvP, player owned corporations, player dominated market, player dominated manufacturing, player controlled regions of space - these aren't accidental meta elements, these are the intended core features of the game. It's not stuff that the devs tacked on after developing a cohesive team PvE game, with EvE the PvE is the after thought.
Weeding out is the exact opposite of making as much money as humanly possible, and making as much money as humanly possible is the reason most large companies make games. :P
But yeah, the fact that Eve's doesn't have a real PVE game is definately going to reduce the issues, since that's the only reason to go there, unlike the traditional MMOs.
If you don't want a discussion, don't even bring it up. You're just specifically saying, "EVE is the best game ever and disagreeing with me precludes you from having a valid opinion."
It'd be like someone with a PhD on Benjamin Franklin's life arguing with someone whose only knowledge of Ben came from a wikipedia article. Of course the PhD is gonna expect you to have more than a rudimentary knowledge of the man before you pipe in with your opinion of him.
I have a PhD in you are a goddamn moron.
Let me explain again. I'm going to type this slowly for you.
People are talking about EVE. This implies that they want to start a discussion about EVE. Part of this discussion would be "is EVE good or not?" They are immediately dismissing anybody who doesn't play the game as having a worthless opinion - because they don't play the game. People who play the game will, necessarily, have similar opinions on whether EVE is good or not. Therefore, they are saying, "You are not allowed to disagree with us." This makes them pompous little fuckwits, which fits very nicely with all the other people I've seen advocating that game.
Also: I've played EVE. It sucked. Somebody is going to say, "Well that's because you lost your ship and can't deal with it you baby." That's why it sucks. Because of people like that.