[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... you are a bit naive if you think any potential mmo publisher can ignore loot forever or not try to do what is successful just because they want to be different...
[/ QUOTE ]
While you're in the mood for a little realism, I'd like to point out that CoX has been without loot for 3 years and is apparently still "comfortably in the black".
As such, adding loot now in I9 is not about addressing long term growth and lower subs. IMO, it's about introducing content that builds on the mechanics of features already in the game. This has the effect of reducing the amount of resources needed to release a new issue and frees up some real talent for the MUO side of Cryptic.
Once the other white meat has been cooked, we might start seeing some talk about EATs, new power sets, and hopefully, Crossover. Until then, I predict it'll be spreadsheets and spreadsheets of phat lewts that will amaze and thrill 20% of the player base. 
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree. I see it as adding more pve options into the game--more to do. Epsecially for lvl 50s.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
Yes there is. Look at your sig man. Calling anyone who causes any form of dismay to ANY person whatsoever is considered a Poo Monkey.
[/ QUOTE ]
You missed the part where I said "common sense applies as always", didn't you?
My sig refers to people who intentionally go out of their way to cause other people anguish. I'm talking about a bit more than just using harsh language on someone once.
If they did this in real life, they'd be arrested at best and sued at worst. But here in the game, too many people think there's nothing wrong with it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I specifically went for an example that most people wouldn't think of as PvP. "Pedantic" is, I suppose, deserved. 
[/ QUOTE ]
Pedantic is not the word I'd have used, but it certainly isn't inappropriate.
Comparing auction houses to PvP suggests one of two things. Either some of the nifty invention salvage items and recipes will only be available in one or all of the PvP zones. Or our dev team has been buried in spreadsheets too long and is a little overwhelmed at the moment.
I would personally rather Team CoX's scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning skills were keenly focused on ways to keep the majority of us entertained. I don't think the majority of this player base cares two shakes for the meaningless PvP in CoX, Castle.
[/ QUOTE ]
PvP at its heart is merely competition between two players. Nothing more, nothing less.
What many folks are saying is PvP is actually PvP Combat.
If you and I are in a race to level 50, it's a Player versus Player interaction. Not combat, interaction.
Castle was quite correct in his example. The funny thing is, we participate in PvP in real life every day. We try to achieve the best possible results in our jobs, tests, classes, school, etc. We play games. Heck, Monopoly is PvP. You are engaging in real estate combat trying to bankrupt your opponents.
Chess is PvP. It's combat between two people represented by pieces on a board... which sums up nearly every board game out there.
PvP is a much broader subject than people here are defining it as.
Virtue: multiple characters.
CoH/V: Woot! Maybe Fun is to be had once again.
Ack! RUN! Regen is glowing mean & green!
If it reduces you, it's a nerf.
If it buffs the mobs, it's challenge.
They are not the same.
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah that's really too broad a stroke their Jack.
[/ QUOTE ]
How so? I'm not the one who is trying to equate name-calling to being a poo monkey, so the broad stroak isn't mine.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jack Butler is a poo monkey.
See how that works?
[/ QUOTE ]
You mean do I see how you're not bothering to even try and respond to my posts, just insulting me out of hand? Yes, I see how that works.
To the primate house with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
But Fixer said you *were* a poo monkey, therefore by your own logic, you *must* be one.
[ QUOTE ]
If you are being labelled a poo monkey then you've done something to deserve it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think Fixer made his point quite eloquently. Either your logic is flawed, it somehow doesn't appy to you, or you are indeed a poo monkey.
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, since you want facts...here are some for ya.
1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.
2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.
3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you site the source of these 'facts'?
lol JackButler
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, since you want facts...here are some for ya.
1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.
2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.
3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you site the source of these 'facts'?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, still no sources, but I can believe them though. The key word is "worldwide" The U.S. MMORPG market is very different than a lot of the asian markets in what sells. Just another reason like I said you need different "versions" to appeal to different markets.
[ QUOTE ]
2. Any designer that uses an auction house as representative example of pvp has some serious misunderstandings of the pvp experience and its appeal to players.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or you just didn't grasp what he was saying, and have ignored subsequent explanations and examples by Castle and players. Whichever, though.
[ QUOTE ]
3. pvp play is inarguably more engaging, visceral, and immediate than pve play -- which doesn't mean pve isnt fun. grinding through a "narrative" can be entertaining, but honestly id really rather just watch the movie.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, yeah, that's entirely subjective, so saying it's "inarguably" more engaging etc is a crock. Several people in the thread have already said that isn't the case, which disproves your statement (the "inarguably" part) right out of hand. But good try.
It's real simple. Lots of people like PVP exclusively. Lots of people like PVE exclusively. There's no good reason to completely exclude one to favor the other. COX survived for a year and a half with no PVP whatsoever and was so successful it could support, you know, the launch of an entirely new branch of gameplay that doubled the size of the game.
So please, please... stop trying to convince anyone that one side is "better" than the other. Different strokes for different folks.
It was fun.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, since you want facts...here are some for ya.
1. Well over half of all MMO players worldwide are playing on a server with open non-consensual PvP.
2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.
3. There are more players playing pure PvP games (including FPS and RTS games) than all MMO's combined.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you site the source of these 'facts'?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, still no sources, but I can believe them though. The key word is "worldwide" The U.S. MMORPG market is very different than a lot of the asian markets in what sells. Just another reason like I said you need different "versions" to appeal to different markets.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, of course those are facts.
1. WoW has non-consensual open PvP, and it's the giant.
2. We all are playing a game that allows PvP. So we're part of the 90%.
3. More people play non-MMORPGs than play MMORPGs, so this is hardly surprising.
So yeah-- facts. Not sure what those facts actually say, though. You could probably rewrite those three facts about a lot of things and it still might not mean anything.
[ QUOTE ]
You could have that same sort of backdrop in PvE too...
Take the Skulls and the Hellions for example... If people over a given time frame take out more Skulls than Hellions via street sweeps, missions, etc then the Hellions would start taking over the town until they were forced back down. Heck, it might even be set such that it would cause zone events to happen (arson, fire bombing, etc).
Just saying, you can have dynamic PvE if you are willing to massage the system a little.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm all for content like this, though I'm hesitant to make any calls on how easy it would be. The simple truth is that no one -- repeat, no one -- who is not personally involved with the coding of this game can say how easy to accomplish something is or isn't. Educated guesses are possible, but the emphasis there is on the "guesses" part.
It was fun.
[ QUOTE ]
My sig refers to people who intentionally go out of their way to cause other people anguish. I'm talking about a bit more than just using harsh language on someone once.
If they did this in real life, they'd be arrested at best and sued at worst. But here in the game, too many people think there's nothing wrong with it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Define "anguish."
Under your definition, attorney's, bill collectors, police officers and my ex-boyfriend all fit that description.
It's subjective. Which is why it's not a sound argument.
[ QUOTE ]
Define "anguish."
Under your definition, attorney's, bill collectors, police officers and my ex-boyfriend all fit that description.
It's subjective. Which is why it's not a sound argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm having a really, really hard time believing nobody knows what Jack's talking about. It's true that it's hard to define what level of [blank]holery is unacceptable without descending into suffocating legalese, and I agree that Jack has used some (shall we say) sweeping generalizations in his rhetoric, but is everyone really going to act like they don't know what kind of conduct he's talking about?
Really?
It was fun.
[ QUOTE ]
PvP is a much broader subject than people here are defining it as.
[/ QUOTE ]
If broadening the subject brings you comfort and joy, more power to you. Softening the definition of this aspect of game play may convince some folks of the relativism of the behavior, but most folks (with maybe the exception of some engineers and programmers), can call a spade a spade around here.
PvP in the MMO genre means player vs player combat. There will need to be a few more brilliant essays written or several hundred thousand more paying accounts in CoX before the rest of the industry will consider the unique PvP perspectives of a niche superhero MMO.
[ QUOTE ]
lol JackButtface
[/ QUOTE ] lawl
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you may personally not like it, but that doesn't invalidate the concept that PvP is immensely popular and well worth including (and even focusing on) in MMO's. That's not to say that every MMO has to include PvP, but its hard to imagine a publisher not including it at this point. The difference between FPS, RTS, and MMO players is not a large gap, in fact most people cross genre's at least occasionally so ignoring the popularity of PvP in the other genre's because they aren't MMO's isn't particularly wise IMO.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing that PvP is popular. Some people like it, and that's great. I'd also dare say that some like PvE as well. I'm not suggesting that a game shouldn't feature PvP. I'm protesting the OPs opinion that PvP shouldn't be optional if a game wants to be successful. I disagree strongly with the notion that PvE players are somehow more fickle than PvP players. Why is it so wrong to have both? Why alienate half the potential playerbase?
Edit:
As far as FPS/RTS games go, I don't even consider those multiplayer games. They are single player games that I can play end enjoy myself. That some people like to play them against eachother in a senseless repeat of a few different maps... well, that's their business. Doesn't make them multiplayer games to me. MMOs are strictly multiplayer games. You can ignore people in the game if you want, but that doesn't make them go away (unfortunately, in some cases 
).
So. Anyway. That's why I don't think they are relevant to this discussion.
The only purpose for playing FPS/RTS games online is to play against other people (in general terms, I'm sure there are exceptions). That's not the case with MMOs. You can enjoy the PvP, you can enjoy the cooperative multiplayer aspect (which you wacky kids might refere to as 'teaming' ), or you might like to trudge along as solo as possible in a deeply immersive world. Individual MMOs have different focus, and that's cool. I just don't see one preference being more valid than another.
So, in short: I don't think the narrow focus of FPS/RTS games is relevant to the discussion, no.
Thought for the day:
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
=][=
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing that PvP is popular. Some people like it, and that's great. I'd also dare say that some like PvE as well. I'm not suggesting that a game shouldn't feature PvP. I'm protesting the OPs opinion that PvP shouldn't be optional if a game wants to be successful. I disagree strongly with the notion that PvE players are somehow more fickle than PvP players. Why is it so wrong to have both? Why alienate half the potential playerbase?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is what I don't understand. Why do we have to see the cultivation of one side as a slap in the face of the other? Why are we phrasing these questions in an adversarial way at all?
It was fun.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing that PvP is popular. Some people like it, and that's great. I'd also dare say that some like PvE as well. I'm not suggesting that a game shouldn't feature PvP. I'm protesting the OPs opinion that PvP shouldn't be optional if a game wants to be successful. I disagree strongly with the notion that PvE players are somehow more fickle than PvP players. Why is it so wrong to have both? Why alienate half the potential playerbase?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is what I don't understand. Why do we have to see the cultivation of one side as a slap in the face of the other? Why are we phrasing these questions in an adversarial way at all?
[/ QUOTE ]
Those who say I hate pvp, it sucks are just as blind to me as those who say, PVP is always better than pve. Neither statement holds a grain of truth in my eyes.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is what I don't understand. Why do we have to see the cultivation of one side as a slap in the face of the other? Why are we phrasing these questions in an adversarial way at all?
[/ QUOTE ]
Those who say I hate pvp, it sucks are just as blind to me as those who say, PVP is always better than pve. Neither statement holds a grain of truth in my eyes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's what I'm talking about. Sweeping statements of personal-preference-as-objective-fact are silly and stupid, no matter who's saying them. They're also needlessly adversarial. Why is anyone even talking in that way?
It was fun.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Define "anguish."
Under your definition, attorney's, bill collectors, police officers and my ex-boyfriend all fit that description.
It's subjective. Which is why it's not a sound argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm having a really, really hard time believing nobody knows what Jack's talking about. It's true that it's hard to define what level of [blank]holery is unacceptable without descending into suffocating legalese, and I agree that Jack has used some (shall we say) sweeping generalizations in his rhetoric, but is everyone really going to act like they don't know what kind of conduct he's talking about?
Really?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they will. It's about controlling the conversation. If the conversation becomes an argument about Jack defending his own conduct, then no one is talking about the problem that most people can easily acknowledge exists.
It's this tactic.
And it's a great way to win an argument without ever addressing the issue.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Define "anguish."
Under your definition, attorney's, bill collectors, police officers and my ex-boyfriend all fit that description.
It's subjective. Which is why it's not a sound argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm having a really, really hard time believing nobody knows what Jack's talking about. It's true that it's hard to define what level of [blank]holery is unacceptable without descending into suffocating legalese, and I agree that Jack has used some (shall we say) sweeping generalizations in his rhetoric, but is everyone really going to act like they don't know what kind of conduct he's talking about?
Really?
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree - emphasis in your quote is mine
I kinda like the label JackButler has put on it too, has a nice ring to it.
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to keep bringing up Fury in this forum, but the game looks (I haven't tested it myself yet) and sounds just that damn good.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've already labelled myself as a "PvP hater" (though I really don't like labels like that). But I still have to say that Fury does sound interesting. I will have to check it out once it is released (or at least go into open beta). Who knows... maybe they'll get PvP right.
I'm also eagerly awaiting WAR. Too bad it's so heavily RvR oriented (and that might ultimately turn me away) but... it's Warhammer. I have to give it a shot. Again, maybe they'll get the PvP right.
Thought for the day:
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
=][=
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they will. It's about controlling the conversation. If the conversation becomes an argument about Jack defending his own conduct, then no one is talking about the problem that most people can easily acknowledge exists.
It's this tactic.
And it's a great way to win an argument without ever addressing the issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, okay. Well, if they'd all just wear buttons that say "I debate like a NeoCon," I would know to avoid them in the future.
(Commence flaming in 5.. 4... 3...)
It was fun.
[ QUOTE ]
2. Well over 90% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to be technical about it, roughly 100% of all MMO players are playing a game that allows PvE.
Thought for the day:
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
=][=
[ QUOTE ]
... you are a bit naive if you think any potential mmo publisher can ignore loot forever or not try to do what is successful just because they want to be different...
[/ QUOTE ]
While you're in the mood for a little realism, I'd like to point out that CoX has been without loot for 3 years and is apparently still "comfortably in the black".
As such, adding loot now in I9 is not about addressing long term growth and lower subs. IMO, it's about introducing content that builds on the mechanics of features already in the game. This has the effect of reducing the amount of resources needed to release a new issue and frees up some real talent for the MUO side of Cryptic.
Once the other white meat has been cooked, we might start seeing some talk about EATs, new power sets, and hopefully, Crossover. Until then, I predict it'll be spreadsheets and spreadsheets of phat lewts that will amaze and thrill 20% of the player base.