[ QUOTE ]
Well, I could see how some could consider this griefing, but I certainly don't consider it to be such.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's see. "Harassing another player so badly that he leaves the game entirely isn't a bad thing". Check. "Blame the victim". Check.
To the primate house with you.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heh... when nobody knows anything.. everyones an expert. Isn't that right Jack?
[/ QUOTE ]
You're asking the wrong person. I know quite a bit, and am an expert on quite a few subjects.
[ QUOTE ]
Blaming other people... and calling the people who CALL PEOPLE names, is like... uh.. being a Poo monkey. Am I right? Don't look through the window with your eyes closed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Non sequitor much?
If I've decoded your sentences correctly, you're saying that pointing out an anti-social player's actions are anti-social is hypocrisy somehow? I'm scrambling to understand your... interesting... use of the language here, so if you care to translate, I'd appreciate it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, PvE environments are generally static, and not because they have to be, but because game designers claim they *must* be: that an evolving PvE environment creates all sorts of problems that would upset or unbalance the game. Can't have PvE players alterning the environment, because a constantly shifting backdrop to PvE would wreck PvE.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really know any developers who believe that. We look at games like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, God of War or Shadow of the Colossus and the innovative use of terrain involved there and think "How can we get things such as that into our game?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Heres how...do it in missions... and overlap the results of the mission onto the normal game world.
They would be communal events that allow any level to participate.. breaking down the lines of level and making us all just heroes working towards the same goal of stopping evil.
How? Well, on the same line as the fire events in steel canyon.
In any city zone, a building could spawn a master plan event, and then start to cycle through stages (different stages depending on the players interaction). There would be many different types for each villain group (or as many as possible) to keep things fresh, and each would have many possible directions they could take during the event.
1) Example: Militia master plan (again, there should be different types that can happen, to keep people on their toes and keep them from doing the same old stuff) .. One building starts to spawn militia around the outside and a contact NPC appears. (these would be like giant monsters in that their attacks scale to whatever they attack, and vice versa
just without super HP or damage.. this would be a new type of communal experience PVE monster. Minion and lieutenant / boss type hardness, but scaling to anyone that cares to help out).
2) Players can then begin the story of the militia are actively taking over the building and need to be stopped. They are given a timed mission (the timer is set to the event stages, so someone could get a long timer or a very short one
depending on when they arrived). Such as going inside and finding out what they are planning (to begin).
Option 1: Heroes go inside and find out what they are planning, leading to the next mission to stop it (This would be another timed mission once the event goes to that stage, such as stopping waves of arriving militia troops from entering the building *in an instanced mission zone* or going inside and shutting down missiles)
Option 2: The heroes dont make it in time and the building takes on a more sinister look as the militia advance. Outside stronger units spawn (maybe turrets). Then nearby the paragon police show up (a little way away, they start sending in NPCS to begin npc mini fights to make it seem active). This makes the event seem alive, like its really happening and the city is responding. ..any hero in the area helping in one way or another (each going inside in their own missions that are scaled to their difficulty).
NOTE: to add more community and sense of it actually happening. Have those inside the mission (and those in the area outside who have spoken to the contact) be notified each time the event advances with personalized (their name) messages.
Like We need you back out here! Blue Hawk found the plans (the hero / group who completed the mission first) we need to stop their next move!
Then it continues in that type of mini real time story arc. Stronger and stronger challenges getting thrown at the heroes. Ending in either the militia getting a launch point in the zone (they would start to spawn lots of communal NPCs to roam around, the zone would slowly spread into a war-zone, buildings being replaced *very slowly! This is an event that should last hours and hours
even days if no one fights the militia back. Each stage should give X amount of minimum time for players to experience it (so one person might zip to the end of a stage and find the clue, but the event wouldnt advance for maybe 30 minutes if it was too quick. The npc would say they are analyzing the information or something)
The EXP should be rewarding enough to make it worth peoples times, everything scales to anyone who wants to try and help
so it should attract enough players to end the event sooner or later).
You could throw out some temp powers to use, disguises, an entire story arc meant to be done (as little or as much) by any hero in the game. They shouldnt happen in every zone all the time, but there should be at least one going on for players to experience. (As one ends, another could be starting the beginning stages)
As the communal arc moves into more advanced stages, the game should start sending out npcs to more crowded areas to find heroes. (Such as an npc appearing under atlas, not spamming, just a different intractable mission NPC that would attract attention because its so out of place and different *people would notice a new mission npc if it just popped up somewhere with normal traffic*) At the most advanced stages (or towards the end of the event as the heroes are fighting) you could even have statesman or another icon hero pop up and start fighting (players would love that).
The key is to make enough different types to keep people interested.. and make them dynamic enough that the players really feel like they are doing something. Make the zone slowly change in response to how the players are doing and throw a bunch of different challenges at them (not just find X glowy
maybe a part where it spawns fast moving cars on the street and the heroes need to kill 10 of them to move to the next stage. Having people chase them down
)
Mew
[ QUOTE ]
Until that is done, there is no such thing a united front, just some groups imposing their own point of view and others complaining about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
But this is contradictory... if, as you state, the Poo Monkeys are imposing their own point of view, why can't we do the same?
[ QUOTE ]
Are there legit griefers? Absolutely, but only the game's official rules identify them and there is already a mechanism to handle them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which has shown itself to be obviously ineffective.
I never said it would be easy, Thor. I just said it should be done.
[ QUOTE ]
or this: http://www.mmogchart.com/
[/ QUOTE ]
Hasn't been updated in over 6 months, but....whatcha trying to prove there?
[/ QUOTE ]
Also add to the past history of Sir Bruce that is numbers are not reliable and have been way of base in the past.
So anything posted on that chart should be taken with a grain of salt
Pinnacle
Langar Thurs-Katana/SR 50; Hejtmane-DM/DA 50
Rogue Spear-Spines/DA 50; Hypnosis-Ill/Rad 50
Sir Thomas Theroux-DM/SR 50; Melted Copper-Fire/Shield 50
Byzantine Warrior-DB/ELA 50;Blade Tempo-50 DB/EA
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, fair statement. How is it hypocrisy? This feels akin to your saying "Calling a man who has robbed a bank a bank robber is wrong" to me, and that makes no sense. As Herodotus said, it is no insult to a dead man to say that he is dead. If someone is acting like an [censored]-hat, and everyone recognizes that he is acting like an [censored]-hat, how is pointing out that fact hypocrisy?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, fair statement. How is it hypocrisy? This feels akin to your saying "Calling a man who has robbed a bank a bank robber is wrong" to me, and that makes no sense. As Herodotus said, it is no insult to a dead man to say that he is dead. If someone is acting like an [censored]-hat, and everyone recognizes that he is acting like an [censored]-hat, how is pointing out that fact hypocrisy?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because dead is a well defined term. Whereas [censored]-hat is not only censoered it is also highly subjective. Your use of the word is engageing in the same activity that is provokeing you to call them a [censored]-hat. I dunno about hypocracy but it certainly a good case of becoming what you behold.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player Auction houses are a great example of PvP content that is typically embraced by PvE players.
[/ QUOTE ]
o_o I think something in my head just broke upon reading that line.
[/ QUOTE ]
Non-combat PVP.
In WoW I made all of my money by manipulating the auction houses. This led some people to try and undercut, bypass, or otherwise make money in the niche that I had effectively cornered and made profitable. So to maintain my stranglehold I had to adapt to their tactics and in some cases adopt their tactics or their allegiance.
That's PvP. Just not in the sense of the word that some people are used to seeing it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, PvE environments are generally static, and not because they have to be, but because game designers claim they *must* be: that an evolving PvE environment creates all sorts of problems that would upset or unbalance the game. Can't have PvE players alterning the environment, because a constantly shifting backdrop to PvE would wreck PvE.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really know any developers who believe that. We look at games like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, God of War or Shadow of the Colossus and the innovative use of terrain involved there and think "How can we get things such as that into our game?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Then someone says "Too expensive, too much effort" and it winds up in MUO, amirite?
[ QUOTE ]
Oh Mieux I concur with your point but man am I chomping at the bit for the auctions...
[/ QUOTE ] All games which have economies have people who enjoy it. A working economy provides players with a fundamental task and incremental rewards. This is really boils down to a game within a game. I have nothing against economies, per se, but I honestly think it ruins games like DDO. Teaming becomes dominated by loot farmer mentality...and I'm not talking just those of the Gold variety. It will be curious to see how many people turn to farming the same missions over and over to get recipes. I suspect, just like with the Fortune Teller mission, you'll get people auctioning spots on the team.
As general rule, the more people who play the game, the better I think we all are, so I'm glad you are excited by the auction house. I just think allowing us to have PvE missions with a PvP option would do a whole lot more for a lot more people if they did it right.
[ QUOTE ]
As for how it is PvP, say you are selling "Progenitor Goo Mk XII" for 800 Quatlu's and I have one I want to sell. I am going to price my item based off not only what the 'market' says it should go for, but also based off of what others are selling for AT THIS MOMENT. So, if I think you're selling too low, I could buy yours, then try to sell both at a higher price. Or, if I think you're selling too high, I can undercut you, reducing your chance of selling. Either way, my actions will effect you, and your actions will effect me. Thus, "PvP."
[/ QUOTE ]
This pretty much sums up why I left WoW and might soon be leaving CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Player Auction houses are a great example of PvP content that is typically embraced by PvE players.
[/ QUOTE ]
o_o I think something in my head just broke upon reading that line.
[/ QUOTE ]
Non-combat PVP.
In WoW I made all of my money by manipulating the auction houses. This led some people to try and undercut, bypass, or otherwise make money in the niche that I had effectively cornered and made profitable. So to maintain my stranglehold I had to adapt to their tactics and in some cases adopt their tactics or their allegiance.
That's PvP. Just not in the sense of the word that some people are used to seeing it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of like playing Monopoly, then?
I always end up throwing too many doubles and going to jail...
Or landing on the Go to jail space...
Or pulling a Go to Jail card...
I suck at monopoly! AHHH!!!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, PvE environments are generally static, and not because they have to be, but because game designers claim they *must* be: that an evolving PvE environment creates all sorts of problems that would upset or unbalance the game. Can't have PvE players alterning the environment, because a constantly shifting backdrop to PvE would wreck PvE.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really know any developers who believe that. We look at games like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, God of War or Shadow of the Colossus and the innovative use of terrain involved there and think "How can we get things such as that into our game?"
[/ QUOTE ]
You'd have to do some pretty hefty re-writing of the game engine to do most of that stuff... 
"I swear you could fling a man hole cover across the street and hit more notes than 90% of those idiots on American Idol" -Desmodos
"Every time you post I feel like I been hit with a fist full of smart! Thanks." - Volken re: Sucker Punch
Arc #36984 V'kta A'cha Vox'm
[ QUOTE ]
I always end up throwing too many doubles and going to jail...
Or landing on the Go to jail space...
Or pulling a Go to Jail card...
I suck at monopoly! AHHH!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Do not post, go directly to jail.
No way! I shived WAY too many ppl in there. I bet they're just waiting for me to come back so they'll have their REVENGE!
If you intend this for the PvP haters, I don't think the PvP forum is the best place to catch their atention
Anyway. I'm a PvP hater. Not in the sense that I don't think PvP should exist, but in the sense that I don't enjoy participating in it. And by "don't enjoy" I really mean hate. Hate hate hate.
As long as PvP is optional, I'm good with it though. The day PvP stop being optional, is the day I quit the game. So maybe PvP does pay the bills... but I won't be adding my 15$ to those bills.
Generally, this post is so full of wrong asumptions that I don't even know where to begin.
[ QUOTE ]
While approaching 9 million paying subscribers, which is more than the Nelson rating of most tv shows, WOW has servers that are labeled PVE and Roleplaying, which have pvp zones and have pvp hot options. Eve Online, MXO, Guildwars, COX, Vanguard, and every other game have the pvp components. Warhammer, Age of Conan, Gods & Heroes: Rome Rising, Star Trek Online, Marvel, DC, Firefly Online, and World of Darkness Online, are being pre built with PVP in mind and that's every major game being released from 2007-2009.
[/ QUOTE ]
This proves... what exactly? I think these games should cater to both PvE and PvP play. That's great! Some games lean more in one direction than the other, because *gasp* different players like different things. WAR is heavily slated towards PvP: Great if you like that. CoX isn't: Great if you don't.
But the fact that most games are being build with PvP in mind doesn't prove anything. How many of these games have no PvE content? How many successful MMOs can you name that have no PvE content at all? So... is it right to conclude that all these games (including WoW) owe their success to PvE? Well, apparently!
I'm sorry. I seem to have missed your point.
[ QUOTE ]
PVP pays the bills. PVE does not.
That's not me saying that. That's the entire video game industry saying that. They are saying that now. They are saying that through 2010 and quite possibly beyond.
[/ QUOTE ]
I havn't had a chat with the entire video game industry yet, so I can't really prove or disprove that.
Fact: Practically every game today is published with a multiplayer option. This, apparently, come at the expense of the single-player portion of the game. You can save on the game design and story content if you can just make people run around senselessly shooting eachother on identical maps. Yay! Infinite content!
Fact: The number of games I've bought since this trend have been minimal. I have never enjoyed PvP. I like the occasional cooperative multiplayer, sure. But not PvP. And I don't want multiplayer instead of a real game. I don't want to pay 50$ for a game that I can complete over the weekend.
Conclusion: I think you're right. Sadly. Well, maybe not the entire video game industry, but enough to more or less wreck the hobby for me. I think this is a really sorry turn of development though, and I'm looking forward to the end of this trend.
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, PVE does the opposite of pay the bills. PVE only develops a core of players that burn through 3 month of development in a weekend. Does that make them happy? Not at all, they go on to cry on whatever forum board that another 3 months of development can't be done instantly to stop their boredom.
[/ QUOTE ]
So... that's what PvE players are like huh? I'm sorry to say, but that's easily disproven. I'm a PvE player. I don't do the above. Statement: false.
I've played this game for nearly three years now. I have one character who recently hit 50. Am I bored? No. If I was, I'd leave. The fact is that there's so many things I have yet to try out, that I'm bound to be here for a good while longer.
Why do I play though, if I don't want PvP? This is an MMO, after all, I should go play a single player game! Right?
Truth be told? I might. If there were any single player games that had even remotely the same long-term appeal. I play MMOs because they are huge, not because there are other people in them. That's just an interesting quirk of the media.
"Modern" single player games have a scope that typically let you complete it in a week or two. Or even just over a weekend if it's really bad. MMOs? Not even close. So far it has taken me almost three years to "complete" the game. And I'm not even done yet.
I could play through Baldur's Gate (/2) several times. Why not CoH? That's six+ years of entertainment right there.
[ QUOTE ]
If the developers of this game ever get silly enough to listen to the screams of the anti pvp crowd, this game will have its life support plug pulled much sooner. Right now, without the balance issues being fixed, this game is expected to only edge out a suvivable profit by the time Marvel and DC come out. Paradoxically, NCSoft is developing Marvel and I'll bet real money it's being required to be absolutely balanced from the beginning.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. Not even unlikely. But I'm not very good at telling the future, and my precognitive powers don't default to "doom".
My mistake, I know.
But I don't think they should listen to the screams of the anti PvP crowd. Which, I guess, is me. Screaming without even noticing.
On the flip side. I don't think they should listen to the screams of the anti PvE crowd either. I think both would be bad for the game. As someone else said, as long as everything can exist at once, in peace, we're golden. I'm sorry that I don't see why it has to come down to PvP vs. PvE. I don't think I'm a bad person for liking PvE, and I don't think you're a jerk for liking PvP. Why exactly can't we have both?
[ QUOTE ]
PVP creates long time rivalries. PVP creates player driven content. PVP communities are the group that stay with a game for years in the highest numbers.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's theorycrafting.
I don't think long-term rivalries are a good thing. I don't know what you mean by "player driven content". PvP or no, MMOs are games. You'd think that content was directed for the players no matter what. And you can't tell me that running around in a forest, throwing fireballs at your buddies is content. It doesn't inspire anyone to develop anything new. On the contrary. As long as you're happy chugging fire, there's no reason at all to actually create anything new. PvP is it's own reward, right? So maybe it does pay the bills. But only in the sense that you can just build the game, charge 15$ a month and never touch it again. Yay! Infinite content!
As for PvP communities being the ones who stay around? I don't buy that for a second. People are people whether they PvP or not. And people are fickle. I don't see why a PvP community wouldn't unroot and go play the latest awsome PvP game any more than everyone else.
Especially since you seem to think that all future games will be heavily PvP slated. If the PvP communities are so loyal to their current game... all these new games will be more or less stillborn, won't they? The PvPers are happy where they are. The PvEs have itchy feet but no where to go.
[ QUOTE ]
You might believe in your heart pvp doesn't pay the bills. But all the industrial side market research for the past two years says that you are saying the world is flat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then I guess the world is flat. PvP doesn't pay the bills. Subscribers pay the bills. I'm a subscriber. I don't PvP.
PvP certainly help pay the bills. Because, you know, some people like PvP and play because they enjoy it.
Again, I ask you to name all these great MMOs that have no PvE at all, that have let you to form a theory like this.
I've never heard of them.
Thought for the day:
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
=][=
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, fair statement. How is it hypocrisy? This feels akin to your saying "Calling a man who has robbed a bank a bank robber is wrong" to me, and that makes no sense. As Herodotus said, it is no insult to a dead man to say that he is dead. If someone is acting like an [censored]-hat, and everyone recognizes that he is acting like an [censored]-hat, how is pointing out that fact hypocrisy?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because dead is a well defined term. Whereas [censored]-hat is not only censoered it is also highly subjective. Your use of the word is engageing in the same activity that is provokeing you to call them a [censored]-hat. I dunno about hypocracy but it certainly a good case of becoming what you behold.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nonsense.
There is no comparison between my calling someone an [censored]-hat and hounding someone so badly they flee the game. No comparison at all.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I could see how some could consider this griefing, but I certainly don't consider it to be such.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's see. "Harassing another player so badly that he leaves the game entirely isn't a bad thing". Check. "Blame the victim". Check.
[/ QUOTE ]
My problem with your logic is that activities that some might consider "harassment" are considered by others to be "PvP". If the same group keeps killing me, or you, or anyone over and over again, that's simply not harassment. If someone is using profane language to insult you and your family, that's harassment and is a reportable offense. That does happen. However, I don't think that verbal harassment = griefing.
[ QUOTE ]
But the fact that most games are being build with PvP in mind doesn't prove anything. How many of these games have no PvE content? How many successful MMOs can you name that have no PvE content at all? So... is it right to conclude that all these games (including WoW) owe their success to PvE? Well, apparently!
[/ QUOTE ]
Fury will have no PvE content and in WHO you can level and get gear completely via PvP. Now, both of these games are still in development/testing and so haven't yet demonstrated success. However, arguably the entire FPS/RTS online community is a pure PvP experience and still attracts more gamers than all of the MMO's combined.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, fair statement. How is it hypocrisy? This feels akin to your saying "Calling a man who has robbed a bank a bank robber is wrong" to me, and that makes no sense. As Herodotus said, it is no insult to a dead man to say that he is dead. If someone is acting like an [censored]-hat, and everyone recognizes that he is acting like an [censored]-hat, how is pointing out that fact hypocrisy?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because dead is a well defined term. Whereas [censored]-hat is not only censoered it is also highly subjective. Your use of the word is engageing in the same activity that is provokeing you to call them a [censored]-hat. I dunno about hypocracy but it certainly a good case of becoming what you behold.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nonsense.
There is no comparison between my calling someone an [censored]-hat and hounding someone so badly they flee the game. No comparison at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how you can posit that since the degree of negative impact in both cases is dependent on the reaction of the recipient. Someone could conceivably take great offense to being labeled that way or just seeing those words and leave the forums, how is that any different from someone who sees text in broadcast they don't like and leaving the zone?
Jack, I understand what you're trying to do but the reality is that the "cure" you're proposing is worse than the disease you're trying to address. There isn't wide spread, and won't be, agreement on what items (over and above the official rules) should invoke a community sanction. Because you won't get a consensus all you really accomplish is creating a vigilante group, with all of the problems that such groups always create. (Favoritism, lack of due process, inconsistent enforcement, witch hunts, etc).
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
Welcome Back Thorizdin
[ QUOTE ]
PVP pays the bills. PVE does not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Exactly how many servers are running PvP for everquest? I think they're down to 1.
I beleive it is for the exact same reasons that PvP in CoX is problematic - you can't really balance the archetypes and power sets. Someone will ALWAYS be the paper to someone's else's scissors.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how you can posit that since the degree of negative impact in both cases is dependent on the reaction of the recipient. Someone could conceivably take great offense to being labeled that way or just seeing those words and leave the forums, how is that any different from someone who sees text in broadcast they don't like and leaving the zone?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because, as I am sure you are aware, the standard is a bit higher than just "I don't like what you are saying". You know from discussing this with me in the past that I'm not talking about smacktalk or even about getting the easy win but about eggregiously bad behavior. Common sense does apply. If you are being labelled a poo monkey then you've done something to deserve it.
As an aside, I still can't believe there are people who actually say "I have a right to treat other people like [censored] if I want to". I really can't.
[ QUOTE ]
Jack, I understand what you're trying to do but the reality is that the "cure" you're proposing is worse than the disease you're trying to address. There isn't wide spread, and won't be, agreement on what items (over and above the official rules) should invoke a community sanction. Because you won't get a consensus all you really accomplish is creating a vigilante group, with all of the problems that such groups always create. (Favoritism, lack of due process, inconsistent enforcement, witch hunts, etc).
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm simply looking for the existing rules to actually be enforced... which they aren't at this time, as you yourself have pointed out in the past.
<QR>
Thumbing through more of the thread, just have one last thing to add:
Wow. A heavily pro-PvP thread being applauded and highly weighted in favor of the OP in the PvP forum. Yeah, try that in one of the other forums and see how the support swings...
Virtue Server
Avatar art by Daggerpoint