| 45 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
7/13/07 10:52:41 AM#21
Originally posted by ginetti I guess the thing is that your not a real hardcore pvp player. A hardcore PVP players only cares about the the fact they are competing with other people. When I get attacked, or when I attack somebody in a game without risks such as WoW or EQ2, I want to win, I don't care if rhwew is a chance I lose an item or if I get anything after I won, the tension is just as high for me, all I care about is the fact I'm fighting a real human players |
|
|
7/13/07 11:11:29 AM#22
Originally posted by Gameloading
um why pay $15 for that I can put in rainbow 6: vegas in my xbox and get that same experience. this is what I dont understand bout this argument?? at least own a kingdom and fight for control of the land. PVP with no impact = shooter Guild Wars or shooters do 'no impact' PVP really well
I suppose you are also going to say it is okay for PVPers not to get any sort of rewards via PVP? We should not get xp and there should be no point to doing it? screw paying $15 a month for that. now- if your MMO is free then okay lol |
|
|
7/13/07 11:17:24 AM#23
Originally posted by vajuras I used to think like that as well, but there is a certain appeal to fighting with a character you made and developed yourself. And besides that, the gameplay between a shooter and an MMORPG is very different. and besides that, the wole randomness factor of pvp, as in, PVP can happen at any time,in an MMORPG is something that is missing in FPS's |
|
|
7/13/07 11:24:11 AM#24
I dunno these instanced PVP games like WAR & WoW are getting close to the shooters. in shooters they have character progression now and that part is persistant. the only difference you guys pay $15 a month (unless your MMO is free). if your MMO is free it makes sense. If you just like to casual PVP it makes sense. If you are a hardcore PVPer (love to fight all the time)- not sure how they enjoy respawning and fighting over some piece of land or asset forever and there is no winner. or fight in an instance and watch it all get reset. that is not persistant too me. even WAR will be reseting it all.
the lines are blurred between FPS and MMO these days
ah time to get on this UO shard now lol, peace guys |
|
|
atziluth
 Elite Member
Joined: 9/18/04
Killer 73.33% |
7/13/07 12:03:30 PM#25
Originally posted by vajurasYou need to read up a little more about WAR before making generic statements like you do. 1) WAR has open PvP areas from character start. These areas increase in size in the higher level zones. These zones are open to all and not instanced. The starting zones are about 15% open PvP and 85% PvE. Later zones are 90% open PvP and 10% PvE. 2) WAR developers have already stated you can play the whole game from character start without killing a single mob. You can create a character and PvP your whole way through the game. Player looting (loot tables not personal items) is in, so is PK XP which is equal to mob XP. 3) Each zone will have a number of instanced scenarios which contribute to your war effort. You never have to enter an instance to PvP if you do not want to. 4) PvE quests and world quests will contribute to the war effort for your side if a player does not wish to PvP ever. WAR has brought the best of two communities together. The PvP community can level up, gear up, affect the world... without every having to kill a single Mob... they can do this without having to enter a single instance. The PvE community can level up, gear up, and affect the world without ever having to PvP... There are even PvE instanced dungeons for small raids. So both sides can have their cake and eat it to. It may not have everything everyone wants but it has much more then the current MMOs. People who say WoW and WAR are equal have not taken the time to actually read about WAR. Those people have an agenda that the truth does not suit. -Atziluth- - Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity. |
|
7/13/07 12:19:14 PM#26
bah the LOTRO players are following me around now just great. in the podcasts Paul has already said you get best rewards for being in instances. this is a known lol
they say no griefing, no ganking. so no rogues, etc |
|
|
7/13/07 1:21:02 PM#27
He said you get the best rewards from engaging in City Sieges some of which will be instanced and some of which will not.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2. Game(s) I Am Currently Playing: GW2 (+LoL and BF3) |
|
|
atziluth
Elite Member
Joined: 9/18/04
Killer 73.33% |
7/13/07 1:40:16 PM#28
Originally posted by vajurasSo what you want to do is grief then... You want a game built around not PvP but around the exploitation of players that cannot fight you fairly... Thanks for clearing that up. BTW you keep spreading that rumor... I don't play LOTRO... I play AC darktide and Shadowbane. Hardly carebear games... good try to deflect the truth though. Actually what has been stated is that you can gain equal powered items through PvE and PvP. Here again you do not refute my points but just blather on like an idiot. -Atziluth- - Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity. |
|
7/13/07 1:53:10 PM#29
Originally posted by ginetti
The game you are describing just sounds like it wanted to provide a harsh death penelty but was not going to actually going to go hardcore.
When you play a game where once you die you loose everything not just because some one looted it but because you are permadead so no longer can access items in your chess/bank then you can call your self a hard core player. I have not see a hardcore game since the HC servers on D2.
I did have a simular experince on the HC D2 server as you describe, but as soon as I intervined the griefers ran becuase when playing hardcore you absolutly can not loose (and continue playing that avatar).
And you actually described why the Softcore (FFA) games no longer allow full looting. Because even though all they risk is what they carry, grifers will group and only attack those they know they can kill. There is not a game out that allows players to attack other players in which this type of grouping does not occur, and because even greifers will only risk so much the has not and will never be another Hardcore game.
There will be the soffened versions such as EVE, AOC etc. Where you may loose what you carry but you can simply dust your self off and rebuild as your real wealth is safe in the bank Actually counter strike is more hardcore then the game you described because when you die you sit out the rest of the game not respawn and go running back hoping that the fight is still on and you can grab your stuff. See CS does have a sever death penelty, it keeps you from playing that match. An so it begins |
|
|
7/13/07 2:05:13 PM#30
I think that's more just your opinion rather than a fact, LeJohn. Shadowbane didn't have permadeth and I think it is a pretty hardcore game. At least it was back when I played it. It took time, strategy, commitment, and the penalties for losing were quite painful. Although your examples are hardcore elements, I don't think they all, especially permadeath, need to be present to label the game "hardcore". |
|
|
7/13/07 2:14:14 PM#31
what was death penalty in Shadowbane? |
|
|
7/13/07 2:22:17 PM#32
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2. Game(s) I Am Currently Playing: GW2 (+LoL and BF3) |
|
|
7/13/07 2:25:01 PM#33
thanks I knew about the backpack looting was kinda wondering how did they decide when a guild raid was over on a guild owned town edit- oh and there wa spoenalties in addition to backpoack looting |
|
|
7/13/07 2:29:33 PM#34
You respawn in the city you chose to bind to and have to run to your corpse, you lose xp, items take damage, the stuff you're carrying stays on your corpse (including your gold) and anyone can loot you. I enjoyed playing the beta and for a while after the launch but they had huge problems, both with the game and technical. For example, one of the problems with the game was that mobs spawned really far away from where most people were located which made quite a bit of the terrain seem rather vast and empty. What really ended the game and my love affair with it's fun GvG warfare, however, was the constant SB.EXE error and large scale wars turning into large scale slide shows. |
|
|
7/13/07 2:34:44 PM#35
Originally posted by Signe Actually I am not labeling anything, that is it is not me that defines it: from the blizzard site the first ones to add a hardcore server:
Hardcore mode is a more challenging style of game play on Battle.net, recommended only for experts. In Hardcore mode, you live only once, meaning that if you die, your character can no longer be used.
having played on BN and the few other hardcore games (most game have very short life spans) I have total respect for those that actually are willing to play a hardcore game, Actually I was pushing for EVE to add a HC server but with the original rule set. For a HC game to work there has to be a rule set that prevents greifing and ganking, Blizzard understood this and thats why you have the lvl filter. For EVE to be A hardcore game you would not just remove the clones but inforce the original Security settings. IE. if you attack anyone in empire that you were not at war with (in any sec system) not only were you not allowed to doc at any station (if you rob a bank and everyone sees you do it you can not go to walmart in the same town and spend the money unhindered ) but concord was coming for you. The diffrence was that your chance of excaping the system was better in a 0.1 system than in a 1.0 because the responce time was longer.
But that was too hardcore for the Prats so CCP changed the game to accomidate them. Yes EVE was a lot more hardcore when it went gold than todays version.
Anyway thats why I LOL when i see one of these posts, these guys do not want real hardcore, they could not handle a hardcore game. An so it begins |
|
|
atziluth
Elite Member
Joined: 9/18/04
Killer 73.33% |
7/13/07 2:38:28 PM#36
Originally posted by vajurasWhen you want to attack another player town you set a bane stone. The bane stone allows city assets to be destroyed and the Tree of life to be captured/destroyed. Each server has a window of time to set active bane times and it lasts until the bane stone is destroyed or the TOL is destroyed/captured. On top of backpack looting, death causes a durability hit on all of your gear... dur hits 0 item is permently destroyed. You can repair items but they slowly take dur loss. Even though cities require banes to be destroyed often cities are camped by rival factions. I usually go to 2 - 5 banes a week on mourning... numbers range from 20 - 60 people total... rarely even numbers. Only safe zones are the newbie island which you can leave easily but getting back is impossible for most classes and 3 non-player cities. 95% of the world is FFA. -Atziluth- - Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity. |
|
atziluth
Elite Member
Joined: 9/18/04
Killer 73.33% |
7/13/07 2:58:07 PM#37
Originally posted by LeJohn American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source hard core
You certainly fit the bill. What B.Net coined was subjective to their game... not a gaming style. This argument is stupid considering hardcore is a subjective term. There is no hardcore PvP... there is only PvP. The game rule sets determines the penalties for that PvP. People just like to coin the term hardcore because it fills some sort of inner child void and they feel more like a tough guy that gets in bar brawls "just for fun" I find you all so hilarious... Veins popping out of your heads over a single word that does not fit the genre, but the community. -Atziluth- - Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity. |
|
7/13/07 3:39:02 PM#38
Actually it has been defined for some time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_death Permanent death in multi-player computer games is very controversial.[3] Due to player desires and the resulting market forces involved, MMORPGs (such as World of Warcraft) and other multiplayer-focused RPGs almost never have permanent death. Generally speaking, there is little support in multiplayer culture for permanent death.[4] Richard Bartle has compared player distaste for permadeath to player distaste for pedophilia.[5] For games which charge an ongoing fee to play, permanent death may drive a player away, creating a financial disencentive to include permanent death.[6][7] Diablo II is a noteworthy, mainstream exception that includes support for an optional "hardcore" mode when playing online. "Hardcore mode" in Diablo II subjects characters to permanent death. Star Wars Galaxies had permadeath for Jedi characters for a short period, but later eliminated that functionality.[8] Proponents attribute a number of reasons why others oppose permanent death. Some attribute poor early implementations to tainting perception.[9] They also beleive that confusing player killing with permanent death, when the two do not need to be used together.[10] Proponents also believe that players initially exposed to games without permanent death consider new games from that point of view.[11] Those players are attributed as eventually "maturing," to a level of accepting permanent death, but only for other player's characters.[12] The majority of MMORPG players are unwilling to accept the large penalty of losing their character. Some MMORPGs experimented with permanent death as part of an attempt to simulate a more realistic world, but the majority of players preferred to not risk permanent death for their characters. As a result, while MMORPGs are occasionally announced that feature permanent death, most either never ship (so called vaporware) or are changed to remove permanent death so as to increase the game's mass appeal. Proponents of permanent death desire the additional significance that the risk of permadeath gives their in-game actions. While games without permanent death often impose an in-game penalty for restoring a dead PC, the penalty is relatively minor compared to being forced to create a new PC from scratch. Therefore, the primary change in experience permanent death creates is that it makes a player's decisions more significant; without permanent death there is less incentive for the player to consider their in-game actions seriously.[13] Those players seeking to play under the shadow of permanent death feel that the more severe consequences heighten the sense of involvement and achievement they get from their character.[14][15] The increased risk means acts of heroism and bravery within the game world are significant; the player has risked a much larger investment of time. Without permanent death, the actions are "small actions."[16] However, in an online game, permadeath generally means starting over from the beginning level of power, isolating the player of the now-dead character from his or her former comrades. Richard Bartle called out as advantages of permanent death that it restricts early players from permanently holding positions of power[17], that content is reused as players repeat early sections[18], that it is the "default fiction of real life," that players can better immerse themselves because of the more frequent character changes, and it reinforces high level achievement.[19] Bartle also believes that in the absense of permanent death, game creators must continually create new content for the players at the very top, creating disencentive for those not at the top to even bother to advance.[20] The proponents of permanent death systems in MMORPGs are a relatively small sub-section of the hardcore gaming community. These players are often interested in additional challenges provided by games that attempt to be more realistic in aspects of their simulation. These players will often seek less restricted social and economic environments catering for a greater range of player versus player interaction and risk versus reward scenarios. Those players who prefer to not play with permanent death are generally unwilling to accept the risk of the large penalties associated with permanent death. Paying the penalty of permanent death often means a great deal of time spent to regain levels, power, influence, or emotional investment that the previous character had. This increased amount of time can dissuade casual players [21] Depending on the design of the game, this may involve playing through content that the player has already experienced. Players no longer interested in the early aspects of the game are often unwilling to spend time playing through it again. These players seek to play the game to have fun and are unwilling to play through sections of the game they no longer enjoy in the hope of reaching sections they previously had access to. Some players dislike the way that permanent death causes players to be much more wary than they would in regular games; they argue that this cautiousness reduces the heroic atmosphere that games seek to provide.[22] Ultimately this can reduce play to a slow, repetative, low-risk play, commonly called "grinding".[23] Of course, the significance of heroism without the risk of permanent death is dramatically reduced. Most MMORPGs do not allow character creation at an arbitrary experience level, even if the player has already achieved that level with a now-dead character, providing a powerful disincentive for permanent death. Currently there are a few MMORPGs in development that promise permanent death as a feature, although purists will argue that the systems involved are not truly permanent death. Trials of Ascension features a hundred life counters for each player character but currently has ceased development due to funding issues.; Adellion, features three life counters per character. Each death costs a character a life counter and, when the life counters are gone, the PC cannot be returned from the dead. Both of these games claim to be in development, although neither game has yet announced a beta test. In Wurm Online, high level priests can choose to become a Champion of their god. While this makes them much more powerful, if they die three times, the character will permanently die. Face of Mankind, which has made it to retail, also claims to have permadeath, but what it actually provides is automatic respawning for dead characters via 'clone insurance'. This is available for a trivial in-game fee - two thousand credits per month when characters start with ten thousand. Characters also start with three free clones, more of which can also be purchased very cheaply, so permadeath only happens when players make a concerted effort to use it to delete their character (no other option for the player to delete his/her character is provided). Armageddon (MUD) has featured permanent death almost from its inception, circa 1991, and has in fact greatly influenced the adaptation of permanent death (or watered down heavy death penalties) in most other role-playing intensive MUDs on the net[citation needed]. Batmud Hardcore has featured permanent death using a separate copy of the 'normal' server which opened in 2000. This was heavily inspired by Diablo II hardcore. Gemstone IV featured a system in which permanent death happened if the character did not obtain favor in the form of "deeds" with the Goddess of death, Lorminstra, but this has been removed. If the character dies and is not resurrected by a cleric, the character will decay and meet Lorminstra after a period of time. Under the permanent death system, if the character had deeds, Lorminstra would guide the character back to life in a new body, with all of the character's equipment and free of wounds, but not of scars, and receive an experience penalty. If the character did not have deeds, Lorminstra would guide the character to his permanent resting place. Now, if the character does not have deeds, they will just receive a larger experience penalty than one that decayed with deeds. DragonRealms, a spinoff of Gemstone IV, still features permanent death. To avoid it, the character must find favor with his god or goddess, rather than just the patron of death. The amount of times you could die were counted as favors, and more could be obtained by placing "unabsorbed" experience points into an orb and then offering it to the character's god. If the character died and decayed without favors, the character would "walk the Starry Road"--DragonRealms worldwide messaging for permanently dying.
Every game manafacture defines a hard core game by several deffinations but all include permadeath as one of the requirements in order to be a hardcore game. By the way I like your sig. Also I don't find it annoying for players that have never actually played a HC game to spout on how the only requirement to be a HC game is that there has to be full looting and FFA PVP, I find it funny. It's like having some one tell you that to dirt track race all you have to know is how to drive a car.
An so it begins |
|
|
atziluth
Elite Member
Joined: 9/18/04
Killer 73.33% |
7/13/07 4:10:04 PM#39
In that same article there is a line that radiates meaning. The proponents of permanent death systems in MMORPGs are a relatively small sub-section of the hardcore gaming community. Even the permadeath article in the wiki does not include permadeath as a signifier of hardcore. Notice they use the term to describe a community not a game. As games go it is subjective... again Diablo had a hardcore mode... The term hardcore can be different for every game. I will not slight your view because to you hardcore must include permadeath, but to argue that the community must adhere to your view is socially dysfunctional. Perhaps you need to coin a new phrase like hard death PvPer. Hardcore is just too subjective which is and was my point. Now as to is permadeath a good idea, again depends your point of view... If you are a realist in games it would be a good idea. From a corporate standpoint it is a VERY bad idea. The amount of consumers you would attract versus the number you would lose after a short term does not make something like permadeath profitable. I am mixed on the idea... I think it should be an option to players but not forced on a gaming community. Unfortunately you will not get something as broad as a whole server, but you might be able to argue an option when you build your character. The catch is that no everyone you would face would have the permadeath option but then again it would be truly hardcore. -Atziluth- - Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity. |
|
Kyleran
 Elite Member
Joined: 9/13/06
A simple truth-"What people want and what is good for an mmo is not always the same thing"-mrw0lf |
7/13/07 4:28:05 PM#40
Good story...but I wonder.... did the OP "know" he had a great chance to defeat the other 3 players? If so, then it really wasn't all that much of an accomplishment..... I'm thinking a real hardcore PVP game would have no con system..... no one would really know what the "level" of another player was (or skills were involved)...... make it a total mystery, heck, don't even have mobs con since that would give it away as well.... then at least people would have to take some real chances.... "Just because you aren't paying doesn't mean it's not PTW." - Amaranthar |
. It is a game... 1/2 the people in the world would label you a geek... Coining your self hardcore only makes you a hardcore geek. Shooting, killing, or griefing another person in a game has no substance. That is like saying you kill your friends in a PnP game like D&D... Does that make you a hardcore Roleplayer?
