Sod it. There's two Sandbox MMOs at the moment worth even mentioned that won't die at a flick of a hat:

EvE and...this is really out there..

..Entropia Universe. Haven't tried it, but it's about as sandbox as you can get.

Now, the whole money = ingame currency thing. I read up on it and found an interesting concept. As it stands, the game is free, completely free. Which is impossible and so it would appear, to have any fun at least. So, what many new players do is buy currency of the amount that a sub would usually cost. Then bingo.

Crysis 2 engine i believe, complete world builder, space, you can buy land, i'm sounding like an advert now before trying it, but i'll be downloading it at work today to give it a crack later. It's free to play around in after all...

Originally posted by Cuathon

As for your update, please read this:

A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.

 

That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
I never said it wasn't instanced I said the,majority isn't instanced. And affecting your character has nothing to do with persistence, the world still exists when your characters log off just like all other mmo games coh ryzom eq eq2 uo eve istaria... the only definition is does the world exist when you shut your computer down

That's not a feature, just a descriptor. That concept doesn't mean anything remotely relevant to the game when defined that way. That is also not what persistant world meant when the first persistant worlds came out. The fact that they stayed in existence when you logged off actually meant something to you, a ffecting your game. Modern "persistant" worlds could remove the persistance without any effect on the game. This is part of what people mean by saying that new "mmos" and srpgs or co op rpgs. Their persistance is meaningless. If I quit the game for a year aside from bugfixes and balancing playing through the content would be no different than it was if I ran through it now. So I guess you could claim it was persistant, but who cares? It means nothing to the gameplay.

It's a description of a feature.  The feature is persistant world, it means that the worlds exists when you the player are not there.  Thats exactly what it it meant and all it ever meant.  The world still exists. 

No one in any MMO could affect your character when your weren't there if your character didn't have anything (such as housing) in the real world.  If I don't have stations in Eve, than no one can affect me when I log off.

Persistance has never meant that other people can affect when you weren't there, it always meant that the world still existed - it was persistent. 

And people never meant that when talking about new mmo's as single player games, or co-ops.  I know you don't think of EQ as an MMO but by and large the community did and EQ worked exactly the same way, no affect to you or your character when you logged off. 

Persistance isn't meaningless the world still exists, people are still doing things.  Whether they affect you or not is a different question and a different argument.  But the world still exists, so it is persistant. 

You may have a different meaning and this is fine.  However we don't get to arbitrarily define words and have effective communication simply because we disagree with them. 

The word persistant was chosen for a reason, because of it's meaning it has an accepted definition.  It means (according to merriam webster -  existing for a long or longer than usual time or continuously: as a: retained beyond the usual period persistent leaf> b: continuing without change in function or structure <persistent gills> c: effective in the open for an appreciable time usually through slow volatilizing persistent>  

2

a: continuing or inclined to persist in a course(see persist) b: continuing to exist despite interference or treatment persistent cough> persistent vegetative state for two years>

This is why the word was chosen, not because it can affect you, or because it can change but because it exists.  Actually there could be an argument made that it is persistant because it doesn't change.  However it is persistant because it exists when you are note there.   Period, end of story.

Venge

As for your update, please read this:

A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.

 

That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.

Wiki is all fine and good but it still not considered acceptable source of academic infomation, Merriam webster is.  Please site where Koster and Bartle agree with you, because I haven't read anything like that.

So please do your research next time. 

Edit - Also using Koster and Bartle would be a logical fallacy - an appeal to authority.  Legitimate authorities speaking on their areas of expertise may affirm a falsehood. However, if not using a deductive argument, a logical fallacy is only asserted when the source is not a legitimate expert on the topic at hand, or their conclusion(s) are in direct opposition to other expert consensus. Appeal to authority does not condone to agreeing to the argument.

I would agree to their being an expert, but another expert would say something else making their conclusions moot.  Appealing to an expert will not win this arugment.

condone to agreeing? that is not what condone means. you try to use dictionary bullshit on me but you can't form proper sentence syntax. you just can't say that in english.

wikipedia doesn't count. the most famous designers of persistant worlds don't count. only your totally arbitrary context non-existent dictionary look up counts? i could understand saying that koster doesn't count, but bartle? come on.

you are not arguing in good faith. this is a waste of my time, and i once spent 12 hours collecting 20000 wood in atitd, so that is saying a lot.

I decided to throw you a bone, that definition of a logical fallacy was copy and pasted from wikipedia - the source that you tried to use as an acceptable argument.

I am arguing in good faith.  I simply disagree with you, you have stated someone said something but cannot cite a reference for them. Sorry but I am not taking what you say on faith, prove it.

I gave the definition of persistence using a world recognized source.  Merriam webster is one of the worlds premier dictionaries. 

And yes that is exactly what condone means. Condone - to treat as acceptable.  Appealing to an authority, simply because they are an authority is not an acceptable argument. 

So once again, you don't understand sentance syntax, you haven't cited a proper source of your argument, and are merely saying someone said something without proper evidence to back it up.

Put up or shut up.

 

Venge

edit - so because you spent 12 hour collecting 20000 wood in Atitd that means something?  Whoop de do.  I spent 1 year building a grand hall - approximately 100,000 peices of ore/resources in Istaria. 

You cannot condone TO something. You can condone it though. The dictionary definition of persistent still does not mean anything. Also wikipedia is a valid source for information unless someone happened to be trolling that particular article.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
I never said it wasn't instanced I said the,majority isn't instanced. And affecting your character has nothing to do with persistence, the world still exists when your characters log off just like all other mmo games coh ryzom eq eq2 uo eve istaria... the only definition is does the world exist when you shut your computer down

That's not a feature, just a descriptor. That concept doesn't mean anything remotely relevant to the game when defined that way. That is also not what persistant world meant when the first persistant worlds came out. The fact that they stayed in existence when you logged off actually meant something to you, a ffecting your game. Modern "persistant" worlds could remove the persistance without any effect on the game. This is part of what people mean by saying that new "mmos" and srpgs or co op rpgs. Their persistance is meaningless. If I quit the game for a year aside from bugfixes and balancing playing through the content would be no different than it was if I ran through it now. So I guess you could claim it was persistant, but who cares? It means nothing to the gameplay.

It's a description of a feature.  The feature is persistant world, it means that the worlds exists when you the player are not there.  Thats exactly what it it meant and all it ever meant.  The world still exists. 

No one in any MMO could affect your character when your weren't there if your character didn't have anything (such as housing) in the real world.  If I don't have stations in Eve, than no one can affect me when I log off.

Persistance has never meant that other people can affect when you weren't there, it always meant that the world still existed - it was persistent. 

And people never meant that when talking about new mmo's as single player games, or co-ops.  I know you don't think of EQ as an MMO but by and large the community did and EQ worked exactly the same way, no affect to you or your character when you logged off. 

Persistance isn't meaningless the world still exists, people are still doing things.  Whether they affect you or not is a different question and a different argument.  But the world still exists, so it is persistant. 

You may have a different meaning and this is fine.  However we don't get to arbitrarily define words and have effective communication simply because we disagree with them. 

The word persistant was chosen for a reason, because of it's meaning it has an accepted definition.  It means (according to merriam webster -  existing for a long or longer than usual time or continuously: as a: retained beyond the usual period persistent leaf> b: continuing without change in function or structure <persistent gills> c: effective in the open for an appreciable time usually through slow volatilizing persistent>  

2

a: continuing or inclined to persist in a course(see persist) b: continuing to exist despite interference or treatment persistent cough> persistent vegetative state for two years>

This is why the word was chosen, not because it can affect you, or because it can change but because it exists.  Actually there could be an argument made that it is persistant because it doesn't change.  However it is persistant because it exists when you are note there.   Period, end of story.

Venge

As for your update, please read this:

A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.

 

That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.

Wiki is all fine and good but it still not considered acceptable source of academic infomation, Merriam webster is.  Please site where Koster and Bartle agree with you, because I haven't read anything like that.

So please do you research next time. 

Are you kidding? Are you fucking kidding me? The dictionary definition of the word persistant outside of any context has nothing to do with the complex concept of virtual worlds. I knew more words when I was 16 than you will ever know in your life. I know what persistent means and I did not even have to consult a dictionary. That has nothing to do with the intended meaning of persistant worlds as understood by not only those 2 people but several other people who were instrumental in founding persistant world games both in and out of the mmorpg genre.

Attempting to quote the dictionary at me when the dictionary is known to not apply to this type of terminology just embarasses you.

I honestly don't even know what to do now. Your argument is just so disturbing to me that I had to take some of my meds to keep my brain under control.

The dictionary defintion has everything to do with.  The word was chosen to use in games because it has a specific definition.  Obviously you don't know what persistant means, because then you would know that it's meaning was the reason why it was chosen to define a feature of MMO's.  They did not change the definition, they chose the word because it's definition fits what they are trying to describe.

It is very apt, it directly applies.  The word was chosen for it's meaning. They didn't make up a new word.  Nor did they choose a completely different word like "Transience"  They choose the word persistance exactly because it has a specific meaning that describes what they were looking for.  

Your argument is full of fallacies and personal opinion.  Thats it, nothing more.

edit - 2ndly your wiki quote doesn't  really agree with you.

"A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent."

No where in that definition does it state that only changes that affect your character are defined as persistant.  It also doesn't even state that it is necessary to be able to make changes.  It just states the world exist and and changes to it's state are permanent.  Their could be an argument made that this means there MUST be changes that can be made, but IMO that would be a weak argument, and even than it only states "to some extent".

Meaning that once again the only defintion is that it continues to exist even after a user exits the world.  Which fits with the dictionary definition of to exist for long or a longer period of time.

edit 2 - and you can talk all you want about knowing more about MMO's, and I will gladly state you know more about coding.  However based on the arguments you've presented, the opinions you've stated I would say you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

edit 3 - and just for the epeen stroke, I highly doubt you will ever know more words than me.

My score on the SRI test way back in highschool, which essentially measures vocabulary was well over 2000. The average score of a gifted or AP student is about 1500-1700. I consistently score in the 99.9% percentile in any vocabulary measuring system.

AND and not AND IF. There is no conditional there. Of course you also claimed that you could read the minds of people inventing the genre in the 90s so maybe you live in a magical world where conditionals don't apply.

It took me 257 days to read this entire thread. Im out of a job, wife left me, kids wont even talk to me...

...well...my conclusion is: i agree with the OP.

Originally posted by smh_alot

Originally posted by Cuathon

As for your update, please read this:

A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.

 

That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.

 

In your definition, MMO's like EQ, CoX, WoW and possibly AC aren't persistent worlds since the player has less influence on the gameworld; sounds wrong to me, since dev content-driven MMO's (or themepark MMO's, or game focused design or however you want to call it) have less influence on the game world by players than sandbox styled worlds, yet they're still regarded as MMORPG's with persistent worlds.

 

That is, in your interpretation of course: I read it as that the world needs to continue to exist after they log out, and in the event that user-made changes happened to its state, that to some extent they are permanent. So, if no user-made changes happened then this part doesn't apply, but it'll still be a persistent world.

I am mostly talking about instances in this case. But to some extent I would say that themeparks aren't really persistent worlds. FYI props for spelling persistEnt right. Unlike the man quoting the dictionary at me who spells it persistAnt. Honestly that is probably the number one reason I can't respect anything he says.

In the sense that the game stores your current progress in quests I guess you could claim they are persistent, as in you make permanent changes to your position on the story in SWTOR. But that applies to single player games too.

I would make the AND vs AND IF argument to you as well. Your interpretation seems like it wants to have a conditional.

When the original persistent worlds were designed, such as UO, habitat, and also the muds they all followed my definition. The EQ style games came later. Also iirc EQ itself had persistent world changes, such as killing The Sleeper which many of its descendants didn't possess.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Subscriptions have been 15 bucks a month for almost a decade and in virtually every p2p and all freemium games you still get access to the entire game without a cash shop.  You just pay for expansions - the same as it has always been for almost all p2p games.

The living breathing worlds are still there, they are not even hidden.  Literally everything you did in EQ you can do in modern MMO's and a great many more things too.

It's just your perception, you need to take a break for awhile.  It happens to us all.

Venge

That sums up my position as well. 

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by smh_alot

Originally posted by Cuathon

As for your update, please read this:

A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.

 

That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.

 

In your definition, MMO's like EQ, CoX, WoW and possibly AC aren't persistent worlds since the player has less influence on the gameworld; sounds wrong to me, since dev content-driven MMO's (or themepark MMO's, or game focused design or however you want to call it) have less influence on the game world by players than sandbox styled worlds, yet they're still regarded as MMORPG's with persistent worlds.

 

That is, in your interpretation of course: I read it as that the world needs to continue to exist after they log out, and in the event that user-made changes happened to its state, that to some extent they are permanent. So, if no user-made changes happened then this part doesn't apply, but it'll still be a persistent world.

I am mostly talking about instances in this case. But to some extent I would say that themeparks aren't really persistent worlds. FYI props for spelling persistEnt right. Unlike the man quoting the dictionary at me who spells it persistAnt. Honestly that is probably the number one reason I can't respect anything he says.

In the sense that the game stores your current progress in quests I guess you could claim they are persistent, as in you make permanent changes to your position on the story in SWTOR. But that applies to single player games too.

I would make the AND vs AND IF argument to you as well. Your interpretation seems like it wants to have a conditional.

When the original persistent worlds were designed, such as UO, habitat, and also the muds they all followed my definition. The EQ style games came later. Also iirc EQ itself had persistent world changes, such as killing The Sleeper which many of its descendants didn't possess.

Originally posted by smh_alot

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by smh_alot

Originally posted by Cuathon

As for your update, please read this:

A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.

 

That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.

 

In your definition, MMO's like EQ, CoX, WoW and possibly AC aren't persistent worlds since the player has less influence on the gameworld; sounds wrong to me, since dev content-driven MMO's (or themepark MMO's, or game focused design or however you want to call it) have less influence on the game world by players than sandbox styled worlds, yet they're still regarded as MMORPG's with persistent worlds.

 

That is, in your interpretation of course: I read it as that the world needs to continue to exist after they log out, and in the event that user-made changes happened to its state, that to some extent they are permanent. So, if no user-made changes happened then this part doesn't apply, but it'll still be a persistent world.

I am mostly talking about instances in this case. But to some extent I would say that themeparks aren't really persistent worlds. FYI props for spelling persistEnt right. Unlike the man quoting the dictionary at me who spells it persistAnt. Honestly that is probably the number one reason I can't respect anything he says.

In the sense that the game stores your current progress in quests I guess you could claim they are persistent, as in you make permanent changes to your position on the story in SWTOR. But that applies to single player games too.

I would make the AND vs AND IF argument to you as well. Your interpretation seems like it wants to have a conditional.

When the original persistent worlds were designed, such as UO, habitat, and also the muds they all followed my definition. The EQ style games came later. Also iirc EQ itself had persistent world changes, such as killing The Sleeper which many of its descendants didn't possess.

 

The argument is an interesting one, albeit flawed imo. I haven't followed the discussion you people were holding, so I only respond upon that interpretation of 'persistent worlds' and instanced argument. But the general perception is that not only sandbox styled MMO's have persistent worlds, but EQ, EQ2, WoW, CoX, LotrO etc as well, even if the effect that players can have on the overall world is small to nonexistent, worlds like Azeroth are still considered persistent worlds.

 

Also, another thing to note: worlds like EQ2, AoC and TOR use instanced mechanics for parts of their worlds and LotrO has its housing instanced away, yet they also harbor some elements that are changed in the game world: TOR has its Ilum domination that show a different landscape depending who has the upper hand, EQ2 and LotrO have their (instanced) housing but that you can still visit even if a player isn't around, AoC has its guildcities and battle keeps that are different but still permanent even if instanced away, and so on. So, by the definition above, in whatever interpretation people might use, those are still persistent worlds.

 

I disagree with the interpretation you gave that quote though, overall perception since the beginning is that persistent worlds need to be around even and people going around their business in it, even when a player has logged out. Heck, even if for some reason everybody is logged out or nobody could log in yet, the world can still be around. Which applies to all MMO's like UO, EQ, EQ2, WoW, LotrO, TOR, AoC, Aion, etc.

Well I am not really concerned with overall perception. I would consider UO and EQ to be persistant worlds. Ilum in TOR does not count in my opinion. I am concerned with the practical effects of persistent worlds and I do not think that merely existing is meaningful. In ToR and current WoW discounting changes instituted by devs, playing now or 5 years ago is or 5 years from now will not change your experience. Nothing changes. Instances do not exist until you enter them also which applies to PvE and battlegrounds. Ilum does exist as a non instanced area, but its a drop in the bucket and it doesn't really change. The landscape doesn't really mean anything. Players can't control it aside from helping their side win. Instanced housing doesn't really MEAN anything. Houses play no significant part in the game. They are just glorified storage spaces.

Its a matter of opinion mostly though. I do not expect anyone to change their minds.

Originally posted by smh_alot

Originally posted by Amaranthar

I didn't say you were strictly a Themepark gamer. But you not only play them, and like them, you also seem to have a big issue with defending SWTOR. That's ok, but lets be real here.

SWTOR isn't instanced? Let me quote from this site (Torhead) this explanation of game play:

"SWTOR has a clear visual indicator around your menu bar to show which instance you’re in."

"If it’s gold, it’s your instance; you “spawned” the instance (usually by being the first to enter). If it’s red, it’s somebody else’s. If you mouse over the indicator frame, it will tell you whether or not you can complete missions inside this instance."

That isn't a persistent world. That's instancing at it's best.

 

I think you could say that TOR is a persistent world in the style of MMO's like EQ2 and AoC, that used this mechanic for their open world areas. Aion and LotrO did too, but to a somewhat lesser degree. From what I could discern so far, GW2 and TSW will likely use a sortlike mechanic in certain areas. It's a different structure than GW and Vindictus however, where most of the world isn't persistent at all.

My point is that the entire world is not persistent, only part of it. Some people want to remove the spaces for the modules that aren't persistent and only consider the part of the world that has persistency, and call that a game with a persistent world. But it's not entirely a persistent world.

Heck, as far as GW2, like some other games, even your character is no longer a persistent entity to the game, it changes depending on where you go and who else is there. This is different than growth, it's an outright change to your character on a temporary basis. Which is like Scaled content. That's not persistent when it changes according to who's there.

These games are so far from "persistent" these days, and yet somehow some people don't want to recognize that fact.

Persistence is not just being there. It's being the same thing that's there. If you walk into a room painted green and has wooden furniture and paintings on the walls, leave and return to find a room with dingy white walls with crumbling plaster and implements of torture instead of furniture, and there's no puzzle reason for the change, is that a persistent world you are in? The room never left. It's just a different room. But it's not the same, that room was not persistent.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by smh_alot

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by smh_alot

Originally posted by Cuathon

As for your update, please read this:

A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.

 

That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.

 

In your definition, MMO's like EQ, CoX, WoW and possibly AC aren't persistent worlds since the player has less influence on the gameworld; sounds wrong to me, since dev content-driven MMO's (or themepark MMO's, or game focused design or however you want to call it) have less influence on the game world by players than sandbox styled worlds, yet they're still regarded as MMORPG's with persistent worlds.

 

That is, in your interpretation of course: I read it as that the world needs to continue to exist after they log out, and in the event that user-made changes happened to its state, that to some extent they are permanent. So, if no user-made changes happened then this part doesn't apply, but it'll still be a persistent world.

I am mostly talking about instances in this case. But to some extent I would say that themeparks aren't really persistent worlds. FYI props for spelling persistEnt right. Unlike the man quoting the dictionary at me who spells it persistAnt. Honestly that is probably the number one reason I can't respect anything he says.

In the sense that the game stores your current progress in quests I guess you could claim they are persistent, as in you make permanent changes to your position on the story in SWTOR. But that applies to single player games too.

I would make the AND vs AND IF argument to you as well. Your interpretation seems like it wants to have a conditional.

When the original persistent worlds were designed, such as UO, habitat, and also the muds they all followed my definition. The EQ style games came later. Also iirc EQ itself had persistent world changes, such as killing The Sleeper which many of its descendants didn't possess.

 

The argument is an interesting one, albeit flawed imo. I haven't followed the discussion you people were holding, so I only respond upon that interpretation of 'persistent worlds' and instanced argument. But the general perception is that not only sandbox styled MMO's have persistent worlds, but EQ, EQ2, WoW, CoX, LotrO etc as well, even if the effect that players can have on the overall world is small to nonexistent, worlds like Azeroth are still considered persistent worlds.

 

Also, another thing to note: worlds like EQ2, AoC and TOR use instanced mechanics for parts of their worlds and LotrO has its housing instanced away, yet they also harbor some elements that are changed in the game world: TOR has its Ilum domination that show a different landscape depending who has the upper hand, EQ2 and LotrO have their (instanced) housing but that you can still visit even if a player isn't around, AoC has its guildcities and battle keeps that are different but still permanent even if instanced away, and so on. So, by the definition above, in whatever interpretation people might use, those are still persistent worlds.

 

I disagree with the interpretation you gave that quote though, overall perception since the beginning is that persistent worlds need to be around even and people going around their business in it, even when a player has logged out. Heck, even if for some reason everybody is logged out or nobody could log in yet, the world can still be around. Which applies to all MMO's like UO, EQ, EQ2, WoW, LotrO, TOR, AoC, Aion, etc.

Well I am not really concerned with overall perception. I would consider UO and EQ to be persistant worlds. Ilum in TOR does not count in my opinion. I am concerned with the practical effects of persistent worlds and I do not think that merely existing is meaningful. In ToR and current WoW discounting changes instituted by devs, playing now or 5 years ago is or 5 years from now will not change your experience. Nothing changes. Instances do not exist until you enter them also which applies to PvE and battlegrounds. Ilum does exist as a non instanced area, but its a drop in the bucket and it doesn't really change. The landscape doesn't really mean anything. Players can't control it aside from helping their side win. Instanced housing doesn't really MEAN anything. Houses play no significant part in the game. They are just glorified storage spaces.

Its a matter of opinion mostly though. I do not expect anyone to change their minds.

You're talking about a different thing, an evolving world.

Originally posted by Aletto

There was once a time where games felt like living, breathing worlds rife with opportunity. There was an in-game path to everything - every weapon, item, and companion. Now games are starting to feel more and more like half-filled display cases, with plenty of slots and spaces just waiting to filled - if you've got the money to spare.

It is not so much just the games that are dissapointing.. It's the new community.. They treat every game as an FPS game.. They want quick and dirty PvP with ratings and leaderboards.. They don't care about immersion.. or Worlds.. It's all about gear, ratings, and rankings. You can guess where this trend started, but during my time in SWTOR and RIFT , the instanced battlegrounds were mostly all people were concerned about..

Even games about PvP that take themselves more serious like Darkfall and MO, fail to reach the masses because they aren't quick and dirty (click2queue)..

It's not about being able to ride on a boat to a distant land with others, or carefully travelling a dangerous forest at night with lit torch to see.. It's about the tryhards showing you how good they mouse-turn and press hotkeys in an instanced arena..

Originally posted by Vyeth

Originally posted by Aletto

There was once a time where games felt like living, breathing worlds rife with opportunity. There was an in-game path to everything - every weapon, item, and companion. Now games are starting to feel more and more like half-filled display cases, with plenty of slots and spaces just waiting to filled - if you've got the money to spare.

It is not so much just the games that are dissapointing.. It's the new community.. They treat every game as an FPS game.. They want quick and dirty PvP with ratings and leaderboards.. They don't care about immersion.. or Worlds.. It's all about gear, ratings, and rankings. You can guess where this trend started, but during my time in SWTOR and RIFT , the instanced battlegrounds were mostly all people were concerned about..

Even games about PvP that take themselves more serious like Darkfall and MO, fail to reach the masses because they aren't quick and dirty (click2queue)..

It's not about being able to ride on a boat to a distant land with others, or carefully travelling a dangerous forest at night with lit torch to see.. It's about the tryhards showing you how good they mouse-turn and press hotkeys in an instanced arena..

Indeed. Sad times.

@cuathon

Once again you have not provided any reliable evidence.  You stated someone said something and then can't provide a reference.  You state you have this gifted SRI score, than can't provide a reference.  Sorry you saying it is not evidence.

Than you quote wiki which in any academic circle is not a reliable source of information specifically because it can be changed (seriously everyone who has done any research knows this.).

So your claims aren't valid.  There is no more argument, you haven't submitted anything valid.

Words have meanings, the word was chosen because it has a meaning.

Venge

edit - and in my country we have two official languages English and French.  The french word for persistence is persistANCE.  We commonly spell many words both ways.

And if your main reason for not taking me seriously is because I don't spell it the english way, than you are lost.  Spelling is one of the last resorts for an argument, right up there with attacking the person... oh wait you've done that too.  You have no argument.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

@cuathon

Once again you have not provided any reliable evidence.  You stated someone said something and then can't provide a reference.  You state you have this gifted SRI score, than can't provide a reference.  Sorry you saying it is not evidence.

Than you quote wiki which in any academic circle is not a reliable source of information specifically because it can be changed (seriously everyone who has done any research knows this.).

So your claims aren't valid.  There is no more argument, you haven't submitted anything valid.

Words have meanings, the word was chosen because it has a meaning.

Venge

edit - and in my country we have two official languages English and French.  The french word for persistence is persistANCE.  We commonly spell many words both ways.

And if your main reason for not taking me seriously is because I don't spell it the english way, than you are lost.  Spelling is one of the last resorts for an argument, right up there with attacking the person... oh wait you've done that too.  You have no argument.

 

I know what the french word for persistence is. But you said you looked it up in the dictionary. Normally spelling isn't a factor but you were quoting a dictionary at me. There is no reference for SRI scores or even proving say my 800 on the SAT in reading and my 36 on the ACT. Its not like there is a public website that stores this data. I could upload a digital photo of it but if you thought I was lying you could just say photoshop. The "academic" circles for the discussions of the video game genres are pretty much raph and bartle and garriot. Its not like you have 100 years of academic tradition. Wikipedia is considered to be about 99% accurate and is in fact more accurate than say, the encyclopedia britannica. Further, this is not a peer reviewed paper I am writing so your complaint about wiki doesn't hold up anyways.

You do understand that wiki cites references and that you can look them up don't you? Are you that incompetent? Honestly your arguments get more and more ridiculous. MUDs were the first persistent worlds and they involved permanent changes to the world. UO which was made by Garriot and Koster also had persistent world changes.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

@cuathon

Once again you have not provided any reliable evidence.  You stated someone said something and then can't provide a reference.  You state you have this gifted SRI score, than can't provide a reference.  Sorry you saying it is not evidence.

Than you quote wiki which in any academic circle is not a reliable source of information specifically because it can be changed (seriously everyone who has done any research knows this.).

So your claims aren't valid.  There is no more argument, you haven't submitted anything valid.

Words have meanings, the word was chosen because it has a meaning.

Venge

edit - and in my country we have two official languages English and French.  The french word for persistence is persistANCE.  We commonly spell many words both ways.

And if your main reason for not taking me seriously is because I don't spell it the english way, than you are lost.  Spelling is one of the last resorts for an argument, right up there with attacking the person... oh wait you've done that too.  You have no argument.

 

I know what the french word for persistence is. But you said you looked it up in the dictionary. Normally spelling isn't a factor but you were quoting a dictionary at me. There is no reference for SRI scores or even proving say my 800 on the SAT in reading and my 36 on the ACT. Its not like there is a public website that stores this data. I could upload a digital photo of it but if you thought I was lying you could just say photoshop. The "academic" circles for the discussions of the video game genres are pretty much raph and bartle and garriot. Its not like you have 100 years of academic tradition. Wikipedia is considered to be about 99% accurate and is in fact more accurate than say, the encyclopedia britannica. Further, this is not a peer reviewed paper I am writing so your complaint about wiki doesn't hold up anyways.

You do understand that wiki cites references and that you can look them up don't you? Are you that incompetent? Honestly your arguments get more and more ridiculous. MUDs were the first persistent worlds and they involved permanent changes to the world. UO which was made by Garriot and Koster also had persistent world changes.

Yes did quote the dictionary however there is more than one spelling of it and I used both.

Fair enough for the SRI but once again if you can't provide a reference, there is no point in mentioning it becuase we have no reason to believe you. 

Raph and Bartle are considered experts absolutely, but they are not the only experts, for you to think that is just silly. 

I don't need 100 years of tradition, what I do need is to be able to recognize a valid source and I can.

Wikipedia is not considered to be 99% accurate - this is not even a debate.  It is not accepted as a valid source of information in academic circles simple because it can so easily be changed - again not a debate.  The day may come when it is, but it is not there yet.  Yes they do cite references, which makes wikipedia a very good start to research - find out the common thinking than branch out from there.

And in the wiki definition of persistance it quotes several people  Deal, David (2007), ^ Marcellino, Bill and ^ James, Daniel (Ed.); Gordon Walton .  Not Raph or bartle, yes bartle is quoted elsewhere but you stated this is what raph and bartle, the apparently only experts in the field said but once again don't provide a reference.  Please provide this reference.  I'm not saying they didn't, I'm saying we have no reason to believe.  Just provide the reference.

So once again, you have provided any evidence, other than your word.  No one stated muds and UO were not persistant or that you couldn't change them.  I'm stating the word persistance has a specific defnition and it has only to do with length or time remaining the same.  You have not provided an any evidence of any kind and are once again just attacking the presenter.  You have no argument.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

@cuathon

Once again you have not provided any reliable evidence.  You stated someone said something and then can't provide a reference.  You state you have this gifted SRI score, than can't provide a reference.  Sorry you saying it is not evidence.

Than you quote wiki which in any academic circle is not a reliable source of information specifically because it can be changed (seriously everyone who has done any research knows this.).

So your claims aren't valid.  There is no more argument, you haven't submitted anything valid.

Words have meanings, the word was chosen because it has a meaning.

Venge

edit - and in my country we have two official languages English and French.  The french word for persistence is persistANCE.  We commonly spell many words both ways.

And if your main reason for not taking me seriously is because I don't spell it the english way, than you are lost.  Spelling is one of the last resorts for an argument, right up there with attacking the person... oh wait you've done that too.  You have no argument.

 

I know what the french word for persistence is. But you said you looked it up in the dictionary. Normally spelling isn't a factor but you were quoting a dictionary at me. There is no reference for SRI scores or even proving say my 800 on the SAT in reading and my 36 on the ACT. Its not like there is a public website that stores this data. I could upload a digital photo of it but if you thought I was lying you could just say photoshop. The "academic" circles for the discussions of the video game genres are pretty much raph and bartle and garriot. Its not like you have 100 years of academic tradition. Wikipedia is considered to be about 99% accurate and is in fact more accurate than say, the encyclopedia britannica. Further, this is not a peer reviewed paper I am writing so your complaint about wiki doesn't hold up anyways.

You do understand that wiki cites references and that you can look them up don't you? Are you that incompetent? Honestly your arguments get more and more ridiculous. MUDs were the first persistent worlds and they involved permanent changes to the world. UO which was made by Garriot and Koster also had persistent world changes.

Yes did quote the dictionary however there is more than one spelling of it and I used both.

Fair enough for the SRI but once again if you can't provide a reference, there is no point in mentioning it becuase we have no reason to believe you. 

Raph and Bartle are considered experts absolutely, but they are not the only experts, for you to think that is just silly. 

I don't need 100 years of tradition, what I do need is to be able to recognize a valid source and I can.

Wikipedia is not considered to be 99% accurate - this is not even a debate.  It is not accepted as a valid source of information in academic circles simple because it can so easily be changed - again not a debate.  The day may come when it is, but it is not there yet.  Yes they do cite references, which makes wikipedia a very good start to research - find out the common thinking than branch out from there.

And in the wiki definition of persistance it quotes several people  Deal, David (2007), ^ Marcellino, Bill and ^ James, Daniel (Ed.); Gordon Walton .  Not Raph or bartle, yes bartle is quoted elsewhere but you stated this is what raph and bartle, the apparently only experts in the field said but once again don't provide a reference.  Please provide this reference.  I'm not saying they didn't, I'm saying we have no reason to believe.  Just provide the reference.

So once again, you have provided any evidence, other than your word.  No one stated muds and UO were not persistant or that you couldn't change them.  I'm stating the word persistance has a specific defnition and it has only to do with length or time remaining the same.  You have not provided an any evidence of any kind and are once again just attacking the presenter.  You have no argument.

 

 

You keep trying to use the dictionary definition free of context. I already said that if you totally ignore context the dictionary definition of persistence is as you said. Also persistence does not have two spellings. The english spelling is with an E. Type it into google and you will see. Even the merriam webster dictionary displays only the E spelling.

When the term peristent world was coined the games that it described were the way I am defining a persistent world. They didn't use a different word because the WoW style of gameplay didn't exist so making the distinction between those games and the model at the time never came up.

I am bored with this argument. I will refer to what I previously refered to as persistent worlds as virtual worlds because its easier to find documentation of that description as involving actual changes to the world of the kind that don't really exist in WoW and SWTOR.

Happy? Argument solved.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

@cuathon

Once again you have not provided any reliable evidence.  You stated someone said something and then can't provide a reference.  You state you have this gifted SRI score, than can't provide a reference.  Sorry you saying it is not evidence.

Than you quote wiki which in any academic circle is not a reliable source of information specifically because it can be changed (seriously everyone who has done any research knows this.).

So your claims aren't valid.  There is no more argument, you haven't submitted anything valid.

Words have meanings, the word was chosen because it has a meaning.

Venge

edit - and in my country we have two official languages English and French.  The french word for persistence is persistANCE.  We commonly spell many words both ways.

And if your main reason for not taking me seriously is because I don't spell it the english way, than you are lost.  Spelling is one of the last resorts for an argument, right up there with attacking the person... oh wait you've done that too.  You have no argument.

 

I know what the french word for persistence is. But you said you looked it up in the dictionary. Normally spelling isn't a factor but you were quoting a dictionary at me. There is no reference for SRI scores or even proving say my 800 on the SAT in reading and my 36 on the ACT. Its not like there is a public website that stores this data. I could upload a digital photo of it but if you thought I was lying you could just say photoshop. The "academic" circles for the discussions of the video game genres are pretty much raph and bartle and garriot. Its not like you have 100 years of academic tradition. Wikipedia is considered to be about 99% accurate and is in fact more accurate than say, the encyclopedia britannica. Further, this is not a peer reviewed paper I am writing so your complaint about wiki doesn't hold up anyways.

You do understand that wiki cites references and that you can look them up don't you? Are you that incompetent? Honestly your arguments get more and more ridiculous. MUDs were the first persistent worlds and they involved permanent changes to the world. UO which was made by Garriot and Koster also had persistent world changes.

Yes did quote the dictionary however there is more than one spelling of it and I used both.

Fair enough for the SRI but once again if you can't provide a reference, there is no point in mentioning it becuase we have no reason to believe you. 

Raph and Bartle are considered experts absolutely, but they are not the only experts, for you to think that is just silly. 

I don't need 100 years of tradition, what I do need is to be able to recognize a valid source and I can.

Wikipedia is not considered to be 99% accurate - this is not even a debate.  It is not accepted as a valid source of information in academic circles simple because it can so easily be changed - again not a debate.  The day may come when it is, but it is not there yet.  Yes they do cite references, which makes wikipedia a very good start to research - find out the common thinking than branch out from there.

And in the wiki definition of persistance it quotes several people  Deal, David (2007), ^ Marcellino, Bill and ^ James, Daniel (Ed.); Gordon Walton .  Not Raph or bartle, yes bartle is quoted elsewhere but you stated this is what raph and bartle, the apparently only experts in the field said but once again don't provide a reference.  Please provide this reference.  I'm not saying they didn't, I'm saying we have no reason to believe.  Just provide the reference.

So once again, you have provided any evidence, other than your word.  No one stated muds and UO were not persistant or that you couldn't change them.  I'm stating the word persistance has a specific defnition and it has only to do with length or time remaining the same.  You have not provided an any evidence of any kind and are once again just attacking the presenter.  You have no argument.

 

 

You keep trying to use the dictionary definition free of context. I already said that if you totally ignore context the dictionary definition of persistence is as you said. Also persistence does not have two spellings. The english spelling is with an E. Type it into google and you will see. Even the merriam webster dictionary displays only the E spelling.

When the term peristent world was coined the games that it described were the way I am defining a persistent world. They didn't use a different word because the WoW style of gameplay didn't exist so making the distinction between those games and the model at the time never came up.

I am bored with this argument. I will refer to what I previously refered to as persistent worlds as virtual worlds because its easier to find documentation of that description as involving actual changes to the world of the kind that don't really exist in WoW and SWTOR.

Happy? Argument solved.

And I say you are wrong.  The dictionary defintion was used because it has a meaning.  That meaning is the same in MMO's. 

And again persistence does have two spellings, probably more, at least a french and english and in this country which has two official languages many words are swapped back and forth, persistance (see the change) is one of them.  Color, colour is another. as is aging and ageing,  esthetics and aesthetics, pediatric and paediatric, amortise and amortize... do you get it yet.

Please privide some evidence whosing that when the term was coined it meant what you say - you haven't done that, wiki does not agree with you. 

If it is easier to find the documentation than please provide it.  Until then the dictionary defnition fits with what I feel most people view persistance in MMO's as. 

You stated EQ is persistant, and yet EQ does not have any way to affect your character when you log off.  It strictly involves the world existing.

I was never unhappy.  I just argue stupidity.

You know you didn't actually post anything right? You just made a big quote.

Next week on Battle of the Network Pedants, Oedipus vs. Electra!  Be sure to tune in.