All Posts by Impacatus

Elitism.

I don't like it when people act like the people in their playstyle are the select few most mature and intelligent.

I don't like it when PvP advocates do it.

I don't like it when hardcore grinders do it.

I don't even like it when sandboxers or Rpers do it, even though I think both of those are good things.

You're only hurting yourself when you say that your playstyle makes you special or superior.  You're not likely to get the games you want unless you're willing to reach out to new people, and convince them they should join you, or at least that you can cooexist.

You're not likely to achieve that by going around calling them carebears and noobs, and telling them they're too stupid and immature to understand how awesome your playstyle is.

I wish I had more empirical data on this subject, but I personally feel that even if the concept is sound, the super-duper rich are not necessarily the best target.  Even though they do spend and invest their money, it seems like most huge companies have extensive dealings overseas, and as some people pointed out the money could just end up getting sent there.

Why not give the benefits to owners of small businesses instead?  The jobs and demand created would stay mostly within the same community, so it would have an immediate benefit on the local economy.  Not sure if this is true or not, but I heard that small businesses tend to employ more people proportionally than large corporations.  It would also encourage competition, which economically is considered a good thing. 

Actually, in theory, no matter who gets the tax cuts, the money should end up being distributed the same way by people buying, selling, and hiring etc.  However, the poor have a more immediate need for the money.  If you gave them a tax cut, they'd use the money to buy things from bigger companies, so in the end it would still end up in the hands of the super rich, except the poor would at least be able to buy some stuff.

Overall, however, it seems to me that demand side economics work better.

What you have to realize is that African Americans are a distinct cultural group with a shared history.  Things celebrating cultural groups are not uncommon.  There is, for instance, apparently an Irish American Heritage Month.

As for white Americans, anything that says "American" with no prefix is generally assumed to be about white Americans.  That alone should tell you something.

I think just about everyone wants racism to end completely, but you can't just ignore context and history.  Fact is, the black race and white race in America are not equivalent.  We want them to be, but there are a good number of people alive today who remember when they weren't equal under the law in some parts of the country.  Ignoring a problem and pretending it never existed is rarely the best way to solve it.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

The very fact that you're debating it is a clue into what audience the OP is trying to hit.

Korean and Chinese players seem to be equally comfortable paying-per-item and upgrade, as those kinds of games are very popular in those countries. Not sure if there is a cultural reason for it, but it is a fact.

While it is also a fact that a comparable number of Americans pay-per-item and don't complain, the percentages are much higher among players in other countries. I think micro-transactions are just irritating.

 

I personally prefer the EQ model of  "pay to enter, the rides are free."

Another version of a somewhat successful business model is what Runescape does. Basically the core game is free to play (forever), but the premium content is locked until you buy a subscription.

I actually like that business plan more than the others. It keeps the population steady and gives more to those who pay, and they don't have to worry about micro-transactions.

Not sure what you're saying.  I was debating it because it was a factual error, not because I have any particular loyalty to item shop games.  Like I said, I don't really like them either.

I would speculate that the reason for the different revenue models is that many people in Asian countries do not own PCs.  Playing online games requires a special trip to an internet cafe.  While westerners know they can get their money's worth by squeezing in play time in between other activities, people in Asian countries may not like playing for time they may not use.  I would guess that's why time cards and item shops are more popular than monthly fees, but it's just speculation.

I think there is some merit to that though.  Often, if you get bored of a game for awhile, you still have to keep paying so they don't delete your characters.  If you suddenly get very busy for a week, you still need to pay the same at the end of the month.

No payment system is perfect.  While I normally think these boards are relatively representative, I don't believe the average player is as idealistic as the people on these boards.  I imagine most players are passive receivers of the entertainment, only judging games based on how much they're entertained.  People on these boards are very against microtransactions, but I'm not sure how many people even have an opinion.

All I'm saying is the statement that RMT doesn't work is wrong, and the statement that most players are against it is up for debate.

Originally posted by Squal'Zell

you just have to make sure the game is not loot based, and anything that is worth having could only come from crafters and how good your item is will depend what ressources quality and skill (and possible chance) that the crafter used.

example. john is a crafter he looked around for hours looking for some higher quality ressource and makes a sword and with some chance and luck manages to get ridiculous stats

jane will o nthe other hand slap a few ressources together, making the same sword but in the end its stats and durability will be good for 1 swing.

so you have 2 swords of the same type, that you can't loot anywhere, so you will go and decide which do you want the good sword or the bad sword (note that the bad can be your training sword since its cheap and easy to replace)

(i forgot where i was going with this.... ) oh yeah, so if you make crafters valuable in any way or another, you will have a thriving economy, in the example above the 2 crafters managed to sell their swords, granted at different prices, this creates interindependency and a good economy.

now if you are able to craft your stuff and fight as well (or have 2 toons) you can easely be self sufficient. what would be the point of MMO then? much like every linear game out there that is solo friendly. i call those SPORPG (single player online rpg) since you can easely go do anything you need to do without ever talking to anyone.

You're still ignoring the imbalance.  Making a game where some people fight and some people craft, that's fine.

Making a game where everyone fights and only a few craft and suck at the thing everyone needs to do, that's not fine. 

This is essentially what an open pvp game does.  Not everyone needs to craft, because they can buy what they need.  But crafters can't really buy protection from the fighters.  So they need to fight.  The game is set up so every one needs to fight, but not everyone can.  This is a flaw.

Originally posted by Squal'Zell

you would be surprised on how many people would choose to be crafters, its a harder path since you need to find a way to get your materials all in all without getting killed by NPC and PCs. look at SWG (precu) all the features of space, combat systems, bases 32 professions, and people still picked entertainers and musicians and remained in cantinas doing what they liked,

i for one would really want to try crafting profession in a game like darkfall just to see its challenges and (like its only 1 character per server) get known as a known crafter.

but now we are far from the difference between pvp and grieffeing topic no?

Correct me if I misunderstood, but from your OP I gathered this thread was a comparison of level and skill based pvp systems.

I did play a non-combat character in SWG.  It was fun, but being useless in combat kind of sucked when 90% of the content and gameplay seemed to be designed for fighters.  I imagine it would be even worse in an open, free for all pvp system.

If you're going to design the game so that EVERYONE has to do something, you need to at least give everyone the opportunity to gain the necessary abilities.  Making someone choose between fighting and crafting makes no sense when one is absolutely essential to the game.

Yes, you can make a game where crafting is just as important, but it's relatively easy to buy what you need from other players.  Finding a fighter to do nothing but follow you around all day while you go about your business who also always happens to be on whenever you are is not so easy.

BTW, I'm glad you liked my post on that other thread.  I never got a chance to thank you, so thank you.

Originally posted by javac

Originally posted by Impacatus

Originally posted by javac

A sandbox MMO without conflict (PVP) is like a movie without conflict -- boring.

 

i don't get why people are so afraid of PVP and being looted if you lose. if gear is easily replaced, who cares?

If gear is easily replaced, can you have an economy?  Rewarding PvE quests?  Useful, player skill based crafting?

sandbox games have a much stronger economy than themepark games, because the consequences of dying are usually greater, and there are usually game mechanics in place to ensure that money is drained out of the economy (eg: gear decay/loss, NPC taxes and charges, etc). in a PVP full-looting game, crafters are so much more valued because most of the gear you wear is made by them.

I'm not talking about sandbox games, I'm talking about games where gear is "easily replaced".

So you have to buy your gear from crafters.  Do you have so much money that affording this isn't a problem?  This sounds like an unbalanced economy, one that's unfair to the crafters. 

Is the crafting game so easy that crafters never have trouble keeping up with demand?  This means there's no challenge, and crafting probably isn't fun. 

Are all crafted items identical, so there's no difficulty in finding the best equipment?  This again sounds like a boring crafting system if there's no way to increase the effectiveness of your equipment.

Taking out any of these things would make it less easy to replace equipment.  However, I don't see how you could have them all in while still having an economy, good quest rewards, and/or a fun crafting system.

Vinceh-

You keep insisting that you understand how these games would work, and yet you keep insisting that they wouldn't.  What conclusions am I supposed to draw from that?

If you heard someone say they know how a light bulb works, yet insist that it's impossible to generate light from electricity, don't you think you might conclude they don't know how a light bulb works?

Irrelevant in that, those types of games he discussed is purely in his imagination. To actually go from thought -> real game, it would need to be dumbed down so much that it wouldn't really be "sandbox" anymore. Look at AoC, look at how much they offered in their videos before launch. Now look at how much they took out in order to make the game easier. Complication = bugs/exploits = bad playability. I'm not saying those games wouldn't be nice, but in the current state of the gaming industry (and probably valid for the near future), we don't have the tools to build a functional complex system that doesn't invovle horrible bugs/holes. The science simulation would probably be the best example that could be well translated into a game, but like I said before, I don't see how that wouldn't involve some kind of killing/destruction, so that basically takes it out of the question since it would argue against his argument.

Great, except I showed you an example of a business game that works fine, and is fun to play.  There are also already single player political simulations, and they work fine.

Yes, you'd have to dumb these games down from real life, but no more than combat is dumbed down from real life.

Originally posted by javac

A sandbox MMO without conflict (PVP) is like a movie without conflict -- boring.

 

i don't get why people are so afraid of PVP and being looted if you lose. if gear is easily replaced, who cares?

If gear is easily replaced, can you have an economy?  Rewarding PvE quests?  Useful, player skill based crafting?

I'm not opposed to the idea of PvP.  But it all depends on the game.  It works for some games, not for others.  Saying every game needs any one feature is almost ludicrous.

Originally posted by vinceh

Originally posted by Impacatus

I read your whole post, and all I got from it is you don't understand how games with those themes could work, and wouldn't want to play them.  Neither of these things invalidate what he said.

Oh hey look, a business game has even been done.

 

Are you playing that game?  How much the gaming community is playing that game?  Such a small number that it doesn't even matter?  Round 55 had about 1000 people?  I haven't heard of the game, and I'm pretty sure most of the people in these forums haven't heard of it either.  Obviously you missed when I said that obviously it would be nice to have a game with those themes, and I didn't say people haven't tried developing those kinds of games.  I'm not trying to say his views are invalid, I said they're irrelevant.  Maybe you can't understand reality?  I'm trying to communicate the truth of things, and you're saying I'm trying to attack his argument.  When in the beginning of the post I agreed with what he said. 

Yes it's a small game, but it's still a game.  For the record, I'm not playing it because I don't like the restart every round system.

Let's look at what you posted.

Sure, I think what you're saying makes SENSE. But is it really realistic? You're kind of going off into la-la land here.

I took this to mean you don't think games like that could be made.

You then go on to talk about the problems you see with these game types.  I won't quote it because it's too long.  You keep asking, "How would that be fun?"  I'm pretty sure this means you either don't understand how these games would work, and/or don't think you'd like them.  From this, I concluded you don't think those things are viable as genres for games.

My point is, sure, a game where you put your leet business skills to the test would be great, or maybe even some sort of political game. But let's face it, there's only 2 possibilities. 1. The game is made to really reflect real life <- but this is impossible, because real life is too complicated to be simulated into a game. 2. The game is a dumbed down version of real-life, but then it'll suck because of the restrictions the game has put on the players in order for it to be playable.

This further indicates to me that you don't think that type of game would work.

That's why games set in the fantasy world where people killing monsters work - the concept is simple enough for devs to actually produce a playable and what some people might consider fun.

Compared to monster killing games, which work ok, according to you.

So really, I think the stuff you're saying is quite irrelavent.

Irrelevant to what?  This thread is titled, "Sandboxes don't need PvP, at all".  He made that post in argument to those who think they do.  Any evidence of the possibility of a sandbox without PvP is relevant.

Sorry, sometimes the stuff I say might get a little harsh. But I just think even if a game based on business was developed, I wouldn't call it an MMO, even if it technically was, just like how I wouldn't call McDonalds food.

I can't think of how you expect that part to be taken, except as derogatory to the idea of business based mmos.  Your personal distaste of them does not make them less viable as a concept.

Anyways, that's how I took your post.  If I really misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

I read your whole post, and all I got from it is you don't understand how games with those themes could work, and wouldn't want to play them.  Neither of these things invalidate what he said.

Oh hey look, a business game has even been done.

Originally posted by vinceh

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by tarkin1980

I think your analogies with cars and elections are pretty far fetched. The fact is that most, if not all MMO's are all about running around armed to the teeth and killing stuff. Therefor, not being able to kill other players is a hell of a lot more restraining than not being able to ride in a car. That's why a sandbox without PvP isn't a sandbox. Now, if the game doesn't have weapons and combat, that's a whole other matter. Let's say we have a game that's about frolicking around and picking flowers. Yea, it would probably be more restraining to not be able to put them together into a nice bouqet than not being able to kill the other frolickers (Well, not really, but...). Point is that weapons and killing everything that moves is the whole point of 99% of all online games out there. Why should player characters be immune to other player character's force? It just doesn't make sense.

 

It makes perfect sense. Not every game has to be about killing other players, or killing anything for that matter. A game could just as easily be a massive economic simulation where you pit your leet business skills against other players. It could be an exploration game where you pit your skills discovering new territories and exploiting their resources against other players. It could be a political simulation where you attempt to convince others to support your agenda or defeat anothers. It could be a science simulation where you attempt to release germ warfare on your enemies population while protecting your own. You might as well say any game without elves isn't an MMO because so many games have them.

 

 

Sure, I think what you're saying makes SENSE.  But is it really realistic?  You're kind of going off into la-la land here.  Let's take your possibilities as examples.  A game where you use business skills against other players.  I mean, in what way?  Does the devs develop a game where anything goes in the business world, like in real life?  Then how would that be fun at all?  Do you not know how real world business operates?  An exploration game wouldn't be fun either.  I mean, you're trying to be the first to discover new territories?  Like..I'm the first person to step on this piece of land, I get 1 point?  Even if you arrive 0.1 sec after me, magically there is this marker on this piece of land that has my name on it?  What happens after you get the territory?  How do you actually compete then?  And if we were to par that with a more realistic view, shouldn't we be able to somehow fight each other for land/resources?  It would really depend on your setting, but ultimately I think that theme has a violent core.  A political simulation.  Who are you convincing?  Who is the "voters"?  Other players? And really, it's definitely not only about "supporting one's agenda" when it comes to elections or what not ( I don't think I need to go any further on this).  Science simulation.  Germ warfare, how does that not involve killing at all?  If you aren't killing each other's population then you're killing NPCs?  Like let's have a contest, let's see who can kill the same NPCs population faster?  How is that fun?  My point is, sure, a game where you put your leet business skills to the test would be great, or maybe even some sort of political game.  But let's face it, there's only 2 possibilities.  1.  The game is made to really reflect real life <- but this is impossible, because real life is too complicated to be simulated into a game.  2.  The game is a dumbed down version of real-life, but then it'll suck because of the restrictions the game has put on the players in order for it to be playable.  That's why games set in the fantasy world where people killing monsters work - the concept is simple enough for devs to actually produce a playable and what some people might consider fun.  So really, I think the stuff you're saying is quite irrelavent.  Sorry, sometimes the stuff I say might get a little harsh.  But I just think even if a game based on business was developed, I wouldn't call it an MMO, even if it technically was, just like how I wouldn't call McDonalds food.

 

-Vincent

So the basic concept that there can be games about something other than killing is flawed because you personally don't like or understand anything else?

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by tarkin1980

I think your analogies with cars and elections are pretty far fetched. The fact is that most, if not all MMO's are all about running around armed to the teeth and killing stuff. Therefor, not being able to kill other players is a hell of a lot more restraining than not being able to ride in a car. That's why a sandbox without PvP isn't a sandbox. Now, if the game doesn't have weapons and combat, that's a whole other matter. Let's say we have a game that's about frolicking around and picking flowers. Yea, it would probably be more restraining to not be able to put them together into a nice bouqet than not being able to kill the other frolickers (Well, not really, but...). Point is that weapons and killing everything that moves is the whole point of 99% of all online games out there. Why should player characters be immune to other player character's force? It just doesn't make sense.

 

It makes perfect sense. Not every game has to be about killing other players, or killing anything for that matter. A game could just as easily be a massive economic simulation where you pit your leet business skills against other players. It could be an exploration game where you pit your skills discovering new territories and exploiting their resources against other players. It could be a political simulation where you attempt to convince others to support your agenda or defeat anothers. It could be a science simulation where you attempt to release germ warfare on your enemies population while protecting your own. You might as well say any game without elves isn't an MMO because so many games have them.

Yeah, what he^ said.

Although biological warfare is an interesting idea of a "science simulator". 

I think there's one area skill based games have failed in the past.  Both UO and SWG made this mistake.  You have a skill based system, so that people can both craft and fight.  Good so far, but then you make enough combat skills to fill up an entire character.  When I played UO, you could have 7 different skills maxed out, and there were more than 7 skills that increased your combat effectiveness,  SWG had the same problem, as I mentioned.

So fighters can devote their entire template to combat and the crafters can't.  After a certain point, the crafter has to sacrifice crafting ability to improve combat ability.  Seems fair, you can either choose combat or crafting.

Except in an open pvp system, fighters can force crafters to fight, but crafters can't force fighters to craft.  So the griefers are always going to be 100% combat and have a huge advantage over those who devote part of their template to something else.

Sandboxes are supposed to resemble real life, right?

Quick poll:  How many people here have ever killed someone?  Probably not many.

How many have ridden in a car?  Probably a lot.  Does that mean we can't have a sandbox without cars?

How many of you have voted in an election?  Probably a lot.  Does that mean we can't have a sandbox without elections?

How many of you have eaten to avoid hunger?  Probably all of you.  Does that mean we can't have a sandbox without starvation?

How many of you have gotten sick, injured, and/or seen a doctor?  Probably all of you.  Does that mean we can't have a sandbox without illness and health care?

These may be fine things to have, but I fail to see why the exclusion of any one of them disqualifies a game as a sandbox, and I don't see what's so special about PvP compared to the others.

I think what people are missing is there are many, many things we can do in the real world that we can't do in games.  If killing and looting was replaced with something else, that would not necessarily be a net loss of freedom.

Originally posted by polypterus

I suppose you have a point; however the revenue is no where near WoW and the game quality looks pretty poor. It looks more like an old video game. It's not really the kind of game I would be looking to build but if you are only in it for the money maybe that's a good rout.

In any case I still suspect most serious MMORPG players would not like this model; however I could be wrong. We personally plan to go with the subscription model. Coming from an old paper and pencil RPG background, paying real cash for items just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Again I admit this is my personal take on it though.

On a side note I found this in the news, http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_277891.html.LOL! Anyone who spends $10,000 bucks on an online game has a serious problem. I'm wondering how much of there revenue is coming from addicts. I guess it's better than a drug addiction though.
 

It's a hugely popular game worldwide.  Last time I went to Taiwan, I saw their merchandise all over the place.  It's not the only game to use this business model either.  Mabinogi, by the same company, is another example.

It's true there's a lot of opposition to this type of model.  It probably depends on your target audience.  I don't like the way it's usually done myself.  But like that news story shows, it is a very viable business model.  How many subscription games can collect $10,000 from one player?  A few people spending like that could more than make up for the players who play for free, and the games are usually designed so that even "normal" people find it necessary to pay something like a monthly fee.

piotrsan-  Now that you mention it, it could be taken that way, but I didn't get that impression.

I don't think if I tried I could think of something more pathetic than acting tough and badass because of the video games you play.

I agree with this thread.  This ties to a point I made awhile back.  Players take it for granted that all