I think it's a bit odd that people take this "I refuse to share my wealth," attitude as if that is the main issue.  To me, they come off as rather small minded in that you miss so many things that are included in the "big picture."  Let's suppose that we get national health care and are taxed more heavily.  In exchange for this tax there would need to be an overall increase in payroll period.  A big selling point of anyone's salary is knowing that they get benefits (medical, dental, etc.).  If we have national health care the money companies budget for health packages then becomes more or less free money they can then re-invest back into the company and hopefully the employees.

  If I stood back and really looked at just how many times I go to any doctor, in any given year; the amount typically comes out to about six visits averaging about 20-30 bucks to me each visit.  [I'm being very conservative as I make it a point to see my eye doctor three times a year, my general health doctor twice a year, a dermotologist at least once a year, and other specialty doctors for cancer checks/ physicals twice a year]  Now I've been told that I go to the doctor more times than a normal healthy American but I'll have to take my numbers as the norm simply because I don't much feel like looking up statistics.  Having seen the actual bill from these offices for the tests they run I'm often astonished at just how much all the crap cost, and this is just PREVENTATIVE tests.  I'm quite healthy save for dodgy vision.  My bills alone for just going in when nothing was actually wrong with me rounded out to approximately 2500 for the year, most which was covered by my medical benefits leaving me to only foot the bill on co-pays.

The point I'm trying to make is that in one way or another you get screwed over on the medical end of things as it is.  The question I'd pose is if you'd rather be screwed while helping each other (read: fellow man) or screwed while only "thinking" you're helping yourself.  Of course I'm just an average joe with little to no knowledge of the in's and out's of the industry.  Maybe I'm the one with the narrow view on things.

I'm sorry but I have to side with Perception on this one.  The list of Dad-friendly qualifiers is so...(what's the word) so vague.

1) What are the specifics of a reasonable amount of time?  If EQ2 can be viewed as reasonable then so too can WoW.  Secondly, what qualifiers serve as the benchmark for "progress."  Progress to me might be achieving max level while progress to someone else is a new weapon, or some crafting achievement, in which case one game for sure needs to be removed from the list.

2) To be entertained?  I'm not going to even speak on how open-ended that one is.

3) You don't have to invest an insane amount of time in EQ2 or CoX?  I guess that all comes down to the ends vs. the means argument, as well as your definition of progress.

4) A game that doesn't interfere with family?  Um...it's a game, if you don't plan and schedule around family time or don't find a social network that understands your parental responsibilities then the fault lies with "you" not the game.  While I played Everquest, WoW, CoX, Rag, etc we always had people who would leave at the drop of a dime to attend to family matters and it was perfectly fine with us (the guild/outfit).  I don't see how a game can ever interfere with family.

I guess this comes of negative but that list is just so subjective that it's sickening.   I suppose I see what you're trying to do but in the end it very much comes off as a shameless plug for your site.  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, just that a list with baseless criteria really carries no weight for anyone other than the small group which supports it.  If you had done a list that had more formal indicators such as:

A) Game allows one to level from base level to max level in a reasonable amount of time with steady loot acquisition.

-notice how I at least attempt to define the standards upon which I base "progression"

B) Allows for active, thought evoking, and fun game play with a minimal amount of time spent on remedial tasks.

-I again try to quantity what "entertainment" is.

C) A game that shows tangible character progression per hour/minute of time invested in the arena of....(gear, skill points, etc)

D) A game with mechanics structured around "short burst" play.

I'd preface this post with a question.  If I were to knowingly do the immature thing when I knew what the mature thing was...am I an immature person?

Definitions of immature:

Now for me a game, especially one of this genre(MMOs) pushes one to truly break away from reality.  You create an in-game avatar, you level it up and dress/customize it as you see fit.  I say this because though I don't act immature for the most part, I know I have my moments where I could care less about the right thing to do.  After working in a lab for 6 hours and then researching some problem associated with the lab work for an additional 4 hours; sometimes you just want to break loose.  And, sadly enough, when I choose to break loose often coincides with when I've logged into the "virtual world," of my choosing.

Now I have the tool set availble to step back and view my actions of inappropriate (what you'll call immature) behavior, but I can choose to go down that path because of my personal desire.

The point I'm attempting to make (and failing) is that maybe immaturity is the wrong word to use when trying to qualify a community associated with something that asks you to to become something other than yourself to begin with.  Everyone plays for his/her own reasons and maybe, sometimes people play to act like immature twats as a form of stress relief.

So, there really is no way for developers and players to make online communites feel more mature, unless you do as other have done in the past and enforce strict rules upon the community that inevitably drive away both the bad and good elements of said community.  If I had to suffer through the rules of good etiquette at work only to PAY to play in a world that enforces those same rules...why bother.  I'd also like to state that for me, maturity and common decency walk a very fine line.  While not necessarily being one in the same, they are closely related.

**Not saying I act like an idiot on a constant basis, I just like knowing that once in a while you can without be slapped by rules and regulations...if that makes any sense.

Just stop it.  Stop it right now.  I too have played that game and fall on the opposite end of the spectrum.  Complete grindfest with even more of a grindfest way to level skills.  Alas, I've come to expect more from MMO's so maybe it's just me.  Go ahead and try it - I know I quit and that was back when the game was entirely free.

I don't know very much about SoE but just from playing Planetside I can assume this is nothing more than a marketing strategy.  SoE isn't stupid or overly naive.  They know that a lot of people shy away from any "one" game that may be under their control.  The total value of any one SoE game in the MMO market doesn't equate to much of the gamer population; however, take the cumulative earning potential across each game and you have a light-weight WoW type following.

I started to think about this a bit more with the recent Planetside monthly fee increase.  I mean the game is losing people and developement has slowed to a snail's pace...so where is the justification for "increasing" the monthly fee to 15 bucks.  Then it dawned on me that a station pass is only 30 bucks.  Statistically speaking, the chance that I'd play another MMO (SoE or not) is pretty high.  Now add in the fact that for all intents and purposes each SoE MMO is relatively unique, and it stands to reason that maybe I'll end up having an interest in 2 SoE games.  I'd then have one of two options.  Pay for one and refuse to pay the other OR hype myself up to the point where I rationalize the station pass as being a good thing because I'd gain access to a whole bunch of of MMO's even though I know I'll never actually be whole-heartedly interested in them.

Once, I've purchased a station pass it would be harder still to actually stop using it simply because the logic behind the pass is actually pretty good.  It actually seems like quite the deal when SoE is slowly pushing for all their games to have a base price of 15 bucks a month.  So now even though I may not actually use the full potential of a station pass (to be fair no one really can unless you literally play atleast 20 hrs a day) I have it and have fooled myself into believing that I'm coming out ahead.  The catch to all this is that an MMO should be so immersing that you would only ever need one, but SoE knows that no one MMO they currently have is worth a damn.  (Personal opinion no flames needed)

So what does this do for SoE?  Oddly enough this gives them WoW like earning on PoS games.  I think the strategy is quite ingenious.  This ensures a steady amount of cash flow for lesser developed easily abandoned games.  If you get sick of one game you'll inevitably try the next piece of garbage in the list if only because it's there for your convenience.

Then SoE goes a step farther and actively seeks to acquire none crap games to make the pass seem even more desireable.  Blinded by the new game, you again will rationalize the 30 bucks and fool yourself into believing that it's a good deal.

The more I think about it the more it seems that a station pass ensures that SoE can continue to make and under develope PoS games and then basically hault development and await the next big thing.  No matter how you cut it, you will play one game more than the other and that will lead to you basically paying 15 bucks for the game you actually play and distributing the other 15 to the long forgotten PoS games that clutter the list which you occassion play.  I mean it really is a gem of a strategy to ensure continued financial support.

The plan is for the long-term.  Sure as assuredly as every great civilization falls - so too will any great MMO.  Wow was a blast for me for 2 years and now I hate it, but that's Blizzard's one trick MMO pony.  SoE on the other hand seems to more or less have a plan to monopolize the market "in the long-term" because they've actually planned for player burn out.  I'm done spouting on about my biased conspiracy theory so I'll end the post here.

I actually like the idea.  I mean after being deprived of capital raids in WoW due to bad design; I'd rather not have a capital than to worry with faction imbalances.  Truth be told I actually like being outnumbered in the underdog position so long as class balance isn't the issue holding my side back.  All things equal, the uderdog force often "has" to put e-drama aside and work together.  If it can happen with the WoW community I have absolute faith that WAR will be ok.  I say let the drums of war beat on and the feeble fall where they may.

If you're anything like me, then one good guild can make every other guild feel like absolute crap.  I'd say enjoy the journey and take the bad things each guild has and turn it into comedy.  Once you do find a good guild that you actually love, it'll be the best thing and the worst thing that ever happens to you.  You'll log in and actually want to speak to the member of your guild.  You'll actually get along and can handle the politics of the guild with little stress.  The downside is that the guild will become some dear to you that it becomes the "one," thing holding you to the game sometimes.  You soon notice this fact and start resenting the good guild for being....so...good.  It's all just a vicious cycle.  Do yourself a favor and just enjoy the entire guild hunting experience.

A coupla things about your post annoy me.  Firstly you keep saying "No, other MMORPGS didnt make your gear obsolete every expansion."  As far as I know WoW has only given you one true expansion.  (this assumes you follow the EQ definition of expansion which means 30-50 every year for new content)    So in their first expansion they manage to make a lot of the old gear obsolete.  Now far be it for me to see that they raised the level cap an additional 10 levels.  Also I'd have to neglect the fact that leading up to 60 I changed gear just about as often as a drank health pots.  In a game that basically centers around gear advancement I'm a bit awed by the fact that you wish it to be a stagnant thing.  I mean if your gear wasn't constantly becoming outdated exactly what would be left for you in WoW.

You make the case that gear in other games didn't become obsolete for several expansions.  If I look at where WoW started and where it is now in terms of PvE then I'd say WoW does not in fact, have a trend of making PvE gear absolute.  (even when considered against PvP)  There was Onyxia, then MC, then BWL, then AQ 20/40, and finally Naxx.  (forgive if I fumble as it has been a long time since I played WoW)  When those dungeons were added gear has a VERY linear progression to it.  You needed gear from MC to have a prayer in BWL, and even after getting BWL on farm there were still some bonuses from MC gear (such as priest 3 set item bonus) that people simply would not do without.

Secondly, you have this chip on your shoulder as if Blizzard has to answer to you and your personalized play style.  Why should the game have to cater to you?.  Why does every aspect of the game that disagrees with how you think things should be, have to be wrong or "lousy."  I, for one, was a pretty hardcore raider and I found the changes to TBC to be a breath of fresh air.  It was tedious work getting 40 people together on a continuous basis and dealing with loot politics.  Does that mean that Blizzard, or more specifically WoW, is not lousy?

PvE is skill based and PvP is time based.  I suppose I can grant you that claim as I've went though the hell of both grinds; however the PvP grind goes exponentially faster if you actually have skill and can kill enemies in multiple sitiuations.  When I did the grind, more kills, meant more honor, which meant I got my gear that much faster.  Next, you have beef with how fast classes can die in WoW.  Again, another game mechanic that you don't agree with makes the game lousy for you.  I rather appreciate the fact that battles were over and done with rather quickly.  Playing as a rogue once I was out of stealth literally every second was critical to the outcome of a battle.  That for me was exciting and gave me a bit of an adrenaline rush.

You last bit about allowing someone with skill to kill multiple enemies pretty much tells me right off how much *skill* you had.  People who embrace game mechanics and put in the time to gain the upper hand, do just that.  Granted gear gives you a slight to moderate advantage which can not be denied.

In summary, I'd ask you to re-evaluate the way you perceive things and ask if the game was lousy...or were you just a lousy player?  Sounds like an elitist question I know, but consider that the game was not made for you, and it has its own ruleset created by and possibly for someone that isn't you.

Originally posted by Gotrede
I bet Blizzard would want all the glory to themselves.. "Blizzard's a great company! Look at them actually fighting the gold farmers instead of all the other lame companies!" BAH!

Have you ever heard the expression "Damned if ya do - Damned if ya don't," because your reply epitomizes that expression.  A previous thread on this subject criticized Blizzard for not going after IGE because they wanted to simply give off the impression that they cared.  Now even after they actually choose to invest the money it'll take to bring up a lawsuit against IGE, you now spit in their face and criticize the method in which they choose to fight.  I mean Blizzard really is damned if they do take action or damned if they don't.

This is not meant as a personal attack at the poster I quoted so much as just a general notification of the irony that I often find on these mmorpg.com forums.

Originally posted by DarkDoctor

Ah... all my foolish years of being an athiest blow up in my face.

 

Clearly there is a god.

This is one of those gray area topics.  There is not current mechanic that can govern this problem.  WoW tried but inevitably griping attained record levels which led to the brain child known as "civilian NPCs"; which beget DKs and much much more griping.  For those that don't know how this evovled.  In WoW, initially, it was supposed to be setup such that upper level players COULD NOT attack LOWER LEVEL players that were gray, but it really wasn't a game mechanic intact that actually stopped it.  The thinking behind it was that the only way to get honor was if the lower level player started combat.  Needless to say there were several situations where this just didn't work, the most paramount of these being that people didn't much care about honor, so much as killing the opposite faction.

ANYWAY, back to the topic of WAR.  I'd like it if there was some truly creative way to handle this that didn't violate the laws of logic.  I mean if a Lieutenant runs into a pissant Private of the opposite faction; he doesn't simply let him pass.  Bad analogy I know, but the point remains the same.  I think it's plain stupid/pathetic that an upper tier player absolutely can not attack a lower tier player.  On the other hand I think it's extremely irritating to have griefing/ganking be the norm.

While I haven't thoroughly read through the whole "tracker," idea proposed in previous posts - I can say that from past game experience, whenever you involve NPCs in PvP the enjoyment factor seems to decline more and more.  World PvP in WoW became sooo NPC saturated (the more you attacked a town the more NPCs spawned) that people just stopped doing PvP raids all together regardless of the DK debackle.  So while I can't truly speak on your NPC ideda, I'm against ANYTHING that promotes NPC involvement in Player based PvP.

I definitely want to be Destruction assuming the "most people go good" trend that WoW had.  I like being the underdog so hopefully the forces of Destruction will need the numbers.  From looking at the classes I really like how the concept of the squig herder is being promoted.  I've played far too many melee classes and just need a change.  I've never been a fan of magic, so I'm hoping that ranged / pet combat is more to my liking.

What really caught my eye is the fact that I might be able to "put on my squig" and possibly go into melee combat.  For me anything that puts me more than 5 feet away from my opponent is far too impersonal.  When I kill someone I want them to know that it was me and I did it with a heart filled with malicious intent.  So yeah...squig herder for all the pointe blank and ranged action.

Wow, I actually got quite the bit of info.  Sorry, I'm more accustom to WoW forums; wasn't really expecting a straight detailed answer.  Anyway that's all I really wondered about.  And for the first poster - by "new" I meant someone half or less than half way experienced that I.  It's hard to quantify with no level system in WAR.  If I had to use tiers it'd be equivalent to a tier 1/2 against a tier 4.

Thanks again!

I'll start my stating that I've only played with a few MMORPGs; those being WoW, Planetside, and RO.  I know I know - that's not really a true mmorpg's pedigree but I thought it was worth stating anyway.  Though the afforementioned games are those that I have played (thoroughly played through and through) I've dabbled with DAoC and the like.  All of this background combined with some of the forum topics I've read lead me to my question.  Just how accessible do we want PvP to be.

What I mean is, I've seen people say that they want to be able to do meaningful PvP the first day, which is all well and good.  I tend to look "down the road."  What happens when I'm the war torn Black Orc with thousands of throphies?  At this point in the game I'd kinda dig the idea of being so godly that the typical noob wouldn't dare attack me.  Before you comment about how advancement in WAR will show on my characerter's trophies, beard, etc. - let's assume that the average noob is dumb and full of bloodlust.  I have to use a WoW example here.  For all its downfalls I rather enjoyed the balancing act they did with PvP.  Pretty much the only way to take down a lvl 60 if you weren't a lvl 55-60 yourself was to get extremely lucky or just gang up on him.  **Starting to notice how hard my point is to make**

Basically I don't want to be a veteran Black Orc and still have to use my entire mental capacity for every single battle.  Granted that's an assumption from a lazy WoW player but let's just go with it.  Maybe I like the idea of being approached by some fresh noob and slapping the ever living **explicative** out of them and putting the fear of God in their hearts.

So when I see these pleas for all out PvP that is "skill" based - I wonder if people know exactly what they are asking for.  I'm all for "skill based PvP" with an equally battletorn opponent.  I'm also open to losing to a highly skilled newcomer.  But in this quest for balance in skill based PvP, will it all just boil down to numbers?  That's my biggest fear.  This is just me thinking of course, but it seems that the only way to truly balance PvP around skills is to have veteran skills be slightly better than noob ones.  If that's the case this gap is easily overcome by the word "attrition."  Whoever has has the most will eventually win come hell or high water.

So final summary:

1.) Will skill based accessible PvP simply boil down to numbers?

2.) Is WAR balanced around solo or group PvP?

3.) Am I wrong for wanting to one shot noobs after having played for quite some time?