Anyway, I never said that change is bad, but change for the sake of change, in the name of "realism" is pointless when it comes to mmorpgs.
You're having an argument over 'change for the sake of change' but you seem to be forgetting that the 'sake' is market share and longevity.
Did you lose track or get confused?
So, in your opinion, the average player would be drawn to a game where negotiation and diplomacy are the primary ways of resolving conflict, rather than combat. Now while there are games that are non-combat-orientated, these are very much a niche category not mainstream. Your argument that such a game will produce greater market shares and longevity is simply false.
No, you are not understanding me. Combat should be a last resort, not a first one. That's how you give it meaning. When you finally get there, everyone knows it's on... and not just because some idiot is trying to game the wardec system, eh?
You folks are cutting off your nose to spite your face and you don't seem to see it. You trivialize the one thing you claim most to want, meaningful combat and conflict, and in doing, convince anyone not like you to drop out... then you complain about how dead PvP is... it's just fascinating.
I mean, nothing surprises me anymore, but damn. This is definitely a case of people walking a thousand miles to avoid running one. So sure, gold with open pvp and I'll see you in 6-9 months when it's free to play.
Neither game developers nor forum white knights seem to get that if you induce population crash, you actually get population crash.
Go figure.
Meaningful conflict and combat in an RPG comes from the story, much like how meaningful conflict and combat in a film or book comes from the plot. You could have the most badass fight sequence ever but without some kind of plot or story to drive it, the action is pointless.
Let's do a little thought experiment here. I want you to think of the most memorable fight scene in any book, film, TV show or game. Now, think about what made that fight so memorable. Chances are it was because you connected with the characters involved. You understand them and were rooting for them to win. This connection sucks you into the action and gets you invested in it.
No, you are not understanding me. Combat should be a last resort, not a first one.
But games are all about fun.
Combat is fun.
Why should we look for ways to avoid fun?
The only genre I can think of where avoiding combat is demanded of the player is survival horror, which in itself is a very niche genre.
Yeah, I can't think of any others either.
That would be because there aren’t any others. That’s the only type where you have to avoid combat.
I'm trying to think of any Roguelikes that see players need to avoid combat, but I came up against two major issues there.
The first is that while I know what a Roguelike game is (it is a game that is like the game Rogue...), I actually don't know of any other than Rogue, and have not played any at all - this makes it hard to think of one where you have to avoid combat.
The second issue is that Roguelikes are even more of a niche genre than survival horror (more niche than survival horror comedy with 8-bit graphics, I would assume), so even if I could think of one, it doesn't really change the points being made here at all.
0
Options
Undead CanuckMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yo, idiot. Please do not put words to my name . I did not say what you quoted. Please assign the correct quote to the correct person.
You all sound so much alike that a posting error doesn't really make much difference. (shrug)
But sure, treat a typo like an intention.... par for a forum course, itn't?
As for the rest - let's just say it's real hard to find things you're avoiding, folks.
Acts with a superiority complex, claiming everyone else is stupid and then resorts to the finest of all school-boy traditions:
"You disagree with my opinion so you must be an idiot, la la la la..."
Correction: Your projections are your problem. I don't have to be superior, just unconcerned.
Your self-inflated ego is obnoxious and I’m not sure if you have the social awareness to understand this, but people don’t like you. And it’s not because they’re “too stupid” or “trying not to understand” like you try to insist; it’s because you’re a know-it-all who actually knows very little at best as seen by posting articles that have little to no relevance to the points you assert, or is intentionally trolling people. I‘ll assume you’re doing it intentionally, but mostly since I would like to think no one could inherently have such a grating personality.
The short translation: People are gonna hate you in-game if you don’t learn to reign in your insults and annoying “tech speak” where it’s clearly not needed, wanted, or contextually relevant to the discussion.
Your self-inflated ego is obnoxious and I’m not sure if you have the social awareness to understand this, but people don’t like you. And it’s not because they’re “too stupid” or “trying not to understand” like you try to insist; it’s because you’re a know-it-all who actually knows very little at best as seen by posting articles that have little to no relevance to the points you assert, or is intentionally trolling people. I‘ll assume you’re doing it intentionally, but mostly since I would like to think no one could inherently have such a grating personality.
The short translation: People are gonna hate you in-game if you don’t learn to reign in your insults and annoying “tech speak” where it’s clearly not needed, wanted, or contextually relevant to the discussion.
I do love how you try to speak for everyone, particularly for Intrepid.
You seem to be missing my point - "unconcerned" means I don't care.
You are thinking to "threaten" me by telling me that if I don't act like you and the other little white knights want, you're gonna to "hate me"... oh B-O-O H-O-O!!
What you're actually doing is showcasing precisely the "toxicity" for which this particular niche is known.
Given that each of your reactions are to your own misconstruction, your own bias, or your own ignorance, or simply your own inability to just let differing opinions be, I'm not sure why you think that's anyone's issue (but your own) to resolve.
The idea that you think your judgment and toxicity matters is cute. I hope you're getting what you need out of it; I mean, you're working really hard for it.
The only one who came out swinging with judgement and toxicity is you. I don’t need to cite unrelated academic papers like some in order to see how people don’t enjoy your presence is a discussion, namely due to extreme amounts of condescension and abrasiveness paired with a complete lack of willingness to expand on your stance in a coherent way. Also, it may do you some good to actually make a brief google search so you understand what a white knight is.
I’ll be blocking you so don’t expect any more entertainment of your ”high society, low relevancy” ramblings, they haven’t provided any decent points yet. I’ll let noanni sufffer that special hell if they choose to.
Probably for the best given your inability to stay in context
You realize you've not actually been in context on any thread you've posted in, other than those you start, right?
I mean, your idea of entering a thread seems to be to disregard everything that has been said before, make a completely out of context statement, and then turn the thread in to a discussion on that.
I've not seen you reply to a single post in a thread that was posted before you posted in that same thread - which clearly shows a complete lack of consideration for other points of view.
That said, your most recent post on the combat tracker thread will have a response from me in a few hours - it's long enough that I want a proper keyboard.
Since it's clear no one is going to manage their own misunderstandings, I'll be heading on out of this thread.
But, to summarize for those who let the poo-flingers distract them:
- node design is not new in tech, in many other industries, nor, frankly, in gaming.
- the paper demonstrating that node design is and can be used for all kinds of things (hence the idea of modular, unique player paths through a game).
- nodes aren't new. they're only new if you're out of date.
Ya'll have fun now, y'hear?
We know that nodes aren't new. In fact, nodes as a general sense have been around since the 70's in computer science - that I know of.
We played BDO. It has nodes. Path of Exile uses a node system for it's skill tree, as do many other games.
It isn't the fact that this game is using the word "node" that is exciting - as that doesn't mean anything. It is what those nodes actually do - or what players can do with them - that is exciting.
When players talking about Ashes talk about "nodes", it isn't just the fact that it is a node that they are talking about - it is the fact that it is a game with a city that players can build and destroy and rebuild and make decisions about and vote on leadership.
There are games like travian or EVE online which are mainly interesting because they give players tools and free will to do whatever they want
They are realistic because you can lose everything there. In travian, some people spend 3k dollars per month and can lose everything if they are stupid or have bad luck
If you have more to lose in game (time, money and dedication for example), there are more emotions, calculation and good decisions
If someone in travian is annoying me, i can just remove him from game. Of course if he has influence, or big army himself, he can defend
It allows weak players with good diplomacy skills lead, same as midgets can be feared leaders of mafia. Even though weak physically, even try to do something against them and you are dead or worse
If one player is stupid enough to be warmongering, he won't mess up things for a long time. If you give people power to remove those they don't like, things begin to get interesting
If there are no consequences, and players can ruin game for everyone by let's say spawn killing, or doing bad decisions, that is good way to make a game a dead one
If better thing is to talk dragon out of attacking a city, so be it. If it's better to split than steal, let's do it. If peace is better than war, that's amazing. If you need mindless entertainment, go watch game of thrones or something
FPSs stand for 'first person shooters' so it's a game about shooting.
No one is going to push for gun control in shooter games, same as no one is going to lobby for removal of cars in car racers
MMORPGs stand for 'massve multiplayer online role playing games'. RPGs can be won without fighting, sometimes like in real life pushing for fight can make you lose, or get a bad ending. And, well, realistic role playing game is realistic. You don't pick up a fight with everyone, if you want to do so, go play league or counter strike. Or even wow, with stupid quests like 'go kill 10 dogs', doing things just for the sake of it.
Wow is pointless in general, we should go more in EVE tracks (eve is far from perfect tho).
Let's say in knights of the old republic you could kill 2 characters or make them join you. My friend was really surprised you don't have to fight with them.
And MMOs can have no fight involved at all
I really hope intrepid won't cater to degenerate desires of some smug murricans, only thinking about violence and guns. Don't waste good ideas trying to please brainlets
FPSs stand for 'first person shooters' so it's a game about shooting.
No one is going to push for gun control in shooter games, same as no one is going to lobby for removal of cars in car racers
MMORPGs stand for 'massve multiplayer online role playing games'. RPGs can be won without fighting, sometimes like in real life pushing for fight can make you lose, or get a bad ending. And, well, realistic role playing game is realistic. You don't pick up a fight with everyone, if you want to do so, go play league or counter strike. Or even wow, with stupid quests like 'go kill 10 dogs', doing things just for the sake of it.
Wow is pointless in general, we should go more in EVE tracks (eve is far from perfect tho).
Let's say in knights of the old republic you could kill 2 characters or make them join you. My friend was really surprised you don't have to fight with them.
And MMOs can have no fight involved at all
I really hope intrepid won't cater to degenerate desires of some smug murricans, only thinking about violence and guns. Don't waste good ideas trying to please brainlets
You are bringing up an idea of player agency, where a player is given a choice to play out situations how they please, and making the leap that less combat would be better in MMO. You bring up a single player example of being able to choose a non confrontational dialogue choice, in a game where the remaining 98 percent is forced combat. Especially in the multiplayer content. Conflict breeds good story. If there is no chance of combat, there is no conflict, and if combat has solid you lose situations, that's bad design.
@Ventharien good points. There are many ways to resolve conflict, violence isn't the only. I personally hate everything fake, including fake conflicts.
There should be a way to allow players to punish others for bad decisions, but also a way to resolve conflict without fighting/losing resources.
We can't have meaningless conflicts, fake artificial conflict without a point or meaningless fights.
Let's say some people are really annoying me with all shit they say. Or I annoy you because you disagree with me. We have true conflict right now, one side can prove they rights. By civil discussion, or, if one side will not listen, by war. There are other reasons for it too, like betrayal lets say. One player did a very bad decision of betraying the other, and now they can either resolve it peacefully, or, if it's a situation without hope, they can punish traitor by going to war with him. That war should have consequences for both sides. Also smaller scale, like if player has not perfect reputation he can be hunted or sth. It needs to be balanced, but if someone talks shit and will get hit, and will lose his time/money/dedication invested, he might rethink his stances on things. Things like "okay so now fight because i said so" is one way to make a game a dead one. Fake drama is also terrible, unless you can punish those talking shit, then that's good. If you really can hurt them They can learn not to do it next time. We don't need dopamine junkies with their constant nonsense conflict, instead of making new ways of drama let's educate people how to deal with problems in life - if this game will be realistic 'kingdom simulator', experience gained from this game can be actually used in real life, this time is not wasted
Very true, when the conflict has a meaning, it is that much more impactful from a narrative standpoint, and i think people just receive it better as well. But it is hard to balance that around the idea of a game. In the end, this isn't an educational game (though some people could possibly learn things), but one for entertainment. I'm all for giving players as many avenues as possible to play out how they want their character to be, but in the end, the world of Verra, as we have had it described to us; is one of mystery, danger, and magic. It is a hostile world, and combat will be at the center of us bringing civilization back to it.
0
Options
MeowsedMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Comments
Meaningful conflict and combat in an RPG comes from the story, much like how meaningful conflict and combat in a film or book comes from the plot. You could have the most badass fight sequence ever but without some kind of plot or story to drive it, the action is pointless.
Let's do a little thought experiment here. I want you to think of the most memorable fight scene in any book, film, TV show or game. Now, think about what made that fight so memorable. Chances are it was because you connected with the characters involved. You understand them and were rooting for them to win. This connection sucks you into the action and gets you invested in it.
Combat is fun.
Why should we look for ways to avoid fun?
The only genre I can think of where avoiding combat is demanded of the player is survival horror, which in itself is a very niche genre.
Yeah, I can't think of any others either.
That would be because there aren’t any others. That’s the only type where you have to avoid combat.
I'm trying to think of any Roguelikes that see players need to avoid combat, but I came up against two major issues there.
The first is that while I know what a Roguelike game is (it is a game that is like the game Rogue...), I actually don't know of any other than Rogue, and have not played any at all - this makes it hard to think of one where you have to avoid combat.
The second issue is that Roguelikes are even more of a niche genre than survival horror (more niche than survival horror comedy with 8-bit graphics, I would assume), so even if I could think of one, it doesn't really change the points being made here at all.
Yo, idiot. Please do not put words to my name . I did not say what you quoted. Please assign the correct quote to the correct person.
I think they must have lost track or got confused.
Acts with a superiority complex, claiming everyone else is stupid and then resorts to the finest of all school-boy traditions:
"You disagree with my opinion so you must be an idiot, la la la la..."
Your self-inflated ego is obnoxious and I’m not sure if you have the social awareness to understand this, but people don’t like you. And it’s not because they’re “too stupid” or “trying not to understand” like you try to insist; it’s because you’re a know-it-all who actually knows very little at best as seen by posting articles that have little to no relevance to the points you assert, or is intentionally trolling people. I‘ll assume you’re doing it intentionally, but mostly since I would like to think no one could inherently have such a grating personality.
The short translation: People are gonna hate you in-game if you don’t learn to reign in your insults and annoying “tech speak” where it’s clearly not needed, wanted, or contextually relevant to the discussion.
The only one who came out swinging with judgement and toxicity is you. I don’t need to cite unrelated academic papers like some in order to see how people don’t enjoy your presence is a discussion, namely due to extreme amounts of condescension and abrasiveness paired with a complete lack of willingness to expand on your stance in a coherent way. Also, it may do you some good to actually make a brief google search so you understand what a white knight is.
I’ll be blocking you so don’t expect any more entertainment of your ”high society, low relevancy” ramblings, they haven’t provided any decent points yet. I’ll let noanni sufffer that special hell if they choose to.
I mean, your idea of entering a thread seems to be to disregard everything that has been said before, make a completely out of context statement, and then turn the thread in to a discussion on that.
I've not seen you reply to a single post in a thread that was posted before you posted in that same thread - which clearly shows a complete lack of consideration for other points of view.
That said, your most recent post on the combat tracker thread will have a response from me in a few hours - it's long enough that I want a proper keyboard.
We know that nodes aren't new. In fact, nodes as a general sense have been around since the 70's in computer science - that I know of.
We played BDO. It has nodes. Path of Exile uses a node system for it's skill tree, as do many other games.
It isn't the fact that this game is using the word "node" that is exciting - as that doesn't mean anything. It is what those nodes actually do - or what players can do with them - that is exciting.
When players talking about Ashes talk about "nodes", it isn't just the fact that it is a node that they are talking about - it is the fact that it is a game with a city that players can build and destroy and rebuild and make decisions about and vote on leadership.
That is what is exciting - not the word "node".
There are games like travian or EVE online which are mainly interesting because they give players tools and free will to do whatever they want
They are realistic because you can lose everything there. In travian, some people spend 3k dollars per month and can lose everything if they are stupid or have bad luck
If you have more to lose in game (time, money and dedication for example), there are more emotions, calculation and good decisions
If someone in travian is annoying me, i can just remove him from game. Of course if he has influence, or big army himself, he can defend
It allows weak players with good diplomacy skills lead, same as midgets can be feared leaders of mafia. Even though weak physically, even try to do something against them and you are dead or worse
If one player is stupid enough to be warmongering, he won't mess up things for a long time. If you give people power to remove those they don't like, things begin to get interesting
If there are no consequences, and players can ruin game for everyone by let's say spawn killing, or doing bad decisions, that is good way to make a game a dead one
If better thing is to talk dragon out of attacking a city, so be it. If it's better to split than steal, let's do it. If peace is better than war, that's amazing. If you need mindless entertainment, go watch game of thrones or something
I'm sure we will. Whatever digital tripe you're insisting on sure doesn't sound like it though.
Up next for @ekadzati: heading over to a FPS game discussion board to push for a stronger gun control message.
No one is going to push for gun control in shooter games, same as no one is going to lobby for removal of cars in car racers
MMORPGs stand for 'massve multiplayer online role playing games'. RPGs can be won without fighting, sometimes like in real life pushing for fight can make you lose, or get a bad ending. And, well, realistic role playing game is realistic. You don't pick up a fight with everyone, if you want to do so, go play league or counter strike. Or even wow, with stupid quests like 'go kill 10 dogs', doing things just for the sake of it.
Wow is pointless in general, we should go more in EVE tracks (eve is far from perfect tho).
Let's say in knights of the old republic you could kill 2 characters or make them join you. My friend was really surprised you don't have to fight with them.
And MMOs can have no fight involved at all
I really hope intrepid won't cater to degenerate desires of some smug murricans, only thinking about violence and guns. Don't waste good ideas trying to please brainlets
You are bringing up an idea of player agency, where a player is given a choice to play out situations how they please, and making the leap that less combat would be better in MMO. You bring up a single player example of being able to choose a non confrontational dialogue choice, in a game where the remaining 98 percent is forced combat. Especially in the multiplayer content. Conflict breeds good story. If there is no chance of combat, there is no conflict, and if combat has solid you lose situations, that's bad design.
There should be a way to allow players to punish others for bad decisions, but also a way to resolve conflict without fighting/losing resources.
We can't have meaningless conflicts, fake artificial conflict without a point or meaningless fights.
Let's say some people are really annoying me with all shit they say. Or I annoy you because you disagree with me. We have true conflict right now, one side can prove they rights. By civil discussion, or, if one side will not listen, by war. There are other reasons for it too, like betrayal lets say. One player did a very bad decision of betraying the other, and now they can either resolve it peacefully, or, if it's a situation without hope, they can punish traitor by going to war with him. That war should have consequences for both sides. Also smaller scale, like if player has not perfect reputation he can be hunted or sth. It needs to be balanced, but if someone talks shit and will get hit, and will lose his time/money/dedication invested, he might rethink his stances on things. Things like "okay so now fight because i said so" is one way to make a game a dead one. Fake drama is also terrible, unless you can punish those talking shit, then that's good. If you really can hurt them
And omgosh, you guys are boring. I mean, it takes real skill to make something fun boring, I'm surprised.
Here I was thinking that was something you would never learn - you proved me wrong there.