Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

has there ever been an MO that had...Follow

#1 Dec 27 2012 at 12:06 PM Rating: Default
****
4,995 posts
PVP Raids?


that sounds like a cool idea.. i wonder if its been implemented.. for example two opposing factions of players enter the same raid... the goal is obviously clear the raid and get to/beat the last boss... however the addition is not only do you have to deal with these monsters you also gotta watch your back from the players of the other faction trying to take you out too (but the same can be said in the reverse)... as for the boss maybe theres only one boss.. so at the end if both factions make it there.. they maybe have to battle it out and the last group standing earns the right to take on the boss and get the loot (if they win) or maybe the factions fight eachother WHILE fighting the boss (though i dont see how that would work for loot. or maybe the boss is so hard both factions have to band together to take it down.. only to start stabbing eachother in the back (literally) to get the loot etc etc.

(though i think having the boss battle locked until one faction takes down the others i the only one of tho e scenarios that would make any balance and logical sense)


anything like that ever been done?
#2 Dec 27 2012 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
**
676 posts
I've never done this personally, but isn't there something like this in wow? Also it sounds like what world vs world would be like in Guild Wars 2. I haven't done either one, but it's what I'd imagine those to be like.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1789917[/ffxivsig]
#3 Dec 27 2012 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
Severely uninterested in PVP. If I wanted that I'd go to WoW or GW2. I have no desire to fight others, I'd rather team up to take on the game itself.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#4 Dec 27 2012 at 12:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Maybe? It's not exactly a revolutionary concept and those sorts of encounters can be a tremendous source of player frustration. For example, if you were creating a simple game of capture the flag around that idea (e.g., paintball where both teams are pursuing the same flag, which is guarded by a neutral team) it tends to be more frustrating than fun. It creates a prisoner's dilemma at the heart of the game, which if you don't know what that is, look it up. Short answer, one or both teams get screwed and are not happy about it.

Did a similar game like this not long ago with three individual teams trying to defeat one enemy team. One of the teams decided to attack the other two, players got frustrated, and the game broke down before anyone could complete the objective.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#5 Dec 27 2012 at 1:03 PM Rating: Default
****
4,995 posts
Kachi wrote:
Maybe? It's not exactly a revolutionary concept and those sorts of encounters can be a tremendous source of player frustration. For example, if you were creating a simple game of capture the flag around that idea (e.g., paintball where both teams are pursuing the same flag, which is guarded by a neutral team) it tends to be more frustrating than fun. It creates a prisoner's dilemma at the heart of the game, which if you don't know what that is, look it up. Short answer, one or both teams get screwed and are not happy about it.

Did a similar game like this not long ago with three individual teams trying to defeat one enemy team. One of the teams decided to attack the other two, players got frustrated, and the game broke down before anyone could complete the objective.



the only frustration I could see is after taking all that time to get through the raid the team loses the battle to the other team and thus losing the chance to fight the boss and get the loot thus in the end they wasted an hour or so of their time.... and also the fact thatt he best PVP team in game might have a monopoly on said raid cause no one could beat them and ever get a chance at those items.. but in that case I say.. if you dont want frustration well you knew what you were signing up for before you decided to do it.... dont do that raid... problem solved lol
#6 Dec 27 2012 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
The problem is the "just don't do it" mentality ignores the importance of incentives in video games. Part of what makes video games fun is the pursuit of player goals. When you design an encounter, if players are going to want to do it at all, there needs to be some incentive. When you design the event so that one team will cause the other to fail and the objective isn't directly to "beat the other team", you're creating a strong possibility that players will be frustrated with the opposing teams who interfere with their objective, if not frustration with the game entirely.

As I said, I played a game that followed that format not long ago, and most players found it frustrating and boring, so they quit. It's generally not wise to design encounters that most players won't like on the basis that, "if they don't like it they shouldn't play it."

It's not that it isn't possible to do, but here's the bottom line: PVP is easy to balance and developers still don't do it very well. PVE is much harder to balance for. Balance is essential to the incentive process because it defines the meaningfulness of win/loss feedback. When you combine both objectives into one encounter, you're probably going to **** it up something fierce.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#7 Dec 27 2012 at 1:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
Avatar
**
676 posts
Wint wrote:
Severely uninterested in PVP. If I wanted that I'd go to WoW or GW2. I have no desire to fight others, I'd rather team up to take on the game itself.


I couldn't agree more with this. I'm hoping SE balancing out PvP and everything else isn't going to cause both of them to be severely limited and lack luster. Personally, I think they should drop the whole PvP concept and focus mainly on the real meat of the game. It would be rather unfortunate if the addition of one of them had a severe impact on the experience of the other.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1789917[/ffxivsig]
#8 Dec 27 2012 at 1:49 PM Rating: Default
****
4,995 posts
Kachi wrote:
The problem is the "just don't do it" mentality ignores the importance of incentives in video games. Part of what makes video games fun is the pursuit of player goals. When you design an encounter, if players are going to want to do it at all, there needs to be some incentive. When you design the event so that one team will cause the other to fail and the objective isn't directly to "beat the other team", you're creating a strong possibility that players will be frustrated with the opposing teams who interfere with their objective, if not frustration with the game entirely.

As I said, I played a game that followed that format not long ago, and most players found it frustrating and boring, so they quit. It's generally not wise to design encounters that most players won't like on the basis that, "if they don't like it they shouldn't play it."

It's not that it isn't possible to do, but here's the bottom line: PVP is easy to balance and developers still don't do it very well. PVE is much harder to balance for. Balance is essential to the incentive process because it defines the meaningfulness of win/loss feedback. When you combine both objectives into one encounter, you're probably going to @#%^ it up something fierce.




i have to disagree because all an MMO is is a living breathing VIRTUAL world... and just like real life theres are a MILLION things to do but NONE of us will ever do ALL of them nor are any of us interested in doing ALL of them.. so the things we dont wanna do just dont get done.. but that doesnt mean the option o do those things shouldnt exist for the people who DO want to do them... if thats fine in real life then I dont see why it isnt fine in a virtual world either
#9 Dec 27 2012 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
**
676 posts
DuoMaxwellxx wrote:
Kachi wrote:
The problem is the "just don't do it" mentality ignores the importance of incentives in video games. Part of what makes video games fun is the pursuit of player goals. When you design an encounter, if players are going to want to do it at all, there needs to be some incentive. When you design the event so that one team will cause the other to fail and the objective isn't directly to "beat the other team", you're creating a strong possibility that players will be frustrated with the opposing teams who interfere with their objective, if not frustration with the game entirely.

As I said, I played a game that followed that format not long ago, and most players found it frustrating and boring, so they quit. It's generally not wise to design encounters that most players won't like on the basis that, "if they don't like it they shouldn't play it."

It's not that it isn't possible to do, but here's the bottom line: PVP is easy to balance and developers still don't do it very well. PVE is much harder to balance for. Balance is essential to the incentive process because it defines the meaningfulness of win/loss feedback. When you combine both objectives into one encounter, you're probably going to @#%^ it up something fierce.




i have to disagree because all an MMO is is a living breathing VIRTUAL world... and just like real life theres are a MILLION things to do but NONE of us will ever do ALL of them nor are any of us interested in doing ALL of them.. so the things we dont wanna do just dont get done.. but that doesnt mean the option o do those things shouldnt exist for the people who DO want to do them... if thats fine in real life then I dont see why it isnt fine in a virtual world either


I don't know about you, but if this game continues to keep my attention after they re-launch it, I plan to do EVERYTHING at least 1 time.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1789917[/ffxivsig]
#10 Dec 27 2012 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I think you're confusing wanting to do something with wanting to achieve something. Humans very frequently delay gratification to meet their goals and have a good time. If I decide I want Kirins Magic Sword because it has a cool ability that I really really want, but then I learn that I'm going to have to do 1000 hours of some PvP game that I don't like, then I now have to choose between the sword or doing something fun. Goal conflict is NEVER an element of good game design. It is almost the definitive opposite of fun.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#11 Dec 27 2012 at 2:15 PM Rating: Default
****
4,995 posts
Kachi wrote:
I think you're confusing wanting to do something with wanting to achieve something. Humans very frequently delay gratification to meet their goals and have a good time. If I decide I want Kirins Magic Sword because it has a cool ability that I really really want, but then I learn that I'm going to have to do 1000 hours of some PvP game that I don't like, then I now have to choose between the sword or doing something fun. Goal conflict is NEVER an element of good game design. It is almost the definitive opposite of fun.




thats how life is.. not everything we want can be gained in a fun way.

for example i dont like going to work everyday.. if i could stay home all day and do thing i ENJOY doing i most definitely would, I go because i HAVE to not because I WANT to.


but in order to get and do what i DO want I have to do thing i DONT want.. so in otherwords the ends justifies the means....


Im bored for 40 hours a a week but seeing that paycheck every two weeks makes the boredom I endure worth it

so if you dont think kirins magic sword is worth 1000 hours of pvp you dont like, Im sure there are people out there who WILL think its worth indulging in that torture. Its impossible for a game to make content that EVERYONE is gonna be interested in.. but making ENOUGH content that will please SOME means SOMEONE(sO will do the content. I dont think Ive played a single game where there was an event/content so bad that out of 7000 ppl playing on the server that there wasnt at LEAST 100 ppl that gave a crap about said content.. and as long as THAT is achieved then the devs didnt waste their time making it.


Its just like those stupid holiday event MMOs have.. I dont care about them but i see enough ppl doing them that clearly SOMEOEN does care... but since I dont care for em that means that should be made? what kinda logic is that?
#12 Dec 27 2012 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Play =! work. In fact, they're polar opposites.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#13 Dec 27 2012 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
I think you're screaming into a hurricane Kachi Smiley: tongue
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#14 Dec 27 2012 at 2:27 PM Rating: Default
****
4,995 posts
Kachi wrote:
Play =! work. In fact, they're polar opposites.



that generally what i used to think.... and then I started playing MMORPGs....



"hmmm item i wants cost 7 million"... farming gil nets me maybe 30k-150k n hour depending on what i do (sure I might get lucky and get a high priced loot drop in an instanced battle.. but thats like winning the lottery) so back to getting my gil the hard way.. which is 30-150k an hour to buy a 7mil gil item.... you do the math.... I dunno about you but that DEFINITELY sounds like work to me.

Edited, Dec 27th 2012 2:28pm by DuoMaxwellxx
#15 Dec 27 2012 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Don't get me wrong; plenty of MMO's use work elements. Those are the things that "play"ers hate. An ideal game requires as little work as possible. It's 100% fun and play. Of course no MMO will ever achieve that, but that doesn't mean that you don't try at all to make the game more play and less work.

Wint wrote:
I think you're screaming into a hurricane Kachi Smiley: tongue


I know. I'll keep doing it until I'm bored. Then I'll stop. Because fortunately, convincing him isn't my goal :p See how that works?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#16 Dec 27 2012 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,169 posts
Moar liek WoW?

What people would consider the original AV of MMOs is exactly like you described. Defeat the opposing faction's NPCs to win.

Edited, Dec 27th 2012 3:39pm by FilthMcNasty
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#17 Dec 27 2012 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,314 posts
swisa wrote:
I've never done this personally, but isn't there something like this in wow? Also it sounds like what world vs world would be like in Guild Wars 2. I haven't done either one, but it's what I'd imagine those to be like.

There are two versions of this in WoW that I can think of. Version 1 was the world bosses when on PvP servers. It's most like what's described. The second is city leaders, where the players in the city all basically functioned like adds for the raid boss. There were some player abilities that were ridiculous for griefing in those cases, such as the Death Knight ability Mark of Blood, which healed the raid boss for something like 4% of its maximum health every time the marked person hit it(or was it every time they hit the marked person?).

Actually, just thought of a third one. Old school Alterac Valley had several bosses that functioned like city leaders do.
DuoMaxwellxx wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Play =! work. In fact, they're polar opposites.



that generally what i used to think.... and then I started playing MMORPGs....
It's not just MMOs. A lot of games nowadays use a model that basically turns them into second jobs(usually bypassed by spending real world money in an official store to avoid the grind). I think it's pretty prevalent in Facebook games.
#18 Dec 27 2012 at 2:54 PM Rating: Default
****
4,995 posts
Kachi wrote:
Don't get me wrong; plenty of MMO's use work elements. Those are the things that "play"ers hate. An ideal game requires as little work as possible. It's 100% fun and play. Of course no MMO will ever achieve that, but that doesn't mean that you don't try at all to make the game more play and less work.

Wint wrote:
I think you're screaming into a hurricane Kachi Smiley: tongue


I know. I'll keep doing it until I'm bored. Then I'll stop. Because fortunately, convincing him isn't my goal :p See how that works?



more play and less work in an mmo will never happen because the goal of an mmo is to keep ppl playing and paying for years... which means content that take insanely long to get to the point that it feels like work.


if everything can be achieved by everyone in 3 months whats to keep then playing for 4+ years like the MMOs of the old days kept ppl hooked for that long and longer? (everquest, FFXI for example) ppl played those games for years because they goals they wanted to achieve took so long to achieve that it pretty much WAS a second job lol.


games that dont have those features dont keep ppl interested very long -cough- dc universe online -cough-


you can literally hit max level in 8 hours then teh endgame content consist iof doing teh same 10 daily quests (which can only be done one a day) teh same 7 duos (only once a day) teh same 8 alerts (once a day) and teh same 4 raids (which can only be done once a week)


lets see that keep you interested for longer than 3 months
#19 Dec 27 2012 at 2:57 PM Rating: Decent
**
325 posts
Also remember that what one person considers work or boring or time-wasting or not-fun might be enjoyable and rewarding to another player...
#20 Dec 27 2012 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

more play and less work in an mmo will never happen because the goal of an mmo is to keep ppl playing and paying for years... which means content that take insanely long to get to the point that it feels like work.


That's really not a foregone conclusion. You can even look to GW2 for an example of an MMO where it's easy to achieve everything in a few months (not saying I think GW2 is a great MMO, but it shows that it can be a viable business model).

Secondly, you're assuming that it has to be boring if players do it a lot. Ask people who play any sport or strategy game seriously for many years if they find it boring. Look at people who truly enjoy their jobs so much that they do it for 70 hours a week just because. If the gameplay provides for dynamic and novel challenges, a game can be fun almost indefinitely.

Quote:
Also remember that what one person considers work or boring or time-wasting or not-fun might be enjoyable and rewarding to another player...


Of course play and work are subjective. That goes without saying. What defines work and play are the reason for the person's behavior, not the designers intention. Is it for the reward, or because it's fun? In games, you strive for an ideal combination of both. The problem for game designers is finding those things which are enjoyable and rewarding to the larger number of players.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#21 Dec 27 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
DuoMaxwellxx wrote:
PVP Raids?


that sounds like a cool idea.. i wonder if its been implemented.. for example two opposing factions of players enter the same raid... the goal is obviously clear the raid and get to/beat the last boss... however the addition is not only do you have to deal with these monsters you also gotta watch your back from the players of the other faction trying to take you out too (but the same can be said in the reverse)... as for the boss maybe theres only one boss.. so at the end if both factions make it there.. they maybe have to battle it out and the last group standing earns the right to take on the boss and get the loot (if they win) or maybe the factions fight eachother WHILE fighting the boss (though i dont see how that would work for loot. or maybe the boss is so hard both factions have to band together to take it down.. only to start stabbing eachother in the back (literally) to get the loot etc etc.

(though i think having the boss battle locked until one faction takes down the others i the only one of tho e scenarios that would make any balance and logical sense)


anything like that ever been done?


GW2 has "Bosses" in their stuctured PvP maps. If your team wants to risk taking the time to kill one, you get bonuses ( i forget what exactly, havent SPvPed since beta.). Its a cool little addition. I believe the WvW map also now sports some kind of PvP dungeons (not sure if instanced, but dont think so) as well.

The problem with trying to control the PvP experience too much, is that PvP by its very nature is more akin to player generated content. Which is in part why it is so **** fun.
____________________________
monk
dragoon
[ffxivsig]477065[/ffxivsig]
#22 Dec 27 2012 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,995 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:

more play and less work in an mmo will never happen because the goal of an mmo is to keep ppl playing and paying for years... which means content that take insanely long to get to the point that it feels like work.


That's really not a foregone conclusion. You can even look to GW2 for an example of an MMO where it's easy to achieve everything in a few months (not saying I think GW2 is a great MMO, but it shows that it can be a viable business model).

Secondly, you're assuming that it has to be boring if players do it a lot. Ask people who play any sport or strategy game seriously for many years if they find it boring. Look at people who truly enjoy their jobs so much that they do it for 70 hours a week just because. If the gameplay provides for dynamic and novel challenges, a game can be fun almost indefinitely.

Quote:
Also remember that what one person considers work or boring or time-wasting or not-fun might be enjoyable and rewarding to another player...


Of course play and work are subjective. That goes without saying. What defines work and play are the reason for the person's behavior, not the designers intention. Is it for the reward, or because it's fun? In games, you strive for an ideal combination of both. The problem for game designers is finding those things which are enjoyable and rewarding to the larger number of players.


you wont find a strategy or sports game thats played everyday boring for years because every person you play with will have a different outcome, even if the game is the same the way you reach the end will be different...

just like playing chess everyday... no two matches will be the same unless youre playing with the SAME person everyday for years...

so yeah against another human being the same content wont be boring..

but when youre pplaying against ai wher eteh same strategy is gonan work everytimwe (take dynamis for example) yeah tahst gonan get boring after awhile
#23 Dec 27 2012 at 7:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
656 posts
instead of Raids
how about a level-capped tournament once in a while where you can fight others.
three groups

Single
Duo
Trio

Each person/group pay an entry fee of 1,000gil (keep it low to attract more players to join) and then they randomly assign you in a knock out tournament, winner takes all plus an exclusive gear/item for the winner.
____________________________
モスタル


#24 Dec 27 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,995 posts
Mostaru wrote:
instead of Raids
how about a level-capped tournament once in a while where you can fight others.
three groups

Single
Duo
Trio

Each person/group pay an entry fee of 1,000gil (keep it low to attract more players to join) and then they randomly assign you in a knock out tournament, winner takes all plus an exclusive gear/item for the winner.



well most games that have PVP arena combat have that anyway.. and considering FFXIV supposedly will have arena PVP... i would think we shouldnt have to ask for tournaments when every other MMO with the same type of PVP has them already


i mean heck they had those godawful ballista tournaments afterall
#25 Dec 27 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
you wont find a strategy or sports game thats played everyday boring for years because every person you play with will have a different outcome, even if the game is the same the way you reach the end will be different...

just like playing chess everyday... no two matches will be the same unless youre playing with the SAME person everyday for years...

so yeah against another human being the same content wont be boring..

but when youre pplaying against ai wher eteh same strategy is gonan work everytimwe (take dynamis for example) yeah tahst gonan get boring after awhile


Computer Chess, Tetris, Rock Band/Guitar Hero, Smash Bros. Series... just a few examples of games that are essentially PVE that maintain sufficient novelty and challenge to maintain player engagement for very long periods of time.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#26 Dec 27 2012 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
374 posts
DuoMaxwellxx wrote:
PVP Raids?


that sounds like a cool idea.. i wonder if its been implemented.. for example two opposing factions of players enter the same raid... the goal is obviously clear the raid and get to/beat the last boss... however the addition is not only do you have to deal with these monsters you also gotta watch your back from the players of the other faction trying to take you out too (but the same can be said in the reverse)... as for the boss maybe theres only one boss.. so at the end if both factions make it there.. they maybe have to battle it out and the last group standing earns the right to take on the boss and get the loot (if they win) or maybe the factions fight eachother WHILE fighting the boss (though i dont see how that would work for loot. or maybe the boss is so hard both factions have to band together to take it down.. only to start stabbing eachother in the back (literally) to get the loot etc etc.

(though i think having the boss battle locked until one faction takes down the others i the only one of tho e scenarios that would make any balance and logical sense)


anything like that ever been done?



Or maybe both sides get an enemy at the end which fights on their side against the remaning player-opponents.

I.e. clear out the raid, and then after some set time or event, 2 dragons (a red one and a blue one, or whatever....) fly onto the battle field. One fights for red team, the other for blue, and then you see who is left at the end.
#27 Dec 27 2012 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
Mostaru wrote:
instead of Raids
how about a level-capped tournament once in a while where you can fight others.
three groups

Single
Duo
Trio

Each person/group pay an entry fee of 1,000gil (keep it low to attract more players to join) and then they randomly assign you in a knock out tournament, winner takes all plus an exclusive gear/item for the winner.


the issue with an Arena system (what you are describing) such as what WoW has, is that all of a sudden class balance becomes a whole new beast. Devs have start balancing classes around 2v2 or 3v3 engagements, where people are going to bring the most OP composition they can find.

I'm not saying its a bad idea, or that its not doable, or even that i wouldnt want it. But there's gonna be enough issues surrounding team-based PvP as it is. Maybe further down the line.
____________________________
monk
dragoon
[ffxivsig]477065[/ffxivsig]
#28 Dec 27 2012 at 7:53 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
Avatar
**
374 posts
Kachi wrote:
I think you're confusing wanting to do something with wanting to achieve something. Humans very frequently delay gratification to meet their goals and have a good time. If I decide I want Kirins Magic Sword because it has a cool ability that I really really want, but then I learn that I'm going to have to do 1000 hours of some PvP game that I don't like, then I now have to choose between the sword or doing something fun. Goal conflict is NEVER an element of good game design. It is almost the definitive opposite of fun.



Hmmm, you say humans frequently delay gratification to meet their goals, however videogame players are a subset of humans. There is also a higher than normal percentage of individuals with ADD in the videogame player subset. Videogames are on the few tasks individuals with ADD can focus on for extended periods of time. Point being, one of the hallmarks of ADD is inability or disinterest in delaying gratification to meet a particular goal.

Obviously there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, however these are broad generalizations which can be applied to the pathology (for lack of better terms) of ADD.

Edited, Dec 27th 2012 9:28pm by je355804
#29 Dec 27 2012 at 8:01 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
je355804 wrote:
Kachi wrote:
I think you're confusing wanting to do something with wanting to achieve something. Humans very frequently delay gratification to meet their goals and have a good time. If I decide I want Kirins Magic Sword because it has a cool ability that I really really want, but then I learn that I'm going to have to do 1000 hours of some PvP game that I don't like, then I now have to choose between the sword or doing something fun. Goal conflict is NEVER an element of good game design. It is almost the definitive opposite of fun.



Hmmm, you say humans frequently delay gratification to meet their goals, however videogame players are a subset of humans. There is also a higher than normal percentage of individuals with ADD in the videogame player subset. Videogames are on the few tasks individuals with ADD can focus on for extended periods of time. Point being, one of the hallmarks of ADD is inability or disinterest in delaying gratification to meet a particular goal.

Obviously here is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, however these are broad generalizations which can be applied to the pathology (for lack of better terms) of ADD.


[citation needed]

Also, I would hardly consider gamers a "subset" of humans, considering the statistics on gaming these days.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#30 Dec 27 2012 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
374 posts
Kachi wrote:
je355804 wrote:
Kachi wrote:
I think you're confusing wanting to do something with wanting to achieve something. Humans very frequently delay gratification to meet their goals and have a good time. If I decide I want Kirins Magic Sword because it has a cool ability that I really really want, but then I learn that I'm going to have to do 1000 hours of some PvP game that I don't like, then I now have to choose between the sword or doing something fun. Goal conflict is NEVER an element of good game design. It is almost the definitive opposite of fun.



Hmmm, you say humans frequently delay gratification to meet their goals, however videogame players are a subset of humans. There is also a higher than normal percentage of individuals with ADD in the videogame player subset. Videogames are on the few tasks individuals with ADD can focus on for extended periods of time. Point being, one of the hallmarks of ADD is inability or disinterest in delaying gratification to meet a particular goal.

Obviously here is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, however these are broad generalizations which can be applied to the pathology (for lack of better terms) of ADD.


[citation needed]

Also, I would hardly consider gamers a "subset" of humans, considering the statistics on gaming these days.



Not subset in a condescending way. Subset, meaning a portion of the whole. i.e. All gamers are humans, however not all humans are gamers.

Citation -- I am a doctor, and I did research on ADD during my psych rotations and electives in medical school. I myself have ADD and therefore I found it interesting to explore while in school.

Edit - The statements I made in my initial post are simply criteria in the DSM-IV Clinical Psychiatry Diagnostic handbook used to classify and diagnose ADD. I suppose that is a more proper citation.

They weren't just observations I have made on my own.

Edited, Dec 27th 2012 9:31pm by je355804
#31 Dec 27 2012 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,995 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
you wont find a strategy or sports game thats played everyday boring for years because every person you play with will have a different outcome, even if the game is the same the way you reach the end will be different...

just like playing chess everyday... no two matches will be the same unless youre playing with the SAME person everyday for years...

so yeah against another human being the same content wont be boring..

but when youre pplaying against ai wher eteh same strategy is gonan work everytimwe (take dynamis for example) yeah tahst gonan get boring after awhile


Computer Chess, Tetris, Rock Band/Guitar Hero, Smash Bros. Series... just a few examples of games that are essentially PVE that maintain sufficient novelty and challenge to maintain player engagement for very long periods of time.



computer chess = increase difficulty

tetris = increase difficulty

rock band/guitar hero = try to get perfect score on every song on the hardest difficulty



whereas FFXI... there is no option to increase difficulty and the same strategy you used on the dynamis lord today will still work tomorrow..


so yeah with the games you listed i can see WHY theyd maintain interest even without playing with another player (that is until you manage to meet the goals i listed)
#32 Dec 27 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Your statement was that an MMO would never be able to maintain that level of engagement. I showed how that's untrue. Is it true for FFXI? No, not at all. FFXI would need drastic changes to generate that level of engagement.

je355804 wrote:
Kachi wrote:
je355804 wrote:
Kachi wrote:
I think you're confusing wanting to do something with wanting to achieve something. Humans very frequently delay gratification to meet their goals and have a good time. If I decide I want Kirins Magic Sword because it has a cool ability that I really really want, but then I learn that I'm going to have to do 1000 hours of some PvP game that I don't like, then I now have to choose between the sword or doing something fun. Goal conflict is NEVER an element of good game design. It is almost the definitive opposite of fun.



Hmmm, you say humans frequently delay gratification to meet their goals, however videogame players are a subset of humans. There is also a higher than normal percentage of individuals with ADD in the videogame player subset. Videogames are on the few tasks individuals with ADD can focus on for extended periods of time. Point being, one of the hallmarks of ADD is inability or disinterest in delaying gratification to meet a particular goal.

Obviously here is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, however these are broad generalizations which can be applied to the pathology (for lack of better terms) of ADD.


[citation needed]

Also, I would hardly consider gamers a "subset" of humans, considering the statistics on gaming these days.



Not subset in a condescending way. Subset, meaning a portion of the whole. i.e. All gamers are humans, however not all humans are gamers.

Citation -- I am a doctor, and I did research on ADD during my psych rotations and electives in medical school. I myself have ADD and therefore I found it interesting to explore while in school.

Edit - The statements I made in my initial post are simply criteria in the DSM-IV Clinical Psychiatry Diagnostic handbook used to classify and diagnose ADD. I suppose that is a more proper citation.

They weren't just observations I have made on my own.

Edited, Dec 27th 2012 9:31pm by je355804


My comment was more geared towards the extremely large number of the population who play video games. I doubt that gamers have any particular susceptibility to ADD. In fact, they are often able to participate in activities that demand high delay of gratification... including many video games themselves (consider EQ1 and FFXI as prime examples).

Our credentials are similar, both personally and professionally, wherein ADD is concerned, but I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of the relationship between ADD and videogames.

Related note, but many, many clinicians opposed the changes in the DSM-V related to the overdiagnosis of ADD. I signed the petition that many APA's branches put forth myself.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#33 Dec 27 2012 at 9:23 PM Rating: Default
****
4,995 posts
Kachi wrote:
Your statement was that an MMO would never be able to maintain that level of engagement. I showed how that's untrue. Is it true for FFXI? No, not at all. FFXI would need drastic changes to generate that level of engagement.

je355804 wrote:
Kachi wrote:
je355804 wrote:
Kachi wrote:
I think you're confusing wanting to do something with wanting to achieve something. Humans very frequently delay gratification to meet their goals and have a good time. If I decide I want Kirins Magic Sword because it has a cool ability that I really really want, but then I learn that I'm going to have to do 1000 hours of some PvP game that I don't like, then I now have to choose between the sword or doing something fun. Goal conflict is NEVER an element of good game design. It is almost the definitive opposite of fun.



Hmmm, you say humans frequently delay gratification to meet their goals, however videogame players are a subset of humans. There is also a higher than normal percentage of individuals with ADD in the videogame player subset. Videogames are on the few tasks individuals with ADD can focus on for extended periods of time. Point being, one of the hallmarks of ADD is inability or disinterest in delaying gratification to meet a particular goal.

Obviously here is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, however these are broad generalizations which can be applied to the pathology (for lack of better terms) of ADD.


[citation needed]

Also, I would hardly consider gamers a "subset" of humans, considering the statistics on gaming these days.



Not subset in a condescending way. Subset, meaning a portion of the whole. i.e. All gamers are humans, however not all humans are gamers.

Citation -- I am a doctor, and I did research on ADD during my psych rotations and electives in medical school. I myself have ADD and therefore I found it interesting to explore while in school.

Edit - The statements I made in my initial post are simply criteria in the DSM-IV Clinical Psychiatry Diagnostic handbook used to classify and diagnose ADD. I suppose that is a more proper citation.

They weren't just observations I have made on my own.

Edited, Dec 27th 2012 9:31pm by je355804


My comment was more geared towards the extremely large number of the population who play video games. I doubt that gamers have any particular susceptibility to ADD. In fact, they are often able to participate in activities that demand high delay of gratification... including many video games themselves (consider EQ1 and FFXI as prime examples).

Our credentials are similar, both personally and professionally, wherein ADD is concerned, but I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of the relationship between ADD and videogames.

Related note, but many, many clinicians opposed the changes in the DSM-V related to the overdiagnosis of ADD. I signed the petition that many APA's branches put forth myself.



you showed how thats untrue by listing games that arent MMOs?
#34 Dec 27 2012 at 9:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Yep. Try to keep up.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#35 Dec 27 2012 at 9:49 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
There are a lot of MMO'S with PVP raid settings. WvW in GW2 is a great example.

Also only noobs dont like PVP, PVP >>> PVE skillwise.
____________________________
MUTED
#36 Dec 27 2012 at 11:52 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
Ostia wrote:


Also only noobs dont like PVP, PVP >>> PVE skillwise.


uh wut. hai2u simplistic thinking. PvP generally has a higher skill cap, for a host of reasons (i agree), so someone who doesn't enjoy PvP must be a "noob"? derp. They're two almost entirely different games, with completely different objectives.

Some people just don't like competing against other players; they prefer competing against the computer. It's apples and oranges.

Either i'm being trolled, in which case, the advantage is yours,sir, or I'm encountering the same mistaken attitude I myself once had when I first started getting "good" at PvP. Namely, "hey this game-type is more challenging, hence those who haven't experienced it yet (or aren't interested in it) must be backpedaling, clicking, keyboard turning nublets".

The problem with that statement is that it logically falls apart once you realize that any backpedaling keyboard-turning PvEr (and those are perfectly fine practices in PvE, generally speaking) can simply practice a new skill-set a bit and start PvPing. If you said "PvErs who try to PvP using the same skill-set/practices they did against the computer are PvP noobs", I'd agree.


____________________________
monk
dragoon
[ffxivsig]477065[/ffxivsig]
#37 Dec 28 2012 at 1:02 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
In all honesty... I was trolling, i am fully aware that comments like that would get a big reply like yours, and yes i do understand the technical differences between PVP and PVE.
____________________________
MUTED
#38 Dec 28 2012 at 1:13 AM Rating: Default
****
4,995 posts
Kachi wrote:
Yep. Try to keep up.


so you try to disprove my statement which was that an MMO would never be able to maintain that level of engagement.

by listing games that ARENT mmos that have that level of engagement? yeha that makes perfect sense.. lemme go disprove your statement of "pigeons cant fly" by tossing a human baby out of a window.... ooookay
#39 Dec 28 2012 at 1:23 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Are you really so unimaginative that you can't see how the same game design principles in four completely separate genres of video games can extend to the MMO genre as well?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#40 Dec 28 2012 at 1:57 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
Ostia wrote:
In all honesty... I was trolling, i am fully aware that comments like that would get a big reply like yours, and yes i do understand the technical differences between PVP and PVE.


well sweet, you win, you wasted my time (or you're an adept backpedaler yourself). either way, good to know i can ignore all your posts from now on. :)
____________________________
monk
dragoon
[ffxivsig]477065[/ffxivsig]
#41 Dec 28 2012 at 5:24 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
Llester wrote:
Ostia wrote:
In all honesty... I was trolling, i am fully aware that comments like that would get a big reply like yours, and yes i do understand the technical differences between PVP and PVE.


well sweet, you win, you wasted my time (or you're an adept backpedaler yourself). either way, good to know i can ignore all your posts from now on. :)


Sure Mr. I take the forum 100% serious lol
____________________________
MUTED
#42 Dec 28 2012 at 7:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
Screenshot
.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#43 Dec 28 2012 at 1:00 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
lawl.

Quote:
In all honesty... I was trolling, i am fully aware that comments like that would get a big reply like yours, and yes i do understand the technical differences between PVP and PVE.


So I take things too seriously, yet you still felt the need to qualify yourself/saveface. So who's Mr. Serious naaooooo? Hmm? HMMMMMMM? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM??????!!!!???? SERIOUSLY BREW.

Edited, Dec 28th 2012 3:18pm by Llester
____________________________
monk
dragoon
[ffxivsig]477065[/ffxivsig]
#44 Dec 28 2012 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
4,773 posts
DuoMaxwellxx wrote:
PVP Raids?


that sounds like a cool idea.. i wonder if its been implemented.. for example two opposing factions of players enter the same raid... the goal is obviously clear the raid and get to/beat the last boss... however the addition is not only do you have to deal with these monsters you also gotta watch your back from the players of the other faction trying to take you out too (but the same can be said in the reverse)... as for the boss maybe theres only one boss.. so at the end if both factions make it there.. they maybe have to battle it out and the last group standing earns the right to take on the boss and get the loot (if they win) or maybe the factions fight eachother WHILE fighting the boss (though i dont see how that would work for loot. or maybe the boss is so hard both factions have to band together to take it down.. only to start stabbing eachother in the back (literally) to get the loot etc etc.

(though i think having the boss battle locked until one faction takes down the others i the only one of tho e scenarios that would make any balance and logical sense)


anything like that ever been done?


Aion in particulary is well coined for this sort of action.

It's a three faction system with the third faction being predominantly NPCs. There are several instanced raids where one team from each faction is competing in the raid for points via kills against one another, and kills against raid bosses. The NPC faction is also known for swooping in and taking over contestable areas, much like the 3 Player based realm-factions in Guild Wars 2 functions.

So no, it wouldn't be a very unique niche for FFXIV to pick up on this, though I, like many here, am not too keen on the PvP element being implemented at all. I'll give it a fair shot, however.
#45 Dec 28 2012 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
Wint wrote:
Severely uninterested in PVP. If I wanted that I'd go to WoW or GW2. I have no desire to fight others, I'd rather team up to take on the game itself.


While PvE contains enough drama in an mmo (thank you very much) without adding a ganking component to it, I will admit there's no greater test of your skill than pitting yourself against an intelligent human opponent. Certain games have opened my eyes to this, and if you do find it fun, you'll extend the replayability of that game tenfold. If you can keep such combat respectful, it can be a good time.
#46 Dec 28 2012 at 9:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
Xoie wrote:
Wint wrote:
Severely uninterested in PVP. If I wanted that I'd go to WoW or GW2. I have no desire to fight others, I'd rather team up to take on the game itself.


While PvE contains enough drama in an mmo (thank you very much) without adding a ganking component to it, I will admit there's no greater test of your skill than pitting yourself against an intelligent human opponent. Certain games have opened my eyes to this, and if you do find it fun, you'll extend the replayability of that game tenfold. If you can keep such combat respectful, it can be a good time.


No I get you, they really do have to try to implement some kind of PVP, it's just expected anymore, but I just can't force myself to give even the tiniest crap about it Smiley: smile

Edited, Dec 28th 2012 9:41pm by Wint
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#47 Dec 29 2012 at 12:16 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,773 posts
Wint wrote:

No I get you, they really do have to try to implement some kind of PVP, it's just expected anymore, but I just can't force myself to give even the tiniest crap about it Smiley: smile

Edited, Dec 28th 2012 9:41pm by Wint


Really? Not even a partially digested corn kernel?

This is the first time Final Fantasy has ever really tackled the concept of PvP outside of things like Besieged and Brenner in FFXI. The fact that it's being designed as part of the core of the game is kind of a ground breaker for the company. You aren't the least bit curious on how Final Fantasy really does PvP, cause I'll admit, I'm downright confused on it.

How will "Final Fantasy" do PvP? Big question.

Edited, Dec 29th 2012 1:16am by Hyrist
#48 Dec 29 2012 at 12:18 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
636 posts
Probably just Warfronts/Battleground type things...like you listed as being in FFXI, unless they said open world?
#49 Dec 29 2012 at 12:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
Hyrist wrote:
Wint wrote:

No I get you, they really do have to try to implement some kind of PVP, it's just expected anymore, but I just can't force myself to give even the tiniest crap about it Smiley: smile

Edited, Dec 28th 2012 9:41pm by Wint


Really? Not even a partially digested corn kernel?

This is the first time Final Fantasy has ever really tackled the concept of PvP outside of things like Besieged and Brenner in FFXI. The fact that it's being designed as part of the core of the game is kind of a ground breaker for the company. You aren't the least bit curious on how Final Fantasy really does PvP, cause I'll admit, I'm downright confused on it.

How will "Final Fantasy" do PvP? Big question.

Edited, Dec 29th 2012 1:16am by Hyrist


Not in the slightest. I have no desire or need to prove myself against others, usually the game is more than enough for me Smiley: smile
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#50 Dec 29 2012 at 1:36 AM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Llester wrote:
lawl.

Quote:
In all honesty... I was trolling, i am fully aware that comments like that would get a big reply like yours, and yes i do understand the technical differences between PVP and PVE.


So I take things too seriously, yet you still felt the need to qualify yourself/saveface. So who's Mr. Serious naaooooo? Hmm? HMMMMMMM? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM??????!!!!???? SERIOUSLY BREW.

Edited, Dec 28th 2012 3:18pm by Llester


Well you are the one replying twice to the same comment you already replied to...........
____________________________
MUTED
#51 Dec 29 2012 at 12:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I see PvP as going one of two ways: 1) It will be awful and rushed out because the gameplay is still essentially boring, and a lack of class balance will make class vs. class more important than player vs. player. 2) They will, miraculously, use their testing process for PvP to inform class balance and create actually engaging combat.

When a good PvP game is genuinely created, it tells you a lot about balance and engagement. It forces you to balance classes because that's the cornerstone of any PvP experience: player skills against one another on equal footing. It also helps the testers to identify where the challenge is. Does the combat feel strategically challenging? So it's much easier to create good PvE experiences using PvP as a foundation. However, if the PvP is a rushed out product, it will probably just suck.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 31 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (31)