The "Everything Zenimax has Done Wrong with Morrowind" digest.



  • @tarunik said:

    No, it's a metaphor for what happens when you find yourself in the position of the security guards in the federal building when Neo and his friends turn up... (Condition White -> Condition Black, in other word)

    Oh yeah wasn't that an awesome scene? Neo murdering like 50 innocent people, awesome.

    (Seriously, the morality of The Matrix is FUCKED UP if you spend even a nanosecond thinking about it. "The people plugged-in are helping the enemy!" Yeah but they don't know that and if you just gently explained it to them they might be horrified. But no, just shoot them all, why not.)

    @tarunik said:

    For me, (2 subs), it's well worth the money for being part of something more than a giant adventure park ride...

    Haha what?

    @tarunik said:

    That's what getting into a decent corporation is for...

    So not only is the game full of dicks, but you can't even start to pretend having fun until you throw your lot in with a large group of dicks.

    Whee.


    Look, I get what you're saying about "theme park" games, those bug me too. (Which is why I favor games like Elder Scrolls, STALKER, and other games with emergent properties, and quickly lose interest in "theme park"-y games like Marlow Briggs or Dead Space, even when they're completely awesome.)

    But what you're proposing as an alternative is awful. I've heard nothing here to dissuade my opinion that EVE is an awful game full of awful people.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    That's not "awesome", that's you being a dick to someone.

    Because everyone's a winner, right?

    Unfair quoting because I found it funny...

    @blakeyrat said:

    I love playing with dicks.

    Who is a bigger dick, they guy who enjoys playing games with consequences or the guy who whines about people who like playing games with consequences?



  • @boomzilla said:

    Who is a bigger dick, they guy who enjoys playing games with consequences or the guy who whines about people who like playing games with consequences?

    He can like whatever he wants. It's when he tells me I should play it: that is the problem.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Who is a bigger dick, they guy who enjoys playing games with consequences or the guy who whines about people who like playing games with consequences?

    Sometimes I just want to build my sandcastle without worrying about being forced to play with all the prepubescents who think blowing up stuff is the only fun thing to do.

    Which is why I prefer a game that lets to tag for PvP.

    The problem is that EvE encourages blowing stuff up because it's so much easier to steal and cheat and kill, than it is to get the resources by working for it.

    So the people who don't want to fight have to artificially focus on defense so that it becomes harder to steal/cheat/kill than to get resources with work.

    Which means you inevitably have to join up with a corp for protection. And then the entire environment is basically a mafia style game.

    @tarunik I mean, is there one corp out there that as a benefactor simply polices the environment? Or do they all expect people to join their gang.

    Even the Japanese in their feudal times had gangs who sole purpose was to defend people without asking for anything in return (or at most modest provisions).

    the entire environment is basically a mafia style game.

    And that's the problem for some people.

    Some people don't think that mafia style PvP is the ultimate advancement/improvement to MMO.

    ...

    And I get that the world and its story is formed by the players is a significant improvement. But why can't this exist in a coop environment.


  • FoxDev

    @blakeyrat said:

    What's so weird about playing in frigates?

    the frigate is a pretty small ship. one of the smallest if i remember correctly. taking one up against a capital or supercap ship is impressive and difficult, even in PvE (it would be a miracle in PvP)

    basically it's another measure of epeen.



  • @xaade said:

    And I get that the world and its story is formed by the players is a significant improvement. But why can't this exist in a coop environment.

    FFXI had this in the form of players working together to push back the presence of a PvE beastman force, and received benefits for doing so for the PvP encounters. Meaning that primarily PvE players could contribute to PvP expeditions.

    Yet, they never got credit for it.

    It worked like this.

    Then everyone gets to have their own little world.

    PvE who like the automated themepark areas can do that.

    PvE who liked dynamic coop with progression and pushback, can play that.

    And PvP could play that.

    And each helped the other.

    PvE Themepark could help drive portions of the economy, to help PvE Expeditioners advance.

    Hell, someone could just be a crafter the entire time.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    It's when he tells me I should play it: that is the problem

    That's not what he's doing. He's talking about stuff he likes. OK, he's probably trolling you a little bit because it's so easy on this topic.

    @xaade said:

    Sometimes I just want to build my sandcastle without worrying about being forced to play with all the prepubescents who think blowing up stuff is the only fun thing to do.

    That's cool. I'm not saying that everyone has to like everything. But saying, "It's not my cup of tea," is quite different from, "You're all dicks."

    There's a certain sort of person who thinks it's rude to check and raise in poker. These people have no business playing anything other than the video version of the game. It's no problem to say that you don't like the sort of gameplay inherent in the game, but that doesn't make it any ruder than throwing a change up when the batter is looking for a fastball.



  • @boomzilla said:

    check and raise in poker

    Had to read up on that.

    Dude, poker is inherently rude. You are trying to separate a person from their money by deception.

    If you make the game entirely by the cards, you might as well be playing battle or go-fish.

    In fact, every card/tokenized-unit game is about deception to some degree.

    Don't want deception? Go play legos.

    Then you only have to worry about someone kicking over your sandcastle, which is rude unless you provoke it.

    In EVE you've provoked it by logging in.

    That's just what you choose when you play the game.

    Did anyone see my drawing above, there are cool ways to let people play how they want to play.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @xaade said:

    Dude, poker is inherently rude. You are trying to separate a person from their money by deception.

    But it's not rude in context, which is the point.



  • @boomzilla said:

    That's not what he's doing.

    He's done it enough times that he's "banked" it at this point.

    @boomzilla said:

    But saying, "It's not my cup of tea," is quite different from, "You're all dicks."

    I agree, of course.

    But what you're missing, or glossing-over, is EVE isn't my cup of tea because EVE players are all dicks. I have to deal with enough dicks in real life, I don't want to go home and play a video game where I have to deal with dicks too.

    There are some video games that are basically, whether on purpose or not, designed specifically to attract dicks. EVE is a great example of one. So is DOTA2 (and all MOBAs to some degree; although most recognize the dick-encouraging scoring mechanism and try to do something to limit the damage.)

    @boomzilla said:

    But it's not rude in context, which is the point.

    I don't know if you've noticed, but the entire community of video games, especially PC games, is basically a constant parade of dicks. The kind of people who get angry at Bethesda for making it impossible to murder children in Fallout 3. Or the kind of people who would literally pen death threats because a game writer said there should be a mode in Bioware games to view all the conversation trees while skipping combat sections (a very good idea, BTW).

    I'd like to do as much as possible to discourage the dicks. I don't like that there are game companies profiting from dicks, who have an incentive to make more dicks.


  • FoxDev

    @blakeyrat said:

    I have to deal with enough dicks in real life, I don't want to go home and play a video game where I have to deal with dicks too.

    Oh, so many ways I could have fun with this… but I'm going to refrain on this occasion.

    Anyway, I don't know if this is possible in EVE (or any MMORPG or whatever), but I play racing games a lot, and my online activities are always done with a club where we all race properly. That way we never have to deal with griefers who just ram everyone off track in their elevently-million HP heavyweights. If there are similar set-ups for EVE (and others), that could be worth trying.


  • FoxDev

    @RaceProUK said:

    If there are similar set-ups for EVE (and others), that could be worth trying.

    not really. everyone is in the same universe. you can join a big corporation so you have friends at your back but nothing can stop a griefer, not even in highsec space where concord jumps on anyone who breaks the rules of highsec.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    If there are similar set-ups for EVE (and others), that could be worth trying.

    EVE is specifically designed to make that impossible.


  • FoxDev

    @blakeyrat said:

    EVE is specifically designed to make that impossible.

    Hasn't stopped these people; they have a private server. OK, they patched the game, but they still found a way to do it.


  • BINNED

    @blakeyrat said:

    Seriously, the morality of The Matrix is FUCKED UP if you spend even a nanosecond thinking about it. "The people plugged-in are helping the enemy!" Yeah but they don't know that and if you just gently explained it to them they might be horrified carry you off in a straitjacket and put you in a padded cell. But no, just shoot them all, why not.

    TIL you don't follow context in movies either.



  • I'm not saying that they should have stopped and explained the situation to the guards, I'm just saying Morpheus' reason for treating them like disposable fodder was bullshit. It's not like they were Nazis or something, they were just some schlubs hired to protect a building. And Morpheus is a fucking sociopath.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    It's not like they were Nazis or something, they were just some schlubs hired to protect a building.

    Like the poor schlubs who got drafted into the enemy army?

    @blakeyrat said:

    And Morpheus is a fucking sociopath.

    It's possible, but you have failed to make a convincing case.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Like the poor schlubs who got drafted into the enemy army?

    People who were drafted into an "evil" army at least knew they were in an army.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    People who were drafted into an "evil" army at least knew they were in an army.

    The guards didn't know they were guards? But so what? You shouldn't kill anyone because they've been deceived into evil? Instead you should let those guys kill you because they think they're righteous?

    Is this someone's conspiracy style blog post or did you come up with this yourself?



  • @boomzilla said:

    You shouldn't kill anyone because they've been deceived into evil?

    I didn't say that.

    I didn't say they shouldn't have killed the guards. I said Morpheus' reasoning for not feeling bad about it was utter bullshit.

    People in actual wars kill people, the difference is: they feel bad about it. (At least, they do if they're not monsters.) The Matrix tries to do away with any sense of guilt via one or two lines of throw-away dialog, and I object to that.

    @boomzilla said:

    Instead you should let those guys kill you because they think they're righteous?

    They could have gone in from the rooftop in the first place. Or taken some action to minimize casualties. Or at least pretended to.

    @boomzilla said:

    Is this someone's conspiracy style blog post or did you come up with this yourself?

    If I was giving someone else's opinion, I'd probably link to them.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    The Matrix tries to do away with any sense of guilt via one or two lines of throw-away dialog, and I object to that.

    Alright...it doesn't strike me the same way, but that's conscience for you.

    @blakeyrat said:

    They could have gone in from the rooftop in the first place. Or taken some action to minimize casualties. Or at least pretended to.

    Meh, there are some obvious reasons why you'd have different ingress and egresses. I'm sure if I'd been fighting like that for as long as they had, enemy casualties would be at least as low on my list of priorities as it was for them.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Alright...it doesn't strike me the same way, but that's conscience for you.

    If they were going to "fix" the problem of the protagonists being sociopaths with a line of throw-away dialog, how about this line:

    "don't worry about the guards, they're all remote-controlled by the 'lite' version of Agents."

    There. Boom. I fixed your dumb movie for you.

    Note these are the writers who came up with the throwaway "combined with a form of nuclear fusion" to answer the question, "how could human body-heat possibly replace thousands of solar power stations?" "Combined with a form of nuclear fusion." Sheesh.

    "The little girl in the fourth row flapping her arms, combined with a form of jet propulsion, is what keeps this 747-800 in the air."


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    There. Boom. I fixed your dumb movie for you.

    No, that just makes it dumb. And less plausible that the guards could be defeated so easily. Just raises lots of questions.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Note these are the writers who came up with the throwaway "combined with a form of nuclear fusion" to answer the question, "how could human body-heat possibly replace thousands of solar power stations?" "Combined with a form of nuclear fusion." Sheesh.

    Yeah, the whole power source thing required suspension of disbelief because it makes no sense. Jaded veterans in a war against evil computers and their unwitting collaborators isn't a stretch to me at all, and it always added a sense of tragedy to the whole thing. I never felt that the characters didn't get that, but had to keep going somehow.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Or the kind of people who would literally pen death threats because a player said there should be a mode in Diablo games to use an analog stick, and then it got implemented for console anyway.

    Same thing here.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    People who were drafted into an "evil" army at least knew they were in an army.

    Same argument I've seen for people saying cops shouldn't defend themselves.



  • @boomzilla said:

    a sense of tragedy to the whole thing. I never felt that the characters didn't get that, but had to keep going somehow.

    People confuse the ability to pick the lesser evil, with being evil itself because you made a choice when there wasn't an option for ideal good.

    Hey, that guard there is controlled by a real human and he will die, but he's been lied to about the morality of his objectives, and also strapped by a remote detonator that makes him turn into an agent, and if we lose, people will be robot food forever.

    Hey, that enemy there is a real human and he will die, but he's been lied to about the morality of his objectives, and also strapped by forced drafting that gives him an option of kill or be kill, and if we lose, people will be Nazi machine pavement forever.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Oh yeah wasn't that an awesome scene? Neo murdering like 50 innocent people, awesome.

    🚩

    You completely failed to grasp why I was referring to that scene. (Hint: rewind to before the bullets start flying and examine the behavior of the security guards.)

    @boomzilla said:

    Who is a bigger dick, they guy who enjoys playing games with consequences or the guy who whines about people who like playing games with consequences?

    QFT! On that note: in a multiplayer environment, agency (the ability to influence what happens beyond your own actions) implies consequences (as a result of that agency, the game can no longer keep players wrapped in a warm, fuzzy cocoon, isolated from what happens outside their immediate sphere of influence).

    @xaade said:

    The problem is that EvE encourages blowing stuff up because it's so much easier to steal and cheat and kill, than it is to get the resources by working for it.

    Here's the problem with your logic: EVE is one giant military-industrial complex. If nothing blew up, then demand for ships and equipment would drop to near nil, and the economy would fall over in a massive oversupply crisis, leaving most of the industrialists terminally bored to the point where they either start finding ways to get stuff blown up or ragequit because they have no buyers.

    At least it isn't the dreaded "MUDflation" -- where a glut of nigh-indestructable items saturates the economy of a MUD or MMO to the point where either grinding for cash becomes impossible due to depressed loot values (great way to make players quit) or money piles up until it becomes nigh-worthless (which is what happens if NPC shopkeepers buy at a fixed price).

    @xaade said:

    Sometimes I just want to build my sandcastle without worrying about being forced to play with all the prepubescents who think blowing up stuff is the only fun thing to do.

    Which is why I prefer a game that lets to tag for PvP.


    EVE System Security 101:

    High-sec (0.5 to 1.0) -- "safe" space, well, as safe as you'll see in EVE. You either have to challenge someone to a duel, draw a suspect flag by doing something such as stealing stuff from a can or interfering with somebody else's duel or war, or be part of an active, declared war between corporations in order to engage in PvP here without getting your ship CONCORDOKKENed (aka, blown up by the space police). Still, people will sacrifice fleets of ships to CONCORD (the space police) in order to take out sufficiently high-value targets...they're a fast-reaction force, not personal bodyguards! Also, capital and supercapital ships (save for freighters) are forbidden from entering highsec.

    Low-sec (0.1 to 0.4) -- frontier territory, if you will. Inter-factional warfare takes place here, and common chokepoints here will get camped, forcing you to be on your guard. Gate and station guns protect against the most egregrious of attacks, and threats to your capsule (pod) are rare, but you still must be on your guard, as fighting here merely gets marked on your record (security status).

    Null-sec (0.0 to -1.0) -- the fringes of the EVE 'verse. Some of this territory is held by factions considered "pirate" by the main empires; however, the vast bulk of it is held by player alliances, which get to set the rules by which their space is used by. Threats to capsules (pods) such as bubbles and launched bombs are allowed out here, as well as the "big guns" of sovereignty warfare, such as Titan doomsday devices and supercarrier fighter-bomber drones. Players can even deploy full-scale stations here (outposts), and upgrade systems to improve their defenses and productivity. Fights here don't go down on your record, either.

    Wormhole space (-1.0, not claimable) -- the furthest reaches of what can be explored in EVE. No permanent connections, just transient (24hrs max) wormholes that spawn randomly, albeit with a guarantee that all systems in this space have at least one wormhole present. These systems can be explored and even occupied on a permanent basis; however, stations and sovereignty structures cannot be erected here, and the space is considered just as lawless as null-sec.

    @xaade said:

    Which means you inevitably have to join up with a corp for protection. And then the entire environment is basically a mafia style game.

    Joining a corp isn't just a matter of protection -- it's also one of the most basic social support structures in the game, no different than a raid guild in WoW in that regard.

    @xaade said:

    @tarunik I mean, is there one corp out there that as a benefactor simply polices the environment? Or do they all expect people to join their gang.

    Even the Japanese in their feudal times had gangs who sole purpose was to defend people without asking for anything in return (or at most modest provisions).


    Welcome to the land of Providence! All you have to do is not piss off the residents (and that's pretty hard to do unless you shoot at things under their care and protection), and they'll take you under their arm and provide you with intel and a safe place to dock at the end of the day. (Or, at least as safe as you can make a null-sec outpost.)

    However, it's still nullsec, and it's unique status among the nullsec empires draws attention (and bloodthirsty pilots) from all over EVE. (Providence is also not exactly the richest patch of space in the cluster, but most of the Provibloc residents don't seem to mind.)

    @xaade said:

    And I get that the world and its story is formed by the players is a significant improvement. But why can't this exist in a coop environment.

    See my response to @boomzilla's post above.

    In more detail (and going back far before MMOs were ever a thing):
    Tabletop RPGs are able to grant a significant degree of agency to the players in a multiplayer environment because of the presence of a human arbiter, aka the dungeon master, who can interpret actions and extrapolate from a limited rulebase and common sense in order to make a ruling about the effects an action has on the world, and then has the power to make those effects so. They can also resolve conflicts between player characters, irrespective of the form these conflicts take; however, the players are assumed to be cooperating with each other, even if the characters aren't.

    In a single-player CRPG, the arbiter's role is taken by a computer; however, this comes at a loss in flexibility, as the computer can only cope with what the game designers have allowed it to. Sometimes, a smart game designer can build systems that still allow for a modicum of emergent behavior and player agency; at others, you simply are stuck on a quest rail, doing what the game designer wants you to do. Either way, though, there's no need for inter-player conflict resolution.

    The first multiplayer CRPGs (such as Neverwinter Nights) kept the computer's role as an arbiter of rules; however, certain players on a server were given the power to influence that arbitration process (set new rules or alter existing ones) and preside over the inter-player conflict resolution mechanisms the game provides. However, the scale of say a NWN server is still quite small, and the assumption of cooperative player behavior based on shared norms still holds.

    When MMORPGs were developed from multiplayer CRPGs, a problem became apparent: the use of human arbiters to resolve inter-player-character conflicts no longer is possible due to the sheer amount of people you'd need for the job. Furthermore, as the playerbase grows larger, shared norms no longer become a viable means of ensuring cooperation or providing for conflict resolution. At this point, you either have to prevent or rigorously cabin player-character conflict mechanics (the approach taken by most MMOs, using arenas or forced factional warfare to contain PvP to predefined zones), or you build mechanics that provide for and even assume the presence of player-character conflict (such as competitive resource gathering, world-wide PvP support, and player-controlled territory in a finite universe).

    @xaade said:

    And I get that the world and its story is formed by the players is a significant improvement. But why can't this exist in a coop environment.

    You need to eliminate points of player-character conflict (such as resource scarcity) to do this; while this is possible (one of my fantasy sandbox MMO candidates, Istaria, does just that for the most part), it also eliminates a powerful, inbuilt story driver while putting the on-us on individual players to modulate the success/failure cycle of their stories to maintain audience interest, instead of letting that success/failure cycle play out naturally. You also run into the issue of trying to scale shared-norm play...which simply won't work at the scale of a typical MMO shard, never mind a global, single-shard game where having a translator in a fleet operation is not at all unheard of.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    Here's the problem. Everyone who plays capture the flag is a dick. All they ever do is take out other players and steal the damn flag. It's a dick game designed to attract dicks.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Here's the problem. Everyone who plays capture the flag is a dick. All they ever do is take out other players and steal the damn flag. It's a dick game designed to attract dicks.

    Just how does Blakey put up with playing CoD, anyway?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    most recognize the dick-encouraging scoring mechanism and try to do something to limit the damage.

    By, at most, offering an unranked mode. That no one plays, because it won't increase their rep.


  • Banned

    This topic made me think the main problem with Eve is that human's nature is to be a dick. Assuming being competitive is synonymous to being a dick.



  • @tarunik said:

    Just how does Blakey put up with playing CoD, anyway?

    I play on consoles where:

    1. Everybody plays by the same rules with the same resources

    2. You don't have to interact with anybody if you don't want to

    But yes, there are a lot of dicks in CoD.

    I got spoiled by learning FPS play from Starsiege: Tribes which had the best FPS community at the time and, in retrospect, perhaps ever.


  • FoxDev

    @tarunik said:

    Just how does Blakey put up with playing CoD, anyway?

    IIRC, CoD allows you to set up private sessions



  • @tarunik said:

    If nothing blew up

    Well, I worded it poorly, because things would still blow up, because some people would be willing to risk it.

    However, see the arms race.

    Even if stuff didn't blow up, people would still race for arms for defensive purposes.

    And then there is still the risk offered by PvE.

    @tarunik said:

    be part of an active, declared war between corporations

    Can't help if it my corp declares war, can I?

    This game is not for me.

    @tarunik said:

    it's also one of the most basic social support structures

    Ok, so I can avoid ganking, if I just don't enjoy the majority of the game.

    This game is not for me.

    @tarunik said:

    You need to eliminate points of player-character conflict (such as resource scarcity) to do this; while this is possible (one of my fantasy sandbox MMO candidates, Istaria, does just that for the most part), it also eliminates a powerful, inbuilt story driver while putting the on-us on individual players to modulate the success/failure cycle of their stories to maintain audience interest, instead of letting that success/failure cycle play out naturally. You also run into the issue of trying to scale shared-norm play...which simply won't work at the scale of a typical MMO shard, never mind a global, single-shard game where having a translator in a fleet operation is not at all unheard of.

    You can do it, FFXI demonstrated this. You just have to have a faction where the 3rd party is a dynamic spawning of enemies that is determined by the success of raids.

    The coop as a whole shares resources in a sense, yet it's still shared by meritocracy, in which the small parties with the most successful raids get the better gear. Competition is like LotR competition between Gimli and Legolas.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I got spoiled by learning FPS play from Starsiege: Tribes which had the best FPS community at the time and, in retrospect, perhaps ever.

    QFT.

    Although I did kamikaze jump from vehicles to earn kills.... That was being a dick. But it didn't reward you much, other than getting shot out of the air during your fall.

    But the focus was far more on teamwork, because the enemy wasn't the player, it was their base.

    And the driver was the players, who overwhelmingly decided to accomplish the goals of the map, rather than just turn every match into free for all, like they do on CoD.



  • @xaade said:

    Can't help if it my corp declares war, can I?

    This game is not for me.


    You're not completely out of options at this point -- some corps provide the option of dropping corp for the duration of the war then rejoining it.

    However, my point earlier still stands: situational awareness and coolheadedness are what count in EVE PvP, not any sort of "twitch" reflexes. If you want a better explanation of how this works, (and also an explanation of why the Matrix reference I mentioned earlier matters), read this blog post.

    @xaade said:

    And then there is still the risk offered by PvE.

    Which is fairly minor in EVE -- you have to screw up pretty grossly or get way in over your head to get blown up in a PvE encounter.

    @xaade said:

    Ok, so I can avoid ganking, if I just don't enjoy the majority of the game.

    You're still at risk of suicide ganks, but that's not hard to mitigate either -- most suicide ganking is because you're trying to haul something in the wrong tool for protecting it. Would you drive a flatbed truck piled with gold bullion down a highway?

    @xaade said:

    You can do it, FFXI demonstrated this. You just have to have a faction where the 3rd party is a dynamic spawning of enemies that is determined by the success of raids.

    The coop as a whole shares resources in a sense, yet it's still shared by meritocracy, in which the small parties with the most successful raids get the better gear. Competition is like LotR competition between Gimli and Legolas.


    Let's try doing this without:

    1. instanced dungeons (or any way to truly isolate PvE)
    2. looted gear being a major determinant in a fight
    3. linear reward-to-investment ratios (corollary to #2 -- EVE skills and equipment are "exponential cost for linear gain" vs. most other games which are "linear cost for linear gain")


  • @tarunik said:

    You're still at risk of suicide ganks

    Oh, fuck that....

    @xaade said:

    >>>>> This game is not for me

    @tarunik said:

    Let's try doing this without:1. instanced raids

    They weren't instanced, it was open world. The success of the raids was determined by kill count, and then that determined dynamically where beastmen would spawn and the difficulty of those enemies. Most of these encounters were in areas of high resources (abstracted away from the player, but there in the sense of roleplay, meaning the player didn't mine the resources, but NPCs from your faction did), with the higher resources guarded by harder targets.

    I'm saying your personal success was determined by kill count, because that determined how likely you would get good drops and how much you earned from selling off loot.

    The success of the raid was the combined effort of the different raid parties.

    Think of it as scaled raiding.

    Of course, if that was all that happened, it would be very boring.

    But that success fed into your resources which fed into the PvP.

    So, your PvE only players could contribute to PvP.

    Some people played both content.

    It was quite like your high-sec areas, except ZERO opportunity for ganking of any kind.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @tarunik said:

    Just how does Blakey put up with playing CoD, anyway?

    He likes that kind of dick?



  • @xaade said:

    But the focus was far more on teamwork, because the enemy wasn't the player, it was their base.

    Right and people wouldn't do shit like, say, randomly attack each other in the middle of the map because they were miraculously smart enough to realize that doesn't help capture nor defend a flag.

    And if you have an awesome sniper war going, people wouldn't instantly gang-up on the opposing team's sniper, they'd be just as likely to stop playing and watch to see who won.

    And I was good at it, dammit. I could'a been a contender.



  • Not saying that stuff didn't happen, but it happened far less often, than CoD's War scenario, where people would ignore the capture points and get in tanks and spawn camp.

    Picking your spawn point helps this, but Tribes was good at making balanced maps where if you were caught in the middle in a firefight because you weren't accomplishing the task, you'd just be shot up by heavies.



  • As of about a year ago when I last played it, I was still a damned good capper in Tribes: Ascend. The people playing that aren't as good as the guys in 1998 though. And the vehicles are less useful in general.

    Man. What I wouldn't give for some Shifter V1 mod right now... sigh.



  • @KillaCoder said:

    I much prefer single player games that I can lose myself in.

    Lost in Half-Life 2: Episode 2?



  • @xaade said:

    Are not up my alley at all. I do not want to fight a player, period. Cooperation against AI is more my interest. Because I don't have twitch reaction speed, I can't compete with players in FPS or PVP of any kind.

    One thing I would really love to see in mmos is for gaining levels to add a handicap, as in a reduction of base stats, while still adding abilities. The idea being that you start out as a big dumb lunk who can only left-click-hit things, then as you get used to that you gain more skills, while becoming more fragile—which forces you to use those skills.

    So, top-tier players at the level cap would still be able to own almost anyone, just as long as they never get hit; beginners would be valuable—even to a high-level party—as tanks; and everyone in between would be able to rise to whatever level their skill allows.

    @xaade said:

    Diablo games to use an analog stick, and then it got implemented for console anyway.

    Console D3 is the best. It's pretty much the only game I play any more (on Wednesday nights where I can gather enough people to make it worthwhile). Next they need to implement tablet diablo.

    Seriously: touch to move, action bar to attack, maybe some kind of aim-assist when you lift your movement finger; it just seems like the perfect control scheme. Why aren't there any games like that (that I am aware of)?



  • @Buddy said:

    Seriously: touch to move, action bar to attack, maybe some kind of aim-assist when you lift your movement finger; it just seems like the perfect control scheme. Why aren't there any games like that (that I am aware of)?

    I'm not aware of any controllers that have a touchpad and an "action bar". That might be why.

    What are you playing on? I think the PS4 has some touch-y thing, right?


  • FoxDev

    @blakeyrat said:

    I think the PS4 has some touch-y thing, right?

    It has a touchpad in the middle of the controller, yes



  • Sorry that was a different thought: I was imagining how Diablo 3 would work on a touch screen.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Buddy said:

    Sorry that was a different thought: I was imagining how Diablo 3 would work on a touch screen.

    Glad you could admit that you explained yourself so badly. I mean, it's not as if you said

    @Buddy said:

    Next they need to implement tablet diablo.

    Seriously: touch to move, action bar to attack,

    Oh, wait. That's right, Blakeydrax read what you wrote and as usual did an excellent job stringing two consecutive sentences together.



  • Diablo 3 was am alright game. The expansion was sort of dumb (if jumping into this thing makes you an unkillable demiundeadgod, why are you only the second person ever to do it?), but it was fun for a playthrough.

    Meanwhile Act 4 of Path of Exile is on the way, with more gems, enemies, locations, and a new system to modify the passive tree itself. And eventually there will be more acts.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Oh, wait. That's right, Blakeydrax read what you wrote and as usual did an excellent job stringing two consecutive sentences together.

    They were in different paragraphs. The second paragraph had no explicit change of subject, so I assumed the subject was the same as in the first paragraph. Why even bother HAVING paragraphs if you're going to introduce one paragraph in the previous one?



  • While I actually do think it was clear enough, he deserves this reaction for coming up with such a terrible idea.


Log in to reply