Quote:Original post by MatrixCubed
I refute your logic in that hackers equate to evil ... this is using the same logic which proves guns by themselves are evil.

Hackers, while maybe not 'satan' are perhaps more the equivlent of a thief stealing something he doesn't need just because he wants it. (As opposed to a thief who steals because he's hungry and has no way of paying, whilst still completely wrong, it's a different thing almost entirely)

Quote:Furthermore, game developers should not innocently give away their private networks, data, server access, or anything. Innocence and presumptuousness, do not a good network admin make.

So If I let slip my social security code; it's your civic duty to whip me into shape by ID fraud?

Quote:You have some interesting points, but I think your logic is diminished by a very narrow view on the reality of games, religion, system administration, and business.

Actaully, I agree with this.

Quote:
(Personally, I don't think logic and religion should even dare approach one another... one is based on facts and deduction, the other is based on faith.)

All facts must be first guessed and then proven; so logic is built upon assumptions and hypothsisses(Wow; how the heck do I spell that word?)

Although I agree with the fact that the OP shouldn't have mixed the two in this scenario.

Hypothesis
Hypo - Meaning below, under. Like hypodermic, hypothermia
thesis - Intellectual proposition.

"You say hypahthisis, I say hypo-theesis."

beware of using the term 'God', or this might be the coming of a Software version of Titanic :P

WOW I didn't expect this many replies! I'm grateful. Haha!! And grateful no one admits they think I'm retarded. :)

Lightblade, that's okay, I am a weirdo compared to the rest of the world.

Run-

Quote:So your entire theory is that game designers need to be creative and make good games?

PRECISELY!

LOL. You're funny though. Most of what I said, is that, yes, but I also suggested at a way to make them better, overall. Maybe I didn't get into detail on it though. I will try to simplify it in this post.

Anon-

Quote:The Apple.

Well, yeah, I guess. Maybe we'll have to wait another 20 years for better technology.

Guimo! Thanks, haha!

Quote:I'm a bit too lazy to read all of it, but the first half of it sounds pretty good.

Cool!

Matrix-

Quote:I refute your logic in that hackers equate to evil ... this is using the same logic which proves guns by themselves are evil.

What? But guns are machines, and hackers are people who can think about their actions. Also they become the source of unhappiness when they disturb the balance (however much of it) in an MMG. Anyway I don't like calling people "evil", I like to call evil itself evil. "Evil" people are really just ignorant or unlucky.

Quote:Furthermore, game developers should not innocently give away their private networks, data, server access, or anything. Innocence and presumptuousness, do not a good network admin make.

True, but I guess by "innocent" what I meant was that they equally give their game to everyone in the hopes that people will use their game for fun and not to ruin the fun of others.

Quote:You have some interesting points, but I think your logic is diminished by a very narrow view on the reality of games, religion, system administration, and business.

(Personally, I don't think logic and religion should even dare approach one another... one is based on facts and deduction, the other is based on faith.)

Well I guess that's a fair point (I don't like imposing religion or philosophy on anyone muahahah)--but I still believe reason/logic can exist to support religion, even though science and empirical data can't. But even if it can't, and even if no one believes in a God we can still dream of a perfect reality though, whether it be designed by God or by human consciousness.

Ellis-

Quote:I can't do much about debating the philosophy, but on an interesting note, the #1 character in MUD/MUX/MUSH code, the one who controls everything, is called God. :)

Likewise eh?!

Iron Chef-

Quote:I'm just joshing you. Break your OP into smaller, more coherent questions if you want to engage in pointed, meaningful discussion around here. We've got itty-bitty attention spans, and are easily distracted.

Okay here guys let me try to re-explain as briefly as I can (which is laughable), for the balance part at least.

MMGs are treated as "games". They are not treated as "worlds". They are treated as "games" but that is semi-strange because they are eternal games, and eternal "games" (competitive sports or board games etc. complete with rules and regulations by which to play) don't exist in the real world. I think only those MMGs which are treated as a perfect world instead of a perfect game are the ones that will be most successful (and there have been those that attempt to treat it that way).

To stop beating around the bush as I have done before, is to say that I think the best MMG would be one where competition between PCs (not PCs and monsters) is voluntary and that the game should establish the best environment so that hatred and anger are not felt in the MMG, but only a love and companionship/friendship, even when someone loses to someone else during a competitive event. Anything that is, I am gonna call it a "perma-LOSS", that serves to create a competitive disadvantage to some PCs, would not serve as something that creates a loving environment between players when the game goes on for eternity. Healthy competition in the real world is such that you go in, but when you come back out, after victory or defeat, you haven't actually lost anything. If you lost the competition, you haven't lost anything but the competition. Unhealthy competition in the real world is that of say, rich vs. poor. It MAY give the ILLUSION of winning or feeling good when we are rich, but in reality it has the potential to stir up hatred within the poor. Some MMGs are built in an eternal world that mimicks ours, where there is unhealthy competition. This is not to say there will be immature unsportsmanship during a healthy competitive event in an MMG, but there are ways to minimize it. I like the idea personally, of one day your enemy is your enemy in competition, but another day he may be your friend in competition. I believe that any MMG that supports the concept that all players ARE inherently friends with each other and ARE connected, in any way (and doesn't just toss them into the pan and pretend it's up to everyone to become friends), will succeed because of its alignment with the laws of the universe, which I say, is to love. It should create the notion for the player that we are friends and we all have been, from the start.

Swordfights and battle and war can still exist and stuff, if we go about it properly. It's the "permalosses" to me that seem to be the problem. Also PC vs. monster (AI) competition is fun, but it's also a different story. I'm focusing on PC to PC relationships.

Is that better maybe? For the balance part?

[Edited by - Sylon on March 17, 2006 9:07:38 PM]

Quote:Original post by Sylon
MMGs are treated as "games". They are not treated as "worlds". They are treated as "games" but that is semi-strange because they are eternal games, and eternal "games" (competitive sports or board games etc. complete with rules and regulations by which to play) don't exist in the real world. I think only those MMGs which are treated as a perfect world instead of a perfect game are the ones that will be most successful (and there have been those that attempt to treat it that way).

To stop beating around the bush as I have done before, is to say that I think the best MMG would be one where competition between PCs (not PCs and monsters) is voluntary and that the game should establish the best environment so that hatred and anger are not felt in the MMG, but only a love and companionship/friendship, even when someone loses to someone else during a competitive event. Anything that is, I am gonna call it a "perma-LOSS", that serves to create a competitive disadvantage to some PCs, would not serve as something that creates a loving environment between players when the game goes on for eternity. Healthy competition in the real world is such that you go in, but when you come back out, after victory or defeat, you haven't actually lost anything. If you lost the competition, you haven't lost anything but the competition. Unhealthy competition in the real world is that of say, rich vs. poor. It MAY give the ILLUSION of winning or feeling good when we are rich, but in reality it has the potential to stir up hatred within the poor. Some MMGs are built in an eternal world that mimicks ours, where there is unhealthy competition. This is not to say there will be immature unsportsmanship during a healthy competitive event in an MMG, but there are ways to minimize it. I like the idea personally, of one day your enemy is your enemy in competition, but another day he may be your friend in competition. I believe that any MMG that supports the concept that all players ARE inherently friends with each other and ARE connected, in any way (and doesn't just toss them into the pan and pretend it's up to everyone to become friends), will succeed because of its alignment with the laws of the universe, which I say, is to love. It should create the notion for the player that we are friends and we all have been, from the start.

Swordfights and battle and war can still exist and stuff, if we go about it properly. It's the "permalosses" to me that seem to be the problem. Also PC vs. monster (AI) competition is fun, but it's also a different story. I'm focusing on PC to PC relationships.

Is that better maybe? For the balance part?

I think pretty much every major MMO post-UO has included 'PvE' servers alongside it's 'PvP' servers. This pretty much thoroughly satisfies your condition that all player competition should be voluntary. Regarding 'perma-loss', it's another non-issue in the MMO's of today. Duelling, or playing PvP Battlegrounds, or any other player competition in the game incurs absolutely no loss to the player's character whatsoever - unless you get super technical and decide that a loss of 'honor'(defined in WoW terms as 'PvP ladder rank score') is a permanent unforgivable loss; In which case I'd note that the players are the ones who demanded the honor system in the first place.

If you're looking for a purely human connection type MMO, ignoring facets of 'gameplay'(unless desired) I'd also say you've pretty much been beaten to the revelation that sometimes people just want to login to a Second Life and hang out with friends and just be There.

That's interesting. If it's been done so much "post-UO" then why do people still debate about things like consequences of PKing? I thought games like Lineage and stuff have PK systems where there are consequences for PKers, and therefore even if there is nothing lost by a victim, there still becomes something the PKer will "lose", by his being punished somehow. Not sure of Lineage's system, maybe I am thinking of another (don't have time to surf now gotta go to bed)--but surely there are some of those games that do such a thing?

And Second Life is not my type of game for a number of reasons, mostly because I don't just want to hang out, BUT, I think you understand what I mean, now, anyway. Haha.

Quote:Original post by Sylon
That's interesting. If it's been done so much "post-UO" then why do people still debate about things like consequences of PKing? I thought games like Lineage and stuff have PK systems where there are consequences for PKers, and therefore even if there is nothing lost by a victim, there still becomes something the PKer will "lose", by his being punished somehow. Not sure of Lineage's system, maybe I am thinking of another (don't have time to surf now gotta go to bed)--but surely there are some of those games that do such a thing?

And Second Life is not my type of game for a number of reasons, mostly because I don't just want to hang out, BUT, I think you understand what I mean, now, anyway. Haha.

I said "alongside" if you'll note. There are generally servers which enforce a PvP ruleset(players can always kill players, based on various rules about which team players are on) and servers that enforce a PvE ruleset(players can only kill players when both consent to the combat, otherwise it's only players against the NPCs).

Some games(Eve Online, UO for sure, I'm sketchy about others) tend to support a very free and dangerous style of gameplay. You die, you lose your stuff, and that's that. There are people who flock to these sort of games and situations because it's a thrill. Eve has peaked at around 25,000 users online at one time, it seems to average around 15,000 at any given time of day. It's a very dangerous game, with no coddling of the players or safety nets against random acts of PvP.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have games like Everquest 2(until recently) and WoW's PvE servers - servers where players posed no immediate danger to one another at all. Zero. You could not attack another player unless that player authorized you to do so. Even then, if that player killed you, you lost absolutely nothing, except maybe a few minutes of time. The point of these servers is to play cooperatively with other players against the NPC opponents, or at least to avoid random ganking or other player aggression that you see on PvP servers. This conforms completely to your very hard-to-read theory about 'voluntary loss-less player competition'.

People still debate the specific rules or boundaries of PvP combat because it's one more facet of their creation of their own metarules for the game in question. Some people love PvP, but only when there's nothing to be lost. Some people love PvP when everything is on the table and there's no safety. This is little more important to the topic of MMG design than two players arguing about which weapon should do more damage, or whether or not powerful loot should be made more common.

If you really want to understand why people would actually willingly play in PvP conditions, I suggest you read:
The Big Scam, by Nightfreeze(EVE Online)

Which I think perfectly defines the allure of a game that allows for Player versus Player interaction without boundaries.

Oh okay. I'm sure that not all of my ideas are represented in the PvE servers 100%, but I won't talk about it much anymore (might be extra weird), and also the fact that you mention some games support and enforce NPC-fighting with cooperation between PCs is pretty much most of what I was trying to say, yes.

Quote:Original post by Run_The_Shadows
If you really want to understand why people would actually willingly play in PvP conditions, I suggest you read:
The Big Scam, by Nightfreeze(EVE Online)

Which I think perfectly defines the allure of a game that allows for Player versus Player interaction without boundaries.

AHA! This is exactly what I meant by what I didn't like! I LOVE the story though. Ture or not, it could happen I bet. It's a perfect demonstration of how someone who works hard to achieve something may lose it all and thus the potential for real-life people to hate real-life people is great. I admit the thrill of getting revenge and getting away clean after committing a crime is intense and enjoyable when you succeed. But I would ask myself, is it a natural happiness, a natural high, to feel that thrill, and is there a better way to achieve a more enjoyable happiness through virtual worlds.

However I think you've answered my post as good as it could be answered, and even though I have some other minor ideas (which may or may not be answerable) I see not much reason to say much else! Partially because I end up confusing people anyway. Thanks a lot though.

Not the Apple computer... The Apple. Man's temptation to sin. Following the analogy, wouldn't the same thing that caused God's Paradise to fail be the same thing to cause an imperfect emulation of Paradise to fail?