KickStarter Pantheon - (Brad "EQ" McQuaid's new MMO)

[Norfleet]

Yeah, stuff like that is pretty nice, long as you get in before it's too late. However, as Xenich points out, a lot of people apparently can't stand PvP to the extent that they would rather subject themselves to some jackbooted fascist of a GM than fight for their freedom.

 

[Xenich]

Just make a free for all server for the people who want to "pvp" and make a regular server with some sort of play nice features for everybody else.

It solved a lot of the problems on Rallos Zek for exactly what Xenich was talking about. When the Taiwanese guild would roll through and try to do PoF and take it from us while we weren't in game but in the middle of a 2 day raid we could still organize a small one or two group PVP squad and wipe em and lock em out of the portal once they were all dead. Then we would hold their corpses hostage and negotiate an equitable arrangement. It was intense. It was fun. Sure it sucked if you were on the opposite end of that treatment but thems were the breaks and everyone on that server (for a few years at least) understood that. We didn't corpse camp people with the intention of locking them out from looting their stuff because there was still some respect between rivals. You didn't want them doing the same when you fucked up. Hell, I had enemy guilds give me the platinum they looted off my corpse back to me before.

Then the original raid groups kinda died off and the whole thing turned to a shit show for a few years. I guess things picked back up after I quit playing but those early days on Rallos Zek deserved to be documented. Unfortuantely they weren't and I don't think an MMO will ever have a community quite like that again. I've never played it but some of the things I've read about EVE Online and its PC pirates in that game sort of remind me of the same mindset in a similarly risk vs reward driven system.

Open PVP in an MMO is an unparalleled experience if you have a strong enough community that can police itself from griefers and maintain a good amount of competition. If one guild becomes dominant or the playing field is full of pretenders it will fail. Just look at what happened to WAR. The developers insured one faction had a mechanical upper-hand in the fight because of perceived difference in numbers. The developers artificially tried to tweak the game back to balance and fucked EVERYONE over. The game died. I think a lot of that had to do with the concept of artificial factions to begin with. In EQ1 there were no imposed factions from a guild/group standpoint. The players created their own factions. Organically. The way nature intended. And it was good for quite some time. All good things come to an end though of course.

I am afraid those days are mostly gone unfortunately . I used to PvP in games before EQ and such as you mentioned was a common aspect of play. These days, it isn't the socially accepted standard. The obnoxious socially immature player (often the griefer) is the more common element in such competitive games these days. I would try each PvP focused game released over the years, hoping to capture some of the older play I experienced in the past, but it wasn't the same. The attitudes changed, people changed, and I didn't care for them, I had no respect for them as they made me feel like I had to keep checking my valuables while being a guest in my house (ie they had no honor or integrity).

 

[Xenich]

Yeah, stuff like that is pretty nice, long as you get in before it's too late. However, as Xenich points out, a lot of people apparently can't stand PvP to the extent that they would rather subject themselves to some jackbooted fascist of a GM than fight for their freedom.

Some prefer game systems because they aren't narcissistic social morons who derive pleasure at seeing their competition angry and upset. If you don't understand that, then you missed the entire point of Nael's comment. Note that it was the game play that was the point, not the narcissism that is common of today's players. What he explains isn't common these days, and so it becomes just a competition of trying to be the first to fuck the other person over (as you have so often glorified the behavior of crushing your enemies and seeing them strewn about suffering as you use any and all means to achieve victory). Some of us realize that there is more to a game than the win. That is the difference between a gamer and a person who seeks entertainment in play.

 

[Nael]

I am afraid those days are mostly gone unfortunately . I used to PvP in games before EQ and such as you mentioned was a common aspect of play.

Meridian 59?

 

[Xenich]

I am afraid those days are mostly gone unfortunately . I used to PvP in games before EQ and such as you mentioned was a common aspect of play.

Meridian 59?

No, mostly MUDs (perm death). The social structure you describe was quite common in the early days. There was always the ass hats, but the bulk of the community had a social structure of integrity that kept them in check.

 

[Drakron]

There was always the ass hats, but the bulk of the community had a social structure of integrity that kept them in check.

Those days arent ever coming back not because MMO are mainstream or even because gaming became mainstream but because the Internet became mainstream.
The world changed.

 

[Nael]

There was always the ass hats, but the bulk of the community had a social structure of integrity that kept them in check.

Those days arent ever coming back not because MMO are mainstream or even because gaming became mainstream but because the Internet became mainstream.
The world changed.

Agreed. Lowest common denominator and all.

 

[sirsnail]

There was always the ass hats, but the bulk of the community had a social structure of integrity that kept them in check.

Those days arent ever coming back not because MMO are mainstream or even because gaming became mainstream but because the Internet became mainstream.
The world changed.

Sad but true.

I was only a kid when I played MUDs and EQ, but I can remember them quite well. Role-playing MUDs would have open PvP and full-looting, but if you killed someone without a reason you would be banned. Social ostracization in EQ hurt, too. You would spend hundreds hours getting to the end-game, but if you earned a bad reputation, you were done for. No raids, no groups, no leveling. Ninja-looting was unheard of on my server. "Training" would get you in huge trouble, too, unless you were a celebrity or in an "uber guild". I played that game when I was 16 and had to practically delete my character, my reputation got so bad (and that for running one or two "trains" in Velk's Lab).

By the time of WoW, reputation meant less, with instances and what-not. In EQ you shared.

It was hard, for a kid. Mostly I just watched the older people and did what they did. I imagine most people playing that game were in their 20's or older, with many my parents age! Different times! Raid leaders leading raids, in-character, on a non-role-playing server?

I could go on and on. I remember being shocked in WoW--some of things that went on. By the end of the classic WoW people were admitting to buying gold, posting ninja-looting videos on Youtube, to applause, guild leaders were not holding members accountable for their actions. The "Leeroy Jenkins" video and its popularity. That was no joke, in EQ.

The Internet changed a lot around that time. I associate it, too, with other changes, like match-making systems in strategy games, and shooters like Counter-Strike, instead of Unreal Tournament. Not surprising, though. It was just a delayed effect of what had happened with single-player games. Still, I regret I never got to play games like Meridian 59 and UO. I bet those were even better than EQ. Meridian 59 just oozes the style of game I like, but I bet the game now is nothing like it was then.

 

[Norfleet]

Some prefer game systems because they aren't narcissistic social morons who derive pleasure at seeing their competition angry and upset.

Game SYSTEMS are nice. The arbitrary whim of some jumped-up jackbooted fascist is hardly a game system, it's the exact opposite of one. When your progress through the game is not determined by the game itself, but by the arbitrary whims of some person, this is no longer a system.

That is the difference between a gamer and a person who seeks entertainment in play.

But gaming *IS* about winning. That's the very definition of the term, what it means to game a system. The people who understand this are the actual gamers, the rest are just players.

 

[Xenich]

Some prefer game systems because they aren't narcissistic social morons who derive pleasure at seeing their competition angry and upset.

Game SYSTEMS are nice. The arbitrary whim of some jumped-up jackbooted fascist is hardly a game system, it's the exact opposite of one. When your progress through the game is not determined by the game itself, but by the arbitrary whims of some person, this is no longer a system.

You don't like rules. You have explained such. You think rules are meant to be broken by any and all means. Naturally you are against any form of arbitration and hide behind tinfoil hat claims that the GMs are all corrupt and being bought off. /yawn

Nael gave an example of how people used to be in PvP (I remember this as well). That you could have PvP and it wasn't about pissing in your opponents face, taking pleasure as a narcissist. His example showed how the point was the "play" of the game, the fight which led to a victory. There is no victory in griefing, only sick pleasure from immature people. His example showed that the players were interested in gaming, not attention whoring due to a mental deficiency.

That is the difference between a gamer and a person who seeks entertainment in play.

But gaming *IS* about winning. That's the very definition of the term, what it means to game a system. The people who understand this are the actual gamers, the rest are just players.

Wining is the goal, it is not the point of gaming. Most of us learned this in our youth in the many competitive sports we played. Winning is the result of a skillfully played game. You have stated over and over that you disregard rules and find any means to win. You aren't a gamer, you are the poor kid who resorted to cheating because the only point of a game to them was the win. /shrug

BTW

The definition of a game as I have used and as it pertains to games we are discussing:


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game?s=t

a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
--------
a contest with rules, the result being determined by skill, strength, or chance

Compete is to strive for a goal of winning.

As I said, most of us who enjoy competition do it for the sake of the "Game", the strive for the goal, the entertainment in the challenge of placing ones own skills in measure of another. It is the activity, that is the point.

Those who only see "The Win" as the point are often losers, which is why they usually resort to cheating and attempt to justify it as "true competition of a winner". To them, all that matters is the win. To them, as long as the win is obtained, anything is acceptable, as you have often claimed.

 

[Xenich]

There was always the ass hats, but the bulk of the community had a social structure of integrity that kept them in check.

Those days arent ever coming back not because MMO are mainstream or even because gaming became mainstream but because the Internet became mainstream.
The world changed.

Sad but true.

I was only a kid when I played MUDs and EQ, but I can remember them quite well. Role-playing MUDs would have open PvP and full-looting, but if you killed someone without a reason you would be banned. Social ostracization in EQ hurt, too. You would spend hundreds hours getting to the end-game, but if you earned a bad reputation, you were done for. No raids, no groups, no leveling. Ninja-looting was unheard of on my server. "Training" would get you in huge trouble, too, unless you were a celebrity or in an "uber guild". I played that game when I was 16 and had to practically delete my character, my reputation got so bad (and that for running one or two "trains" in Velk's Lab).

By the time of WoW, reputation meant less, with instances and what-not. In EQ you shared.

It was hard, for a kid. Mostly I just watched the older people and did what they did. I imagine most people playing that game were in their 20's or older, with many my parents age! Different times! Raid leaders leading raids, in-character, on a non-role-playing server?

I could go on and on. I remember being shocked in WoW--some of things that went on. By the end of the classic WoW people were admitting to buying gold, posting ninja-looting videos on Youtube, to applause, guild leaders were not holding members accountable for their actions. The "Leeroy Jenkins" video and its popularity. That was no joke, in EQ.

The Internet changed a lot around that time. I associate it, too, with other changes, like match-making systems in strategy games, and shooters like Counter-Strike, instead of Unreal Tournament. Not surprising, though. It was just a delayed effect of what had happened with single-player games. Still, I regret I never got to play games like Meridian 59 and UO. I bet those were even better than EQ. Meridian 59 just oozes the style of game I like, but I bet the game now is nothing like it was then.

Yes, reputation mattered back then and it curbed certain behaviors. What you saw in WoW occurred in EQ from time to time, but it was not socially accepted as it is these days. Plat buyers existed in EQ, but they hid it and refused to admit it for having it damage their reputation. These days it is an accepted and open practice, with some who believe it to be a part of game play.

While there are many factors to consider, I think one of the main ones is the influx of "non-gamers". These folks don't care about gaming, they aren't concerned with the process, they simply want the end result. The win, the end game, the reward, etc... The journey, the actual fight, the process is meaningless to them. When they became the dominate player base, games were designed to fit their attitudes. That is, those who skirted around in the shadows in EQ using plat sellers, power level services, etc... became the dominate player base and now games are FTP with PTW and all that matters is "end game" and instant gratification of the win.

What is sad really, is not so much that these games have become dominate, it is the narcissism from those who play them demanding a game such as Pantheon be like all of the rest. That is what is pathetic and it shows you the nature of those people.

 

[Norfleet]

I could go on and on. I remember being shocked in WoW--some of things that went on. By the end of the classic WoW people were admitting to buying gold, posting ninja-looting videos on Youtube, to applause, guild leaders were not holding members accountable for their actions.

Hey, now, ninja-looting is fine art. Back in the day, our group would ninja-loot EVERYTHING. It wasn't even about griefing. The loot would inevitably end up in the hands of the member deemed most appropriate to receive it. We just liked the entire process of ninja'ing, and the quick reflexes and action that it honed. Thus, we would always ninja all the loot, then wave it about triumphantly as a testament of being WOH-pah! Ninja agile!, before tossing it into the distribution pile. To this day, we still tend to ninja loot. Not because we're trying to rob the group, but just because we like being ninjas. It's an artifact of the era where when your group killed the opposing group, you wanted to ninja their loot and be gone before the rest of their guild showed up to retaliate, so everyone just ninja'ed everything in sight and ran for it.

The "Leeroy Jenkins" video and its popularity. That was no joke, in EQ.

The Leeroy Jenkins video is actually a very interesting case. It is said that Jenkins video originally existed to mock the "overly serious" guilds, and that Leeroy was intended to be the hero of the piece. However, as popularly received, Leeroy represents the incompetent player, and the video is popular because the viewers relate to the difficulties that such a player causes.

You don't like rules. You have explained such. You think rules are meant to be broken by any and all means. Naturally you are against any form of arbitration and hide behind tinfoil hat claims that the GMs are all corrupt and being bought off. /yawn

That's not what I've said. I like systems, and as such, system rules. What I don't care for are the arbitrary and selective enforcements invariably the case of any form of admins. I play computer games to get away from that kind of thing. I don't want humans running my video games. The entire point of a computer game is to have the computer adjucate the rules, as computers can be counted on to behave consistently and impartially and never arbitrarily.

There is no victory in griefing, only sick pleasure from immature people. His example showed that the players were interested in gaming, not attention whoring due to a mental deficiency.

Griefing generally lacks any kind of useful in-game profit. While amusing, I personally eschew it, because, well, it's a waste of resources. Griefing is an activlty that has lost sight of the point, since a griefer isn't trying to win, merely make you lose, but the point of the game is to win, not merely to make others lose...and it's made even more pointless by the fact that you're not even making someone who was winning lose, you're making someone who was already losing lose more. It's a purposeless act because it does not change the outcome in any way. Sure, I revel in the suffering of my defeated opponents, but I do so as I climb over their broken bodies. To fling stones down at those you have already passed is pointless.

Wining is the goal, it is not the point of gaming.

As with everything in life, the goal is the point. To lose sight of the goal is to lose sight of the point. These terms are synonyms. You cannot say that something is the goal and not the point, because these words mean the same thing.

Most of us learned this in our youth in the many competitive sports we played. Winning is the result of a skillfully played game. You have stated over and over that you disregard rules and find any means to win.

I said that? Since when? YOU keep saying that, I have not said any such thing. Without the rules, there's no game. The optimization within the constraints is the entire game.

Compete is to strive for a goal of winning.

Indeed, And since goal of thing is the point of that thing, therefore, winning is the goal. That is the definition of goal: Purpose. Point. Winning is the goal, therefore, winning is the purpose. It is contained within the very definition of the word "goal". The goal of something is the purpose, the point of something.

To them, as long as the win is obtained, anything is acceptable, as you have often claimed.

No, YOU keep claiming that. The "anything" has to actually be part of the game. I've already firmly established that tactics like "physically kill the other player" or "hacking the database server" should be considered fouls, as they are not part of the game.

Those who only see "The Win" as the point are often losers, which is why they usually resort to cheating and attempt to justify it as "true competition of a winner". To them, all that matters is the win. To them, as long as the win is obtained, anything is acceptable, as you have often claimed.

You know, we've been over this before, I've actually explicitly refuted this point multple times, but you keep insisting that I've somehow claimed this. Not ANYTHING is acceptable. Just things that are part of the game.

Yes, reputation mattered back then and it curbed certain behaviors. What you saw in WoW occurred in EQ from time to time, but it was not socially accepted as it is these days.

The mainstreamization and expansion of the MMO has had exactly the same effect as this kind of thing in real life: Reputation ceases to be important when the community is too large to know who you are. It does not help that "naming and shaming" is often outright forbidden. Administrations have generally sought to remove reputation as a factor from the game at all. In the old days, for instance, a trade scammer was publicly named and shamed. Nowadays? This is forbidden. The scammer is thus free to continue to prey upon other players, who will not be warned because the rules tend to forbid public naming and shaming, and as such, word of the individual's misdeeds can only travel underground.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

There was always the ass hats, but the bulk of the community had a social structure of integrity that kept them in check.

Those days arent ever coming back not because MMO are mainstream or even because gaming became mainstream but because the Internet became mainstream.
The world changed.

Sad but true.

I was only a kid when I played MUDs and EQ, but I can remember them quite well. Role-playing MUDs would have open PvP and full-looting, but if you killed someone without a reason you would be banned. Social ostracization in EQ hurt, too. You would spend hundreds hours getting to the end-game, but if you earned a bad reputation, you were done for. No raids, no groups, no leveling. Ninja-looting was unheard of on my server. "Training" would get you in huge trouble, too, unless you were a celebrity or in an "uber guild". I played that game when I was 16 and had to practically delete my character, my reputation got so bad (and that for running one or two "trains" in Velk's Lab).

By the time of WoW, reputation meant less, with instances and what-not. In EQ you shared.

It was hard, for a kid. Mostly I just watched the older people and did what they did. I imagine most people playing that game were in their 20's or older, with many my parents age! Different times! Raid leaders leading raids, in-character, on a non-role-playing server?

I could go on and on. I remember being shocked in WoW--some of things that went on. By the end of the classic WoW people were admitting to buying gold, posting ninja-looting videos on Youtube, to applause, guild leaders were not holding members accountable for their actions. The "Leeroy Jenkins" video and its popularity. That was no joke, in EQ.

The Internet changed a lot around that time. I associate it, too, with other changes, like match-making systems in strategy games, and shooters like Counter-Strike, instead of Unreal Tournament. Not surprising, though. It was just a delayed effect of what had happened with single-player games. Still, I regret I never got to play games like Meridian 59 and UO. I bet those were even better than EQ. Meridian 59 just oozes the style of game I like, but I bet the game now is nothing like it was then.

Well you can play UO: Second Age on an emulated server. Richard Garriot recently visited there, one of the creators of UO:
http://www.uosecondage.com/

(T2A is circa late 1998. I remember buying it in 1999.)

No it's not a perfect replica of T2a, but it's the closest thing to T2a available.

UO is very sandbox-like. It had open world houses and (house!) boats and pvp and cartography and spawned treasure chests and hirelings and spawned quests (posted on message boards) and players stealing from each other near the banks and so on, probably 50 years before most other graphical MMO's were doing it. MUDs had been doing these things for years already. (I can't find an old link I have.. but a guy made a blog entry about Ultima Online and all the things which made it innovative for the time. No i'ts not the first one which comes up ingoogle.. I just tested. It's not the "20 things...." either.)

Also UO was skill-based. By this I don't mean it demanded natural skils like a shooter, but that your character was defined by the stats and skills you trained, not by a class. So if you wanted to be a warrior, you had to train things like strength and Mace Fighting and Tactics. But you weren't limited in what you cold do. Most players trained Magery high enough to cast the Mark/Recall, or something similar. There were also crafting skills, like Blacksmitthing, which combine well with a Warrior., since it uses strength.

Many MMORPGs are class based because they're essentially trying to hold your hand, so you don't make a dumb build or get confused. They're also class-based so you can make a group faster without needing to ask people what skills they have. By and large, UO was a much friendlier game to soloing or smal group play. It also was more organic, I think, than EQ. So if both you and your buddy are casters, you should still be able to do a lot of things. And players did tend to be similar in UO too, due to the widespread aailability of guides and feedback on things. Players still experimented with builds though.

EDIT: You could untrain skills and gain a bonus. There was a 700pt skill-cap as well, so you couldn't GM everything. It was famously hard to get GM in some skills, as the gain after 90 was so slow and sometimes made worse by differences in the skills.

There were macro's, but I think OSI banned most of the skill-gaining macroers. Emulated servers are friendlier.

 

[Xenich]

As with everything in life, the goal is the point. To lose sight of the goal is to lose sight of the point. These terms are synonyms. You cannot say that something is the goal and not the point, because these words mean the same thing.

A goal is a general aim or or purpose to an end.

The "point" in the context I was referring to was the objective, which is the specific details and elements to which that goal is obtained. That is, winning the championship is the goal, but the objective (ie the point, purpose, target) is in the game play, its systems, its progression, its development. That is, the "point", is the journey, not the destination.

Not ANYTHING is acceptable. Just things that are part of the game.

Yes, and what you define as "part of the game" is fast and loose. You have stated that you think buying currency with real money between players is acceptable, part of the game. Like I said, you play fast and loose with the rules and bend/twist them to your own advantage. So "Anything" is defined as whatever you subjectively establish as acceptable game play.

We have been here before as you said.

 

[Norfleet]

A goal is a general aim or or purpose to an end.

The "point" in the context I was referring to was the objective, which is the specific details and elements to which that goal is obtained. That is, winning the championship is the goal, but the objective (ie the point, purpose, target) is in the game play, its systems, its progression, its development. That is, the "point", is the journey, not the destination.

That is a use of "objective" I have never heard of before. "Goal" and "objective" are synonyms: "Capture the hill". How is exactly this task is to be accomplished is the method, not the objective.

Yes, and what you define as "part of the game" is fast and loose. You have stated that you think buying currency with real money between players is acceptable, part of the game.

If we declare every form of foolish behavior to be unacceptable, pretty soon we'll be out of behaviors.

Like I said, you play fast and loose with the rules and bend/twist them to your own advantage.

And THIS is the example you cite for to support such a claim? That I'm willing to accept something that somehow means that I am "playing fast and loose with the rules", even if I don't engage in any such behavior?

So "Anything" is defined as whatever you subjectively establish as acceptable game play.

I define "acceptable" very simply: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off." Since, as you keep pointing out, these things exist regardless of what I do, and I am certainly not in any position to change it, I deem it acceptable. The alternative is going on a mass-murder spree. This does not mean I do this thing. In fact, I consider this foolish. What use is an activity that costs you money? But I don't care if others do it, and there's certainly nothing I can actually do about it. So, acceptable.

So somehow, because I choose to take the view of "it is what it is", I am somehow evil? Just because I choose not to be some kind of annoying judgemental Lawful Goodish pain in the ass about everything?

 

[Xenich]

A goal is a general aim or or purpose to an end.

The "point" in the context I was referring to was the objective, which is the specific details and elements to which that goal is obtained. That is, winning the championship is the goal, but the objective (ie the point, purpose, target) is in the game play, its systems, its progression, its development. That is, the "point", is the journey, not the destination.

That is a use of "objective" I have never heard of before. "Goal" and "objective" are synonyms: "Capture the hill". How is exactly this task is to be accomplished is the method, not the objective.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Goal_vs_Objective

Yes, and what you define as "part of the game" is fast and loose. You have stated that you think buying currency with real money between players is acceptable, part of the game.

If we declare every form of foolish behavior to be unacceptable, pretty soon we'll be out of behaviors.

Here is a perfect example how you loosely justify your breaking the rules. Most companies do not approve of player to player money transactions. For years MMO makers were against such aspects of transaction. If you look at most EULAS, they prohibit such transactions (ie it is against the rules). We aren't declaring every form of behavior unacceptable, that would be you attempting to evade the issue of this cheat.

Like I said, you play fast and loose with the rules and bend/twist them to your own advantage.

And THIS is the example you cite for to support such a claim? That I'm willing to accept something that somehow means that I am "playing fast and loose with the rules", even if I don't engage in any such behavior?\

RMT, you have justified it multiple times with some loose definition as to how it is no different than players trading within the game and so it is the same thing and perfectly acceptable. You are noted for your often stretched justification of cheating a game.

So "Anything" is defined as whatever you subjectively establish as acceptable game play.

I define "acceptable" very simply: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off." Since, as you keep pointing out, these things exist regardless of what I do, and I am certainly not in any position to change it, I deem it acceptable. The alternative is going on a mass-murder spree. This does not mean I do this thing. In fact, I consider this foolish. What use is an activity that costs you money? But I don't care if others do it, and there's certainly nothing I can actually do about it. So, acceptable.

So somehow, because I choose to take the view of "it is what it is", I am somehow evil? Just because I choose not to be some kind of annoying judgemental Lawful Goodish pain in the ass about everything?

Your argument is that of the thief who justifies their theft because... well... everyone else is stealing. You are not special, there is no higher reasoning you are making. All you are doing is what most criminal minded people do, providing a long list of excuses as to why your behavior is justified.

You don't even get the point of Nael's comments. Which is sad.

 

[Drakron]

Here is a perfect example how you loosely justify your breaking the rules. Most companies do not approve of player to player money transactions. For years MMO makers were against such aspects of transaction. If you look at most EULAS, they prohibit such transactions (ie it is against the rules). We aren't declaring every form of behavior unacceptable, that would be you attempting to evade the issue of this cheat.

Its not a cheat because said companies are fine with it as long they are the ones doing it, it was never about rules but their own bottom line.

Why Diablo 3 had a Real Money Action House when previous this was (maybe?) against the EULA? Because Blizzard didnt see a cent of it until they made a system were they would take a cut, the only reason they had wasnt because "it was a cheat" but because entrepreneur people seen a market and created industry, of course the people that run the game were upset about not getting a cut.

In fact, whats the difference of "real money" and "sexual favors"? If I get a drop and give it to someone in exchange for a blowjob I am not breaking the EULA am I? but its the same spirit and what if I am playing get a drop that my brother was looking for and offer it to him? no money or sexual favors but I am still offering a item to someone for no ingame currency and what if he is so overjoyed that we go out for dinner and he pays for it?.

Tthe fact is there is a market and there is a industry, the company is not even upset it exists outside not having a cut, the reason they dont try to have a cut is because it would upset the suckers subscribers that would no longer subsidize subscribe and thus lost revenue, its always about money and it should always be about money, if MMO are entertainment at least I expect popcorn being sold on the amusement park, not the management being so obtuse they refuse to license sellers or having their own shop because they expect me to get the corn and make my own popcorn.

 

[Xenich]

Here is a perfect example how you loosely justify your breaking the rules. Most companies do not approve of player to player money transactions. For years MMO makers were against such aspects of transaction. If you look at most EULAS, they prohibit such transactions (ie it is against the rules). We aren't declaring every form of behavior unacceptable, that would be you attempting to evade the issue of this cheat.

Its not a cheat because said companies are fine with it as long they are the ones doing it, it was never about rules but their own bottom line.

It is a cheat unless the company offers it as a game service. It is as simple as that. I am not arguing the issues of companies who sell PTW services, rather I was commenting on the companies who did not. Sony as well as Blizzard for years did not offer such, were opposed to such, designated such as "cheating" within their EULA and public statements.

I do not play games that approve of such. Norfleet approves of such regardless if the game makers do or not due to a "rationalization" of cheating.

Why Diablo 3 had a Real Money Action House when previous this was (maybe?) against the EULA? Because Blizzard didnt see a cent of it until they made a system were they would take a cut, the only reason they had wasnt because "it was a cheat" but because entrepreneur people seen a market and created industry, of course the people that run the game were upset about not getting a cut.

Diablo 3 is a game made by marketers for main streamers. If you will note, mainstream companies sell gimmicks and profit off stupid fucking idiots who think reality TV shows of morons hurting themselves is quality entertainment.

In fact, whats the difference of "real money" and "sexual favors"? If I get a drop and give it to someone in exchange for a blowjob I am not breaking the EULA am I? but its the same spirit and what if I am playing get a drop that my brother was looking for and offer it to him? no money or sexual favors but I am still offering a item to someone for no ingame currency and what if he is so overjoyed that we go out for dinner and he pays for it?.

Really? Are you seriously going to make this as your argument? Think on it a bit.. you are stretching here to avoid the point. What you seem to be suggesting is that because individuals among their small community may exchange game items for outside tasks is the same as a full focuses business who is designed around facilitating such evasion of game features. If you think that is the same? Well, you aren't being serious and your argument isn't worth attention.

Tthe fact is there is a market and there is a industry, the company is not even upset it exists outside not having a cut, the reason they dont try to have a cut is because it would upset the suckers subscribers that would no longer subsidize subscribe and thus lost revenue, its always about money and it should always be about money, if MMO are entertainment at least I expect popcorn being sold on the amusement park, not the management being so obtuse they refuse to license sellers or having their own shop because they expect me to get the corn and make my own popcorn.

So, your only argument is that it is ok to break the rules because the company would want a cut on the activity anyway, so... its ok to do...

Brilliant, you sound just like Norfleet in justifying cheating.

"Its ok folks, big companies would screw you anyway, so... I am justified in screwing you first!"

This is an a-moral argument, often made by criminals attempting to rationalize their behavior. /shrug

 

[Norfleet]

"Its ok folks, big companies would screw you anyway, so... I am justified in screwing you first!"

You know, there was a time when I took a more neutral-indifferent stance to this kind of thing: It was something I understood happened, didn't really approve of, but really, there wasn't anything I could actually do about it.

But the thing is, they actually DO screw you. You pretty much gotta get yours. That experience converted me permanently from the weakly-con to the firmly-and-wholeheartedly-pro side of the argument. Once you've seen what it's really about, there's no going back. Maybe if you're playing a small game run by those who have yet to become corrupted, perhaps your rules mean something. But in the real world of the mainstream MMO, you're the paladin in Somalia. You're living in an idealized past that no longer exists, like some kind of last samurai. In the modern world, you get yours before they get you. So while I personally don't engage in any gold buying and never will, I'm not willing to spit in the faces of those who make my future possible, either.

 

[Xenich]

"Its ok folks, big companies would screw you anyway, so... I am justified in screwing you first!"

You know, there was a time when I took a more neutral-indifferent stance to this kind of thing: It was something I understood happened, didn't really approve of, but really, there wasn't anything I could actually do about it.

But the thing is, they actually DO screw you. You pretty much gotta get yours. That experience converted me permanently from the weakly-con to the firmly-and-wholeheartedly-pro side of the argument. Once you've seen what it's really about, there's no going back. Maybe if you're playing a small game run by those who have yet to become corrupted, perhaps your rules mean something. But in the real world of the mainstream MMO, you're the paladin in Somalia. You're living in an idealized past that no longer exists, like some kind of last samurai. In the modern world, you get yours before they get you. So while I personally don't engage in any gold buying and never will, I'm not willing to spit in the faces of those who make my future possible, either.

You couldn't prove my point any more if you tried Norfleet. You did all the work for me. /shrug

 

[belowmecoldhands]

I'm not against gold buying or even selling an account. Why? Because I think that's the player's or account owner's choice. I think trying to forbid that or control it's draconian and ultimately counterproductive. The more correct way to go about this is to make a good game and encourage players to play it. See, when a game has been reduced down to buying gold or grinding money or grinding accounts to sell em then I think the player is not really have fun anymore. For example, there was a time in EQ when I lived on the leaderboards. I level locked msyelf and watched them, trying to get the highest HP/AC/etc for my level. I eventually burned out doing tha. I leanred from the experience that when the game becomes like that it's not worht playing anymore. It's the same deal with ppl who want to level fast and skip evrything. Or want to buy in-game money with $$$$. They're focused on the numbers. They're not really enjoying anything. They're going to burn out. Hopefully they larn like I did it's not productive..

If gold farmers are slaughtering whole zones, preventing other players from enjoying the zone, do something. But if gold farmers aren't impacting the gameplay of normal players then focus on making a good game. If farmers or cash buyers or others of their ilk are trashing the chat channels, do something. Agian, do something when it matters, otherwise no.

So long as players can benefit from each other, there'll probably always be some form of cash buying or purchasing of in-game progression or wealth. You can't really prevent without making it single player or being a tyrant.

 

[Ranselknulf]

Enough of the right or wrong arguments. There isn't any correct answer to gold selling / buying.

It really comes down to the type of gameplay the developers/players want. Most people who don't like gold selling / buying have already quit mmo's altogether so that might be why the arguments these days seem so one sided. People who are against it don't waste time even discussing it anymore because MMO's aren't their hobby anymore.

I'm also pretty sure even EQ had a pay to win server back in the day. EQ Legends or something like that. The key here is give people the gameplay they want. If i ever play this I'd be ok with a pay to win "premium" server and a regular ban accounts or delete characters caught buying gold. Sure it won't stop people from selling stuff on the non-premium server but it does reduce the amount of it happening and I think that makes the servers more fun to play on. At the end of the day that's all that matters, not whether you're right or wrong, but whether you're having fun.

 

[Xenich]

Enough of the right or wrong arguments. There isn't any correct answer to gold selling / buying.

It really comes down to the type of gameplay the developers/players want. Most people who don't like gold selling / buying have already quit mmo's altogether so that might be why the arguments these days seem so one sided. People who are against it don't waste time even discussing it anymore because MMO's aren't their hobby anymore.

I would say it is that and a generational thing. Many kids today see nothing wrong with paying real money to gain an advantage in a game, while we used to view that as... cheating.

I'm also pretty sure even EQ had a pay to win server back in the day. EQ Legends or something like that. The key here is give people the gameplay they want. If i ever play this I'd be ok with a pay to win "premium" server and a regular ban accounts or delete characters caught buying gold. Sure it won't stop people from selling stuff on the non-premium server but it does reduce the amount of it happening and I think that makes the servers more fun to play on. At the end of the day that's all that matters, not whether you're right or wrong, but whether you're having fun.

Those weren't PTW servers Flunklesnarkin (the Legend servers). The only difference between them and the main production was that the legend servers had raid schedules (as I have explained in past posts with guilds testing for tiers and then being put into a rotation for the raids) and a much higher response time from GMs (ie usually if you had a bug, and issue, etc... they would answer in less than 3-5 mins). Other than that, pretty much the same.

Sony didn't start doing RMT servers till down the road with EQ2's "Exchange" servers. I am not sure if they ever had such a service for EQ, though I quit playing EQ when GoD was released.

PTW servers being separated from the non-PTW don't work. What ends up happening is many PTW players play on non-PTW servers and use unofficial plat/gold sellers so they can obtain an advantage on the non-PTW server. Sony didn't have much success with the Exchange servers. As I said, cheaters don't like to play with other cheaters, it defeats the point for them.

 

[Ranselknulf]

I don't really consider it cheating myself, but its a play style I'm just not that interested in.

I use to consider it cheating, but after thinking on it I realize it's just the way they want to play their game. No point going into great philosophical debates on morality/cheating/fairness etc. It's just what they enjoy. I don't happen to enjoy that style of game play and both are valid standpoints.

 

[Xenich]

I don't really consider it cheating myself, but its a play style I'm just not that interested in.

I use to consider it cheating, but after thinking on it I realize it's just the way they want to play their game. No point going into great philosophical debates on morality/cheating/fairness etc. It's just what they enjoy. I don't happen to enjoy that style of game play and both are valid standpoints.

That is fine in single player games, but in multiplayer games their actions have an effect on the economic system and ultimately other players. As long as that is possible, what they "enjoy" is irrelevant. That is, they can choose not to play rather than cheat the system. I mean, if we use "what I enjoy", we can justify many forms of cheating (even paying off game developers to force others to lose).

I look at it this way. If the game designers say "hey, this is against the rules...", well... it is against the rules and anyone who does it is a cheater. It really is as simple as that.