GameSage: DK Online
- 23 Mar 2008
- Carpe Noctem! United States
PostedJan 29, 2013 3:59 am
Red: This statement is why I brought up, "ONLY during Ruemon." Shaiya, another game I play, most maps are pvp enabled 24/7. While players do complain about getting PK'd, it is not because the maps are pvp; It is because that is constant. I do not feel 3 hours of 24 (12.5% of the day) creates that same environment. The majority of other players probably feel that as well.
Forcing people to take part is a sure-fire way to encourage players to leave and take their ball with them.
Like it or not, people are individuals, with their own preferences and playing styles. RvR must remain "optional," as far as coding goes. Guild Leaders could encourage (or even demand) RvR participation, but attempting to lay the responsibility on Aeria and the Devs and calling for them to force participation through coding and/or policy/rules is simply not going to work.
And Utilitarianism is a type of Consequentialist Ethics ("The end justifies the means."), of which all systems are unsatisfactory.
I say this as one who does indeed take part in RvR (albeit not every time, because, let's face it, there's a lot to do in the game and I'm sometimes involved in something else when Ruemon starts, and sometimes I'm not even in-game).
Furthermore, There was mixed reception with the game's style in Korea, which is why Aeria's version is changed. There's a good possibility that the "Optional" PVP is why it did not do as well as it could have done. (I doubt you would be complaining about this suggestion, if it was actually a closed Beta Integration; Fact is PVP during Ruemon, was not successful in CB, was not successful in ST, and so far, is not proving to be successful in OB)
Blue: What I said was Perfect Substitution Utilitarianism. Perhaps ending in an "Ism" creates a modified meaning, maybe it doesn't.
But in Economics, the goal of every producer is to maximize profit, while every consumer's goal is to maximize "Utility." Utility in this instance represents "The amount a stimuli satisfies needs."
And, the goal of economics, is to balance Profit and Utility.
The key words here though, are "Perfect Substitute." That implies, for every 1 unit lost of one item, a consumer will demand one more unit of the other. In this situation, the two goods being compared, are pvp and pve. If PVE is revoked or restricted for an hour, for that hour, most players will substitute that playtime with pvp.
Purple: Do you really believe there is alot to do? We're already 1+ week into the release, and some people already are maxed in relation to level, runes, and enchantment of what can be achieved without an item mall.
At this moment, this game offers:
Quests to kill a certain number of mobs.
Bosses doable with 1- 6 persons, that have less reward than grinding mobs do.
Rune collecting and linking.
Eventually Rune collecting ends.
Eventually you run out of quests.
Bosses are already obsolete and after a few kills will become boring (One player is already at around 15% of the Emphlant Vouchers needed for a Legend 40 weapon).
It won't be long before there is nothing to do but pvp, and only 3 hours a day at that. If that pvp fails, I'm fairly sure players will pack their bags far sooner than being upset about being forced into pvp at 20+.
This game is nowhere near as complicated as any other Aeria Game.
-Skills are limited
-Classes are gender locked
-Builds affect character balance only up to about 50%, instead of 90%.
-Linking and enchanting is still very 2 dimensional (This will probably change once we have elements and resistances, and more).
-Bosses pretty much all have the same sorts of debuffs; Either a Burn or a Stun.
-Farming is extremely easy.
-Damage is direct addition and subtraction
-Weapon Accuracy prevents any sort of evasion builds by innately having high accuracy.
(Sometimes simple is good.... merely making a point).
In Black: As far as forcing gameplay; This seems more counter-intuitive about knowing how players behave, than my assumption of changing a gameplay mechanic. Codux has been trying to get Eos and his guild to pvp; But, not matter the amount of goading makes it an easy sell when they lose, lose, lose and lose. Not only do they lose, but they lose when numbers are fairly even, and usually in a matter of seconds. I consider Codux a patient man. I also consider him charismatic. But his own faction is making him give up through their stubbornness.
Players will always respond to stimuli that are indirect, more than they will stimuli that is direct. Changing a game function is indirect, and can be seen as progress. Players trying to coerce other players, is Direct stimuli, and to most people offensive, and estranging.
Disclosure: I am not claiming to read the minds of every player. Nor am I the best person at wording things in a way that someone cannot poke holes in or pick at.
But I do know Finance and I do know Economics. Economic principals are in every fiber of our lives. Heck, I'm covering Utility in my Microeconomics course right now. If the environment makes pve undesireable, it will make pvp more desirable. Maybe not for every single person; but those players who feel it is not for them could choose to do several things:
-Sit in Town as a Shop
-Be nonfactioned/nonguilded (without a faction, you wouldn't be in the pvp).
One major fact about DK's Factions:
Their role in play is WEAK. Outside of Ruemon, they don't even play a role, except segregating players. Factions don't play a role in castles, grind, or anything else. Global pvp, however, would be a very obvious Faction Role, which is something we need.
How you "feel" players "should" act is not always correct.
As firedale pointed out, some players would simply log out for those three hours, or stop playing entirely.
As for the suggestion that I would not be complaining about the suggestion had it been implemented in or before CB, that is perhaps correct, because such a situation might have discouraged me from even trying the game. I prefer freedom of choice.
Utilitarianism is a type of Consequentialism (one of three main perspectives in the field of Ethics). The classic works on Utilitarianism are by Jeremy Bentham ("the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong"), and, later, John Stuart Mill ("actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."). While those statements sound initially harmless, they must be noted as hedonistic and exclusive of concern for any minorities. This is considered to be a type of Consequentialism because Utilitarianism advocates the view that the ethicality of any given act lies not in the act itself (Legalism) nor in the motivations/attitude behind the act (Intentionalism), but rather, in the resulting outcome. As such, if one commits an atrocity and the result is increased pleaure for the majority, then one has acted in an ethically praiseworthy manner; likewise, if one intends harm by an act but the result is increased pleasure for the majority, then that person has acted in an ethically praiseworthy manner. I think those clarifications serve sufficiently to demonstrate why Utilitarianism is flawed.
As for the substitution, your theory posits that PvE and PvP are somehow equal in value to everyone concerned. They are not; many players eschew PvP entirely, while others PvE only in order to become more adept at PvP, and would happily dispense with PvE entirely if it were possible to gain the same benefits from PvP.
In some games (LC, for example), servers have channels or sub-servers where PvP is enabled (which results in PK also being enabled), and others where PvP is possible only in restricted areas. This would not work for DKO, because PvP is definitely a feature of the game; it could, however, be adjusted from "restricted areas" to "restricted times in restricted areas" as is the current situation. The current situation in DKO has no PK at all, for which many are grateful; however, situations do exist in which PK would be useful to obtain justice without resort to the RT system.
There are also Daily Quests in DKO. While they may not provide much benefit after a certain level, they do still offer opportunities for gain of not only XP, but also drops.
Again, I prefer freedom of choice, and allowing various playing styles. I'm quite certain that I am not the only one who feels this way (and when I say "certain," I mean this in the Wittgensteinian sense).