Author Message

Reaps989

Rank 0
Joined
19 Nov 2006
Posts
73
PostedJan 28, 2013 6:26 pm
gmebilfish wrote:
What do you guys think that will help Eos participate in RvR?

Beside FPS lag. We already aware of that and informed the Devs.  


1.) Check if player population is an issue during RvR.

2.) If player population is an issue, make an equalizer buff to prevent zerging.

3.) If "1" does not apply, give more of a reason to show up for RvR. However, the FPS issue would most likely solve most if the issues. I still don't see the lag myself, but at the same time I'm testing skills atm.
Advertisement

ghiden

Rank 0
Joined
17 Jun 2008
Posts
137
Location
Lawrenceville United States
PostedJan 28, 2013 6:42 pm
gmebilfish wrote:
What do you guys think that will help Eos participate in RvR?

Beside FPS lag. We already aware of that and informed the Devs.  



GM Ebilfish,

refer to ticket 9144271 and you will see how to help fix this issue, however, this is the reply I got when I sent in my opinion.

[Can't post Ticket Response in the forum]

Please if your going to ask for player input lets come up with a little better answer than this. Yes this ticket is concerning the EoS pvp issue.

000Ace000

Rank 0
000Ace000
Joined
17 Nov 2012
Posts
74
Location
R. Germany
PostedJan 28, 2013 9:01 pm
Just wanted to add:

The FPS-Issue is an RvR issue, but it is NOT an Eos participation problem. why?
because Dione has the same FPS problems. So solving the FPS-Issue won't solve the problem of to few Eos participating.

Reaps989

Rank 0
Joined
19 Nov 2006
Posts
73
PostedJan 28, 2013 9:55 pm
000Ace000 wrote:
Just wanted to add:

The FPS-Issue is an RvR issue, but it is NOT an Eos participation problem. why?
because Dione has the same FPS problems. So solving the FPS-Issue won't solve the problem of to few Eos participating.  


Yes and no, because if one side is always going to win they're willing to show up regardless of lag. The ones that are losing, however, will not give a single ****.

Giovanna_X

GameSage: DK Online
Giovanna_X
Joined
23 Mar 2008
Posts
3597
Location
Carpe Noctem! United States
PostedJan 28, 2013 11:00 pm
I have seen people from Eos declare, at the end of RvR, that they don't see any point in attending until more people from their faction take part. That doesn't help the situation; if they withdraw expecting others to step up to the plate, then they're only hurting their own numbers, rather than helping them. It's also essentially the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent:

If more Eos people take part, I'll take part.
More Eos people are not taking part.
.'. I'm not taking part.

This is an incorrect inference form.

Rekikyo

Rank 5.1
Rekikyo
Joined
25 Nov 2008
Posts
8186
Location
Gaia Adrion Necria United States
PostedJan 28, 2013 11:27 pm
Giovanna_X wrote:
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).
 


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.

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.
PVP.

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.

firedale2002

Rank 4
firedale2002
Joined
24 Jun 2008
Posts
1859
Location
Somewhere in the United States
PostedJan 29, 2013 12:53 am
The only problem of the idea that...
"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)."

Is that you're forgetting the third option. They simply stop playing because they can no longer enjoy the game in a way that they wish to.

Drastically changing the aspect of a game from it's beginnings can have that kind of impact. People join a game for one reason or another, and if that reason disappears, most of the time, so will they. If they joined this game for the PvE, which is a totally valid reason, and then that reason comes under a major change that makes it undesirable, and they have not found another reason to continue playing, they won't.

Yes, the PvP system is a part of the game. Yes, the PvP system is optional. Taking away that option (or reducing it to the point that someone feels they don't have a choice) after the game has already entered this phase is a drastic game-changing idea, and thus can (and probably would) cause the players that joined purely for the PvE to vanish.

This game is not a PvP based game, contrary to popular belief. Yes, it's a part of the game, but it is not what the game is based around. If it were, it wouldn't be optional.

Rekikyo

Rank 5.1
Rekikyo
Joined
25 Nov 2008
Posts
8186
Location
Gaia Adrion Necria United States
PostedJan 29, 2013 1:36 am
firedale2002 wrote:
The only problem of the idea that...
"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)."

Is that you're forgetting the third option. They simply stop playing because they can no longer enjoy the game in a way that they wish to.

Drastically changing the aspect of a game from it's beginnings can have that kind of impact. People join a game for one reason or another, and if that reason disappears, most of the time, so will they. If they joined this game for the PvE, which is a totally valid reason, and then that reason comes under a major change that makes it undesirable, and they have not found another reason to continue playing, they won't.

Yes, the PvP system is a part of the game. Yes, the PvP system is optional. Taking away that option (or reducing it to the point that someone feels they don't have a choice) after the game has already entered this phase is a drastic game-changing idea, and thus can (and probably would) cause the players that joined purely for the PvE to vanish.

This game is not a PvP based game, contrary to popular belief. Yes, it's a part of the game, but it is not what the game is based around. If it were, it wouldn't be optional.  


We are still in the game's beginning.
And no game satisfies every player.

The key factor is measuring by what amount.

I haven't done that math yet, and I'd probably need some Aeria data to be able to do that correctly, but from what I'm hearing with players, more are going to quit if pvp does NOT pick up.

And no .... this suggestion would NOT take away the PVE aspect. PVE would still be 21 hours out of the day. In other words, it's a suggestion that accounts for compromise.

We're still in Open Beta.
There's a good chance skills will change, content will change, and new systems will be implemented (In fact we've already heard from the developer via an email from Filipvarga that they are revamping pvp, and we will have jungle content, and players are complaining daily about class balances).


I do agree this is mostly a PVE game, but there is a big push by Aeria players to make it a pvp game. For one thing, we would have to get 3000 Battle points a day for 40 days straight, to buy one level 40 PVP based accessory (5 Accessories makes 200 days). How do you expect that incentive to be useable as pheasible content, if this is not a pvp game?

Furthermore, It is definitely in Aeria's Interest to make it a pvp game. PVP sells AP items.

The fact we have factions, also encourages it being a PVP game.

In other words, it's a PVP game that was integrated like a PVE game, which is why it's a troubled game in Korea.

Giovanna_X

GameSage: DK Online
Giovanna_X
Joined
23 Mar 2008
Posts
3597
Location
Carpe Noctem! United States
PostedJan 29, 2013 3:59 am
Rekikyo wrote:
Giovanna_X wrote:
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).
 


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.

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.
PVP.

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.  


[Red:
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.

Blue:
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.

Purple:
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.

Black:
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).

MPure

Rank 1
MPure
Joined
17 May 2010
Posts
395
Location
Canada
PostedJan 29, 2013 5:43 am
Giovanna_X wrote:

Purple:
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.
 

There's a lot I could say at the moment in this thread, I might later, but rekikyo is doing fine. I just wanted to cover this certain point.

Daily quests? Those offer more vouchers, same reward from boss kills. Not end game.

DKO doesn't have an end game. Once our chars get maxed out, what will be here to keep me in game, and not just logging in once a week to defend my guilds castle or the occasional rvr? Sure I'll be farming for probably quite a long time, but farming WILL end, and does in every mmo. Farming cannot be the only end game content.

And yes, everyone plays at their own pace, but everyone will get there eventually. Rekikyo and I are far from bored at the moment, but we see the wall ahead of us and it isn't very far away. We are sharing our concerns because we know the general player base WILL catch up, and WILL leave due to said issues.

This game has very little options for a pve end game.. some dungeons/instances would be nice... but end game content is going to have to be mostly pvp based.

That said, here's the thread I made about some pvp end game earlier. Here
Display posts from previous:   Sort by: