Tom "Evocare" Chilton

[James]

Most definitely.

[Cybsled]

I agree smacktalk is a very imporant part of PVP. Plus you remove a valid tactic...one player smacktalks, the enemy players all gun for him to "own" him and put him in his place, ignoring the REAL threats (smacktalker's friends) nearby that make handy work of them as they try to kill the loud mouth. 9 times out of 10 that will work vs. people who arent seasoned in PVP.

The hardcore PVPers dont care about the smacktalkers...they take out your support classes first, then the lightly armored melee. Big ol' tank is always the last to die ;P

[FoghornDeadhorn]

An_Orcish_Warlord thrusts his hips at you.

"WTF?!? Orc will die!!!"

[Awanka]

Originally posted by Ukerric
A game that tells people "you cannot play" is a game people won't play, period.

Than I guess you've never played Counterstrike, because it's the same idea. I personally think Quake type games that respawn you back into the fight are shitty as hell. All you do in these games is run amok farting rockets. It gets old, FAST! It's pointless, and it's mindless, and it's stupid.

And than they came out with Counterstrike, which is about oh 1000x better. People were locked out for the duration of a fight after they died. Holy shit! Suddenly there were objectives and some purpose to the game. All of a sudden stratejagorizing became possible.

I can't stand scrubbing, so I'm all for lock-outs. Try it once and when you fail go do something else and come back later.

[FoghornDeadhorn]

Counterstrike is one kind of game and Quake is another. You can't make a fragfest out of a game where people permadeath, and some people like fragfests.

So, you would like people to be locked out of the game for 24 hours whenever they die? You know, I'd like you to be locked out of the forums for a month every time you make a fucking retarded statement, but then you might stop posting

Purpose? Game? What is Game Purpose?

[Awanka]

Originally posted by FoghornDeadhorn
Counterstrike is one kind of game and Quake is another.

No, they're both online first person shooters. They have a lot more in common than they do apart, and I bet 95% of people would classify them as the same genre of games.

Originally posted by FoghornDeadhorn
You can't make a fragfest out of a game where people permadeath, and some people like fragfests.[/b]

Yeah, they're called epileptic retards.

Originally posted by FoghornDeadhorn
Purpose? Game? What is Game Purpose? [/b]

What are these levels you speak of? What is an objective? Help, my tiny brain cannot comprehend.

[FoghornDeadhorn]

Yeah, you know, I often can't tell the difference between Metal Gear Solid and Spyro, they are both third-person single-player console games. If only there was something to define them further? Curses. I can't distinguish between appendages either, nor the distinction between their uses. Are hands better than feet? Hmm, well, they can grab, so I guess they are better than my feet, my feet can't grab anything but pencils on the floor.

Then there are war games and RTS games. You know what the difference is between them? Retards play RTS games, because you can get your units back, and they happen all fast and shit.

I'm sorry if you've been owned at multi-life shooters, my brother, but I'll wager if you've never known any fans of the genre IRL who aren't "epilectic retards" you need to get more RL friends. I know I, and many of my friends who give love to games like Goldeneye, Quake, and UT, could fuck you up in a handful of other genres too. Poor baby.

Some people play games to feel superior to others, which then becomes the defining purpose to them. Me? I think the overall objective to games is to enjoy them. There are different approaches to this objective, and obviously Counterstrike is a good and popular one. I often like going back after my assailants after they kill me, as do millions of other people. So what? Is it inappropriate for some modes of play? Yes. Always? No. I like that whole fun thing sometimes.

[Tuco]

So I imagine he's here to balance the pvp aspect, perhaps.

That being said, there are no players here who have played under the UO pvp system who can comment on Evocare's abilities as a designer?

[Daerath]

Originally posted by Tuco
[b]So I imagine he's here to balance the pvp aspect, perhaps.

I hope to hell not. UO PvP was very imbalanced.

[Magnum PI]

Originally posted by Awanka
In fact, I'd love it if they locked you out of the game for 24 hours every time you die.

You are a complete twit. Go back to school and take ECON 101 and learn how that tactic would bankrupt your company overnight as your customers would leave you so fast it would make your head swim.

[James]

they take out your support classes first, then the lightly armored melee. Big ol' tank is always the last to die ;P

Nah, just keep the support classes busy. I always go for the big damage dealers like wizards and rogues first, they're the ones that will end up killing you.

But that's niether here nor there, it's all about the smack talk. Adds spice to the game, and a lot of it.

[Awanka]

Originally posted by Doc
You are a complete twit. Go back to school and take ECON 101 and learn how that tactic would bankrupt your company overnight as your customers would leave you so fast it would make your head swim.

I didn't say it was a good business decision, just what I would personally like to see, and if a game was good, people would play it anyway.

It actually has a lot of things going for it. It's a dynamic penalty that punishes hardcore players more than casual players, which is how it should be.

From a developer's standpoint, you'll save on bandwidth costs, and greatly retard the rate of progression through your game's content.

Right now you might be thinking, "That's crazy talk!" But if they were to actually implement it in a good game, you would get used to it. Bleat for me, you sheep.

[Tuco]

If you were to implement it into a good game, you'd end up with a crummy game full of pussies too afraid to be dangerous, to avoid dancing.

[Awanka]

Originally posted by Tuco
If you were to implement it into a good game, you'd end up with a crummy game full of pussies too afraid to be dangerous, to avoid dancing.

Jesus Christ. If not being able to play for a day actually makes you more fearful than losing your corpse, you have bigger problems than death penalties. I know for many of you not being able to play Everquest for 24 hours would be enough to send you into a catatonic state, but I bet 90% of people if told they couldn't play for a day wouldn't think much of it, and they would go do something else for a while. Think of it as having turns in a game. When you die your turn is over for the day.

The reason I like this idea is because one of the biggest problems concerning gameplay in MMORPGs as of late has been the emphasis on cat-assing. People play for hours and hours without much thought for what they're doing, and they stay on all day so that their guilds can throw themselves at an encounter until they finally pass it. Same thing in RvR, people die and they're back out in the field in ten minutes. This is some very generic gameplay. I want to see a return to the value of quality of play and not quantity. I want to see people give their best when they're playing and try their damndest not to get killed, not this "oh well, if I die I'll be back in a few minutes."

Think of the early raids with Fear and Vox etc. They were planned out raids filled with trepidation because of the consequences. They weren't things that you tried every day. They weren't like, "ok, today we're going to try Vox three times, and tomorrow we're going to try to crack Fear 4 times." There is a sad lack of consequences in MMORPGs these days.

[Tuco]

I'm not even going to point out more flaws with having a 24 hour death system. If you don't want to play a game that allows those who have lots of time, to dominate it, then play one of those turn based games that give you 10 turns a day or something, legend of the green dragon!