Ups and Downs of Living Together

[Blaze]

Edit: Disregard that, I suck cocks.

Bring on the consensual forum faggotry.

[eql]

"I don't live in a big city so punish those who work together"

thankyou for sharing, douche fag.

[Delamore]

"I don't live in a big city so punish those who work together"

thankyou for sharing, douche fag.

What huge town are you part of that would be affected badly by a suggestion like this?

[Jackard]

lol its the kobnach broken record again. nearly everything you post reflects your anti-pvp stance in some way

wouldn't expect you to understand that the teamwork and competition that make up pvp are social elements

You clearly don't read my responses in the how-do-I forum.

That said, "I will kill you and fuck the body" sounds to me like the cry of an anti-social hermit. And I've seen precious little from you that suggests you are involved with others in any way other than mockery.

Also, to be very frank, most pvp'ers appear to me by their behaviour to be into treating other people as NPCs. Some of them may team up with others for the purpose, which is social. But the side of them I see is the unprovoked attacks on strangers, along with a strong tendency to nastiness in forum postings. (Of course I suppose rudeness, mockery, etc. are "social", in that it's no fun if the targets don't have feeling etc. Bleah.)

Also, to repeat my stance on pvp - consensual pvp is fine. I'll even be happy to sell supplies to both sides. Retaliatory pvp is also fine - I'll probably be cheering you on, and might well give you the aforementioned supplies for free - or commit such actions myself, if I'm the one attacked. But attacking people because you want their goods, or want the "challenge" of waiting till they are offline to trash their settlement - ick.

Because traditionally, the object of war was to ensure that everyone involved had a good time. Please tell us more of your fabulous "consensual pvp" system where you play a war profiteer - is it similar to the /pvp flagging mechanic found in popular online games such as World of Warcraft, or is it something equally ridiculous?

[eql]

"I don't live in a big city so punish those who work together"

thankyou for sharing, douche fag.

What huge town are you part of that would be affected badly by a suggestion like this?

i live in boat murdered

[kobnach]

Because traditionally, the object of war was to ensure that everyone involved had a good time. Please tell us more of your fabulous "consensual pvp" system where you play a war profiteer - is it similar to the /pvp flagging mechanic found in popular online games such as World of Warcraft, or is it something equally ridiculous?

In a game? Yes, actually, the object of war - from the POV of the game designers - is that (enough of ) those involved have a good time that they like the game, keep playing it, and recommend it to their friends. Very few game designers intentionally implement features that cause large numbers of player to get bored and/or frustrated and leave.

The goal of the _players_ may be to cause maximum possible RL distress and/or to get their opponents to leave the game. It may also be to have fun some other way, which may or may not be compatible with their opponents having fun.

As for mechanisms, I don't much care. I just don't want a game design that (1) forces players to live in large groups to avoid small scale pvp and then (2) forces or encourages those groups to get involved in large scale pvp.

[Alachast]

In a game? Yes, actually, the object of war - from the POV of the game designers - is that (enough of ) those involved have a good time that they like the game, keep playing it, and recommend it to their friends. Very few game designers intentionally implement features that cause large numbers of player to get bored and/or frustrated and leave.

The goal of the _players_ may be to cause maximum possible RL distress and/or to get their opponents to leave the game. It may also be to have fun some other way, which may or may not be compatible with their opponents having fun.

As for mechanisms, I don't much care. I just don't want a game design that (1) forces players to live in large groups to avoid small scale pvp and then (2) forces or encourages those groups to get involved in large scale pvp.

If you don't like how the game is played, why do you continue to play it?

[Jackard]

so he can continue lamenting the current state of the game and *sigh* about how it has so much promise, if only! if only!!

"oh, those black-hearted devils! why, were this any other civilized game, they wouldst surely be suspended or even banned by now. it's a shame that fine upstanding citizens such as yours truly must endure the likes of their filth

oh, they'll rue the day they crossed kobnach, theyll rue it well"

[Erik_the_Blue]

Forcing players into PvP is not the same as allowing players to engage in PvP. In a broad social and crafting game like H&H, it should be technically possible for people to pursue peaceful livelihoods. Whether or not they are successful at the 'peaceful' part is up to the other players. The mechanics of the game itself shouldn't matter one way or the other. Contrast this to WoW, where a lone human running around in Horde territory on a PvP server expecting to avoid combat with other players is almost certainly "doing it wrong". I don't actually play WoW, so I could be mistaken, but the point is that the Alliance vs. Horde conflict is one of the selling points of WoW. This is not the case with H&H.

To put it another way, kobnach's expectations for the game itself are not flawed. His expectations of the players, however, may be.

Also, kobnach is right on the point that war *in computer games* is about entertaining the players first and foremost. The purpose of just about every civilian game in existence is primarily entertainment (followed closely by mental and physical exercise). Show me a finished game that only frustrates its players and I'll show you a bad game designer (and some masochistic players to boot).

[kobnach]

If you don't like how the game is played, why do you continue to play it?

Because it's not a done deal yet, in spite of claims by various prolific posters.