"Risk versus Reward" - a false premise!

[_Pax_]

You know, a lot is made of the idea of "Risk-vs-Reward", or "The risk you face and the reward you seek to acquire should be balanced to each other". Expressed mathematically, one could write it as so:

Risk = Reward

And on the surface, this looks fair, reasonable, and correct ... doesn't it? One would naturally assume that the reward for an activity should be directly commensurate with the risk faced in pursuit of that reward ... right?

Well, I have been coming to believe that this premise is false ... because it is incomplete. It does not take into account the effort you must expend in pursuit of that reward. It also neglects the cost in expendable resources involved - and/or repair costs - that will be consumed during that pursuit.

So I think that what the "Risk-vs-Reward" paradigm neglects to take into account is, quite simply, your investment. This, I think the paradigm should be re-written to say "Risk and Investment, versus Reward". Or, again mathematically:

(Risk + Investment) = Reward

Specifically, consider two missions. Both bear the same risk, both expect the same expenditure of consumables. One will take you fifteen minutes to attempt ... the other, will take you four hours.

Shouldn't the one that takes longer, also have a better reward? I think it should.

So ... agreement, disagreement, alternate concepts?

[raldar]

Shouldn't the one that takes longer, also have a better reward? I think it should.

So ... agreement, disagreement, alternate concepts?

I agree. The longer missions should give a better reward. I don't know how many times I did missions that, although fairly straight forward and in line with short missions, ended up with equal or lesser reward. To run all over creation and then only get a few gold pieces is just a kick in th teeth sometimes.

But on the other hand, I've seen some short missions hand out some pretty decent loot.


So maybe in the long run it balances out. But, I'd still like to see a bit more reward for the risk.

[Fernos]

As long as there isn't an addendum to the formula. To wit:

Risk+Investment+40 of your "closest friends" :rolleyes: =Reward.

Time is an investment
Consumables are an investment
Screaming at 39 other people over vent isn't an investment.

[LordDave]

Sanity is a risk. :p

[Stopher87]

I am pretty sure people already took this into account because:

Risk=Investment

You are risking whatever you invest weather it is time or money or both. So one could argue that it would still be:

Risk=Reward

[Sagerk]

As long as there isn't an addendum to the formula. To wit:

Risk+Investment+40 of your "closest friends" :rolleyes: =Reward.

Time is an investment
Consumables are an investment
Screaming at 39 other people over vent isn't an investment.

I have never heard a more profound (and correct) statement than this!

Bravo :)

[_Pax_]

Sanity is at risk. :p

Fixed that for you. :D

As long as there isn't an addendum to the formula. To wit:

Risk+Investment+40 of your "closest friends" :rolleyes: =Reward.

Time is an investment
Consumables are an investment
Screaming at 39 other people over vent isn't an investment.
Yes and no; organising a large group IS an investment.

As long as that isn't the ONLY benchmark of investment, I'm fine with it being a kind of investment.

Again, picture: two tasks; one cna be done alone, in four hours' time. Another can be done only in a group of 10 people, and also takes about four hours' time. The consumables-usage-rate and overall risk are roughly the same for both activities.

Shouldn't the one that can't be done with less than 10 people, have a reward that is at least marginally improved over the one that can be done alone?

I think it should.

However, I believe you and I both agree, that the 10-person activity should not be the only option available, of course. That's a different topic, though.

[jayrelo]

why are there two threads about riskreward right now? i'm going spastic trying to post twice... :(

[rayljr]

Sanity is a risk. :p

i agree, and that's the reason i refuse to have any part of it.

[Korrific]

Shouldn't the one that takes longer, also have a better reward? I think it should.

So ... agreement, disagreement, alternate concepts?

Disagreement, for a couple of reasons.

First, flesh out the comparison a bit. Two missions, same "risk" (I'll get to the quotes in a bit), same loss of consumables, one takes longer. That implies to me that the extra length serves absolutely no purpose, game-mechanics-wise (although there might be an entertainment factor - I'll get to that later too). Either the risk and item loss (let's put 'em both together and call it total risk) are diluted out over that longer period of time, such that total risk isn't felt as sharply, or total risk is as concentrated as it is in the short mission - leaving you with a lot of dead time. Would either of these be acceptable to you as a player? Would either be fun? Should either scenario even be in the game?

What's worse, by one interpretation of your equation, players could conceivably increase rewards just by dawdling around after having basically finished all but the very last piece of the mission. Is that acceptable? Would you want to stay on a team where the leader says, "ok, let's just stand here for half an hour to boost the mission bonus"?

I mentioned entertainment earlier. There have been times where I'm on a mission, but I'm suddenly struck by a stunning visual (e.g. a colorful sunset, or a well-done ocean vista), or I suddenly discover a little nook I've never seen before - and I pause to enjoy and explore before finishing the mission. Should I get a reward for stopping to smell the roses? By my calculus, I've already been rewarded - by the scent of the roses.

In short, longer time invested in the mission is not, in my opinion, sufficient to justify a reward. Mandatory time investment programmed in by a dev just shouldn't happen; player-driven time investment, for the sake of getting a greater reward, is an exploit. Both cases would be insanely boring.

Second point - the nature of "risk" (with quotes and everything). In an MMO, there is no risk. None. In fact, I'd argue that what people call "risk" really is what you seem to be calling investment. Having a tough time with a spawn? Well, you'll have to be more careful and take it slowly. Getting pwned repeatedly? Well, so you cut your losses and find something your own speed. In either case, the only thing that you, the player, have lost, is time. But even then, if you had fun tilting at windmills, would you regret the "loss" of that time?

Man, I love these abstract philomosophical go-nowhere questions :D

...holy carp, half a dozen posts before I even type this out :eek:

[LordDave]

Fixed that for you. :D


It can't be at risk. I don't have it anymore. :p

[_Pax_]

why are there two threads about riskreward right now? i'm going spastic trying to post twice... :(

Because my idea here only starts with Risk-vs-Reward, and goes in a direction I felt was very different from the other ... yet, that other thread is what prompted me to post in teh first place.

[jayrelo]

Because my idea here only starts with Risk-vs-Reward, and goes in a direction I felt was very different from the other ... yet, that other thread is what prompted me to post in teh first place.

well, kudos for not hijacking.

:p

the other thread is kinda teh dumb anyhow.

[shadowrunner52]

So I think that what the "Risk-vs-Reward" paradigm neglects to take into account is, quite simply, your investment. This, I think the paradigm should be re-written to say "Risk and Investment, versus Reward". Or, again mathematically:

(Risk + Investment) = Reward



You are missing one other vital factor in your equation. It's a piece of the equation that invalidates your entire theory. The correct mathematical expression should be:

(Risk + Investment = Reward / /\S

Now S is the symbol for Entropy. This is basically the 'reality' factory. I'm sure there are plenty of people on this forum who could relate stories of investing time in a risky situation only to find that the reward wasn't what they thought it would be. So I'm sure that no matter how hard Cryptic tries, there will be people who will be disappointed when they finally accomplish the high risk missions only to find out that the reward isn't as good as they expected.

[Fernos]

Fixed that for you. :D


Yes and no; organising a large group IS an investment.

As long as that isn't the ONLY benchmark of investment, I'm fine with it being a kind of investment.

Again, picture: two tasks; one cna be done alone, in four hours' time. Another can be done only in a group of 10 people, and also takes about four hours' time. The consumables-usage-rate and overall risk are roughly the same for both activities.

Shouldn't the one that can't be done with less than 10 people, have a reward that is at least marginally improved over the one that can be done alone?

I think it should.

However, I believe you and I both agree, that the 10-person activity should not be the only option available, of course. That's a different topic, though.

No it should not simply because Reward then is pushed into the realm of popularity contest/Cool Table. It shouldn't be this way, yet human nature makes it so. Show me a high end raid group that isn't elitist and dare I say even fascist by it's very nature.

There is a way around this and that is something similar to the Public Quest that Mythic has given us with Warhammer Online here you have Risk+Investment+teamwork= Reward, what makes it different is the "Big Tent" " Y'all come' Authoritative base that is inclusive and not exclusionary...and that is more in keeping with the ST ethos. It gives the fraternal guild paradigm a nasty (and much deserved) pimp slap and that I feel is the much missing link to the original formula.

[_Pax_]

What's worse, by one interpretation of your equation, players could conceivably increase rewards just by dawdling around after having basically finished all but the very last piece of the mission. Is that acceptable? Would you want to stay on a team where the leader says, "ok, let's just stand here for half an hour to boost the mission bonus"?
That's not my point. I mean, the designer expected length of time / effort. If one mission is INTENDED (for whatever reason) to take longer, then that very cost in time should produce some sort of reward.

If we presume that a person is facing X "risk" per hour ... then a single four-hour mission IMO should give a "reward" that competes with running, instead, four one-hour missions isntead. (And please note, by the by: I consider "really cool content" to be part of the potentially "reward". A minor component of it, mind, but part of it nonetheless.)

However ... I do not advocate rewarding peole for taking MORE time than is strictly required. But if, for example ...

Okay, here's a concrete example for you, after all:

One ... Intelligence Services has determined that a known pirate will be meeting a "business associate" at a particular place and time. Your mission is to intercept them, and apprehend (or destroy) one or both. At this level, let's assume at this point you're in a Constitution or Excelsior-sized ship; you'll face two Voyager-sized ships at the pirate rendezvous, and it should take you roughly five minutes' time to get there.

Two ... local pirate activity has been on the rise for several months, now; Starfleet is sending in a convoy of three freighters as bait, to draw the pirates out; false information indicating they carry a particularly valuable cargo has been carefully planted in "all the right places". Your ship will be their escort ... and as it turns out, yep, you'll face two Voyager-sized ships. The trick is, this occurs at a random point during the second half of the convoy's twenty-minute voyage - and you have to escort them along the WHOLE route.

Three ... you are asked to scan eight distinct locations in an asteroid belt. Each scan will take between thirty and sixty seconds, and you can expect to spend an average of five minutes time travelling between each (assuming a least-time course through the entire series of scannable points). There's been some pirate activity in the area, so you're advised to keep yoru eyes open ... and at one point, you WILL be attacked by two ships. Conveniently, both about voyager-sized.

...

In all three scenarios, the RISK - a combat encounter with two much smaller ships - is exactly the same. Discounting the time of the actual fight, however? #1 will take 5 minutes; #2 will take 20 minutes, and #3 will take 44 to 48 minutes. And what's more, the extra "time" involved is entirely within the story of each mission.

Now, don't think I suggest that "the mission took twice as long, so it should be worth twice as much". I posited the formula as an ADDITIVE factor, not a multiplicative one. Hwoever, I think the reward for #2 should be modestly greater than the reward for #1 ... and the reward for #3 should be even greater still.

Mandatory time investment programmed in by a dev just shouldn't happen; [...]
See above.

Second point - the nature of "risk" (with quotes and everything). In an MMO, there is no risk. None.
O_o

You're going to bring up the whole "real world" thing, aren't you?

[_Pax_]

No it should not simply because Reward then is pushed into the realm of popularity contest/Cool Table. It shouldn't be this way, yet human nature makes it so. Show me a high end raid group that isn't elitist and dare I say even fascist by it's very nature.
So what?

No, honestly - so what?

As long as that is not THE end-all, be-all "tough thing to do" content ... what do you CARE if the "big raid group" playstyle has IT'S path to the extra-sparkly stuff?

Again: I think there should be comparable Solo activities. Maybe they'll take more in-game time to complete (balancing the organisational investment of a large raid). Maybe they'll just award some sort of Merit or Commendation, that can be used to "purchase" awards ... and you'll have to do the same Solo mission a couple times to equal the reward-goodness of the single large Raid group's reward ...

... so what? Each has their path, and the rewards are fairly balanced one to the other with all investment and risk accounted for.

It gives the fraternal guild paradigm a nasty (and much deserved) pimp slap and that I feel is the much missing link to the original formula.
... you have apparent issues with Guilds, it seems.

[Ramierez]

Disagreement, for a couple of reasons.

First, flesh out the comparison a bit. Two missions, same "risk" (I'll get to the quotes in a bit), same loss of consumables, one takes longer. That implies to me that the extra length serves absolutely no purpose, game-mechanics-wise (although there might be an entertainment factor - I'll get to that later too). Either the risk and item loss (let's put 'em both together and call it total risk) are diluted out over that longer period of time, such that total risk isn't felt as sharply, or total risk is as concentrated as it is in the short mission - leaving you with a lot of dead time. Would either of these be acceptable to you as a player? Would either be fun? Should either scenario even be in the game?

What's worse, by one interpretation of your equation, players could conceivably increase rewards just by dawdling around after having basically finished all but the very last piece of the mission. Is that acceptable? Would you want to stay on a team where the leader says, "ok, let's just stand here for half an hour to boost the mission bonus"?

I mentioned entertainment earlier. There have been times where I'm on a mission, but I'm suddenly struck by a stunning visual (e.g. a colorful sunset, or a well-done ocean vista), or I suddenly discover a little nook I've never seen before - and I pause to enjoy and explore before finishing the mission. Should I get a reward for stopping to smell the roses? By my calculus, I've already been rewarded - by the scent of the roses.

In short, longer time invested in the mission is not, in my opinion, sufficient to justify a reward. Mandatory time investment programmed in by a dev just shouldn't happen; player-driven time investment, for the sake of getting a greater reward, is an exploit. Both cases would be insanely boring.

Second point - the nature of "risk" (with quotes and everything). In an MMO, there is no risk. None. In fact, I'd argue that what people call "risk" really is what you seem to be calling investment. Having a tough time with a spawn? Well, you'll have to be more careful and take it slowly. Getting pwned repeatedly? Well, so you cut your losses and find something your own speed. In either case, the only thing that you, the player, have lost, is time. But even then, if you had fun tilting at windmills, would you regret the "loss" of that time?

Man, I love these abstract philomosophical go-nowhere questions :D

...holy carp, half a dozen posts before I even type this out :eek:

I think perhaps you mis-interpreted part of what the OP was inferring.

If I have a quest that requires me to deliver 2 tribbles from planet X to planet Y, and they are 5 minutes apart at maximum warp, then there is very little investment and therefore the reward would be low unless I had to cross Klingon space to do it, and then it might be higher. If, however, I have to deliver 2 tribbles from planet X to planet A, which are on the opposite sides of the alpha quadrant, because the investment is much larger in regards to my time, the reward would therefore be larger.

This is not to say that if I have the first scenario, with the planets only being 5 minutes apart, that if I goofed off for 6 hours, that I would get a larger reward. It shouldn't be an automatic bump based on what you really end up doing to accomplish the task, but an automatically calculated minimum risk. No matter if I took 6 hours or the intended 5 minutes, I should still get the same reward because the mission should only take 5 minutes.

In regards to consumables, however, I'd say that part can mostly be taken out of the majority of risk calculations because those are expected things in most games. They are, generally, simply a means of reducing the risk by allocating it to another area - your $.

One thing I'd love to see is less quantity of quests, but better quality. That's my main beef with the standard questing system. Completing 200 quests in one single, small area of the game universe? I'd rather have 10 epic quests that take some 'investment' and aren't just churned out in 5 minutes or require a crapload of tedium. Make the quest rewards worth it instead of just throwing them at me in bulk until I finally get something beneficial out of it.

Setup the reward system so that you can either get a choice of item for different things, with the ability to slightly customize (think allocating points) so that you can make an ok item fit better into your goal. (say if you got a phaser array reward with 20 armor piercing, you could move some of those points to energy conservation before accepting the reward). That in itself would reduce some of the need for the massive amounts of quests or missions.

So really it would be a template item...it has certain set in stone stats, and points that you can move to what you prefer out of a choice...like those plate pants in WoW your deathknight got with 60 int on them...you could move those points to either str or sta, but not agi, etc.

[Hagon]

No it should not simply because Reward then is pushed into the realm of popularity contest/Cool Table. It shouldn't be this way, yet human nature makes it so. Show me a high end raid group that isn't elitist and dare I say even fascist by it's very nature.

There is a way around this and that is something similar to the Public Quest that Mythic has given us with Warhammer Online here you have Risk+Investment+teamwork= Reward, what makes it different is the "Big Tent" " Y'all come' Authoritative base that is inclusive and not exclusionary...and that is more in keeping with the ST ethos. It gives the fraternal guild paradigm a nasty (and much deserved) pimp slap and that I feel is the much missing link to the original formula.Wow. please don't project your bad experiences with guilds and large raid groups onto everyone else. Most guilds are not elitist, and most large raid groups aren't either, and they're not led by someone screaming instructions at 39 other people either. If that's all you've ever seen, then dare I say maybe it has something to do with you that brings that nastiness out in people?

[Fernos]

So what?

No, honestly - so what?

As long as that is not THE end-all, be-all "tough thing to do" content ... what do you CARE if the "big raid group" playstyle has IT'S path to the extra-sparkly stuff?

So what? Well for starters is it has proven to be detrimental to the community at large, if you don't believe me feel free to go talk to any developer of Everquest or World Of Warcraft, both will tell you ( I know because I have spoken with such people many times) that the big Raid group option is the quickest path to strife in the community, this is why Blizzard is falling over itself to kill the Monster they created, it is also why SoE is thinking of new ways to bring more people to the show and why all of it's future games will not have an elder game that includes big group Raiding of private guilds. The industry has moved pass this and they have done so for good reason.

Again: I think there should be comparable Solo activities. Maybe they'll take more in-game time to complete (balancing the organisational investment of a large raid). Maybe they'll just award some sort of Merit or Commendation, that can be used to "purchase" awards ... and you'll have to do the same Solo mission a couple times to equal the reward-goodness of the single large Raid group's reward ...

But you won’t get that what you will get is a forum full whines by a vocal minority demanding that their group should be treated better because they work harder than the scrubs......developers are running as far away from this as they possibly can, because it divides the community into us and them.




... you have apparent issues with Guilds, it seems.

Nope just a ton of experience as a Raid Guild Leader. :)

[_Pax_]

Setup the reward system so that you can either get a choice of item for different things, with the ability to slightly customize (think allocating points) so that you can make an ok item fit better into your goal. (say if you got a phaser array reward with 20 armor piercing, you could move some of those points to energy conservation before accepting the reward). That in itself would reduce some of the need for the massive amounts of quests or missions.
Or just give a range of choices with roughly the same value. WoW does this now, and you just pick whichever item best suits your character at that moment. :)

[Fernos]

Wow. please don't project your bad experiences with guilds and large raid groups onto everyone else. Most guilds are not elitist, and most large raid groups aren't either, and they're not led by someone screaming instructions at 39 other people either. If that's all you've ever seen, then dare I say maybe it has something to do with you that brings that nastiness out in people?


It's amazing that you can actually type that with a straight face. :rolleyes:

[_Pax_]

But you won’t get that what you will get is a forum full whines by a vocal minority demanding that their group should be treated better because they work harder than the scrubs......developers are running as far away from this as they possibly can, because it divides the community into us and them.
You'll have that minority no matter what, because those people simply believe they must HAVE and BE the absolut best, bar none.

[Korrific]

In all three scenarios, the RISK - a combat encounter with two much smaller ships - is exactly the same. Discounting the time of the actual fight, however? #1 will take 5 minutes; #2 will take 20 minutes, and #3 will take 44 to 48 minutes. And what's more, the extra "time" involved is entirely within the story of each mission.
Thanks - I have a much clearer view of what you mean. I still disagree, though. :p With regards to your specific example, the longer missions actually provide more entertainment value than the shorter one, at least in my opinion. Scenario 2 introduces a sense of suspense, while 3 involves an unexpected attack (more or less - you're sure something will happen, but you don't know what). Both would be much more satisfying to me than 1, which is basically a "Defeat 2 Things" mission on the face of it...

I know that doesn't really challenge your thesis much. Maybe what I'm trying to get at is that I see entertainment value as a reward in itself. I'll do shallow, mindless missions like "collect 10 space rat tails" - but only if they're quickly finished. But I'd gladly play the waiting game if it's got a "Balance of Terror" or "The Enemy Below" feel to it, even if it entails no more in-game xp or loot than chasing alien rodents.

...actually, having typed that out, I can see how a higher in-game reward might be a necessary evil for PUGs and all. Yuck. :mad: But I reserve the right to not like it...

As for scenarios lasting more than an hour or so, in my opinion you're just rewarding people for having more time on their hands. If a four-hour mission can be broken up into 4 one-hour missions, I'd much rather see that than get an extra bonus for managing to get a Saturday off without the ball-and-cha... uh, light-of-my-life around.

O_o

You're going to bring up the whole "real world" thing, aren't you?

Well, I did, but it works in the context of MMOs as well. Unless a mission failure results in an actual setback for the character (e.g., lost XP or levels, lost materials beyond what the mission called for, or losing out on being able to finish a story arc), then, yes, there's no risk, just time gone.

[_Pax_]

Oh, I have no problem with some of the reward being "quality content". An amusing byline to listen to, between the freighter captains, while escortign the ships ... that can be SOME part of the reward.

But SOME of the increase should be reserved for the "payoff", the material gain (even if "material" means "XP"). This is because, yes, a large number of MMO players will simply find the least-resistance, highest-efficiency "XP per second" path to "the endgame".

And that can produce a skew in the numbers the developers see, as to what sorts of missions / activities "most of the players like best".

Shift things around so that time itself factors into the mix, and you mitigate that effect at least somewhat.

[JaGid]

I apologize if this belabors the subject, but I think it’s worthwhile to point out that risk versus reward speaks more to motivation than to outcome.

The phrase simply means that people aren’t likely to take a risk if they feel the reward will likely be inadequate. An accountant would call this the cost-to-benefit analysis. A skydiver examines risk and reward in the pureness of the adrenalin high he anticipates during his plummet toward Earth. A horny teenager (or a horny anyone) will consider the vivaciousness and sexual attractiveness of a new girl (and likely a few of her choicest body parts) as he’s deciding on whether it’d be worth risking his relationship with his girlfriend to have an exciting night with someone new.

Risk versus reward is not about what you will get out of an action; it is about what you could get.

This is an exciting subject, as all great games should teach people about risk and reward.

Is it exciting to explore endless space? Nope. Is it worth it? That depends on you. I look forward to it, because it sounds relaxing and there’s a chance I may discover the newest big thing. Maybe I’ll get to meet a new race that wants to share technology. Maybe I’ll find the newest conquerors trying to rule all known space. But I can tell you this: If I ever get the point where I realize there’s some simple formula, maybe X number of hours exploring equals I will meet two new species and one will be friendly, I will immediately stop exploring. For me, part of the reward is simply not knowing what will happen.

Remember, no one has a bead on what everyone else enjoys. I agree with the posters that mentioned that engrossing storyline is what some people play for. Some people want epic battles. Some, like me, just want to be in endless space and feel like we can visit the present day state of places that telescopes can only tell us what they looked like eons ago.

"Risk versus reward" in any great game must always to speak to human psychology, not to mathematical formulas.

[Trekkie]

I totally agree with the initial post, and i don't really see why anyone wouldn't. I always get frustrated when massively multiplayer online games offer a lot of missions but players only do specific ones over and over again because the reward is the same for substantially less risk and/or investment.

[Loekii]

I totally agree with the initial post, and i don't really see why anyone wouldn't. I always get frustrated when massively multiplayer online games offer a lot of missions but players only do specific ones over and over again because the reward is the same for substantially less risk and/or investment.

I agree.

It seems like there are two differeing things being discussed here:

Risk Vs. Reward
Time Investment vs. Reward


For the First, I think that for the most part, current MMOs reward far too much for very little risk. On average, I be most people successfully complete most quests on their first try. It is basically, if you can dribble this ball down this empty field and kick it into that Goal that spawns 95% of width of the field, you win this trophy. Very little risk and basic guaranteed success.

It needs to be more like, dribble this ball down the field against the one opponent, and kick it into the regulation sized goal. There is a good chance you might not succeed if you don't play well. That is 'risk'.

MMOs need more 'risk' in the form of difficult quests/missions/situations, where people fail. Failure shouldn't be avoided -- heck it is espoused in every sporting event. It is a learning experience and is the 'risk' that adds thrill to the activity.


As for the second -- Time Investment -- I am more in favor of bigger rewards for longer time investments. Doing a quest chain that takes 3 hours of game play should yield something better than a quest that takes 10 mins to complete. I am not talking about rewarding someone that plays 24/7, but rather rewarding the time invested to a point (ie a casual gamer choose to spend his week working on a multi-step quest line to gain special X-Tec, rather than spending that same time doing 20 'deliver tribbles to Starbase X' runs).

[_Pax_]

I apologize if this belabors the subject, but I think it’s worthwhile to point out that risk versus reward speaks more to motivation than to outcome.

The phrase simply means that people aren’t likely to take a risk if they feel the reward will likely be inadequate.
I'm sorry, but no ... it doesn't ... not as Jack Emmert has used it in the past when discussing the design and balancing of an MMO. And it is in precisely the same context that I have addressed it here. And most especially, I have brought it up here because Jack Emmert is the Big Cheese at Cryptic. ^_^

"Risk versus reward" in any great game must always to speak to human psychology, not to mathematical formulas.
The use of mathematics in my posts was intended to be entirely allegorical, not literal. :)

[Silverspar]

Risk vs Reward.

Silliest argument ever. This is how rewards should go about plain and simple english. You get renown, currency, or whatever monetary system Cryptic will use for STO. You build up your rank, gain influence from scenarios and such, get PvP based ranking as well. Use those points to buy equipment for your ship, that will basically fall under the level of basic standard. Everything else should be R&D type stuff, that creates a usable economy.

[JaGid]

I'm sorry, but no ... it doesn't ... not as Jack Emmert has used it in the past when discussing the design and balancing of an MMO. And it is in precisely the same context that I have addressed it here. And most especially, I have brought it up here because Jack Emmert is the Big Cheese at Cryptic. ^_^


The use of mathematics in my posts was intended to be entirely allegorical, not literal. :)

Could you post a link?

[_Pax_]

Could you post a link?

.... forum purges at the CoH/V community have likely eaten the posts I'd be trying to link to. And not being a subscriber to that game currently, I couldn't use their Search feature anyway.

Which, actually, is a blessing ... the forum software being there is an obsolete POS that was probably out of date when computers still used vacuum tubes. :eek::rolleyes:

[Freejack]

You know, a lot is made of the idea of "Risk-vs-Reward", or "The risk you face and the reward you seek to acquire should be balanced to each other". Expressed mathematically, one could write it as so:

Risk = Reward

I have nothing to add.

Post +1 :p

[Silverspar]

ither case, no one should have to slave away in a game if they just want to get into the action. I know I been comparing it a lot, but WAR really has developped the best answer, IMO, as far as just playing the game versus pathetic and worthless time sinks. If you just want to play the game, you can earn renown and levels normally in PvP and still buy equipment that will be decent for you, and you won't have to worry about anything. If you are an elitist you can go grind out whatever you want for the phat lewt, that can be better than the basic renown rewards. You can also get rewards for the Public Quests, and all the raid instances can be done with a core group, not requiring a warband though a warband could plow through raid instaces rather quickly. And everyone has a shot at the phat lewt to. You defeat the big boss in a public quest or raid instance, everyone get's something if they helped and participated.

[Hagon]

It's amazing that you can actually type that with a straight face. :rolleyes:After almost 10 years playing these types of games, and being in so many large raid groups that I've lost count, and being in several guilds/clans/etc, and associating with many many others, I can say that with the utmost confidence.

I can also speculate with a great deal of confidence that you probably have a history of getting kicked out of these types of groups because you just can't get along with others, and can't follow instruction from a raid leader, but in your mind it's everyone else that has the problem.

[Ramierez]

Or just give a range of choices with roughly the same value. WoW does this now, and you just pick whichever item best suits your character at that moment. :)

True, but there is still going to be way more items that you won't use as the stats are not geared to your class/spec that with just a slight customization would be a way better item than your current. I hate vendoring quest reward blues on my DK just because it had int when with a slight change it could have been a major upgrade.

Actually my 200 quests in one small area remark was directly referring to WoW and some of the wotlk zones. There's a few real gem quests in the masses sure, but most are just filler to boost xp gain/cash and pass out a few potentially minor upgrades to 3 or 4 classes at one shot, but more often than not the reward is just vendor trash.

Wouldn't it be much preferable, if instead of 150 quests in Borean Tundra, if there were only 50, and they were all of the quality of some of the infiltration or dk starter quests? Each with a reward that went along the lines of having 1 cloth, 1 leather, 1 mail, and 1 plate reward that would let you tweak certain class-oriented stats before accepting the reward? Or another quest that gave out a choice of ranged/relic slot item with the same customization? There'd still need to be limits on it sure...like those plate legs could either have 30 int/str/sta or 45str/sta, but it would still be a better system imho.

[Fernos]

After almost 10 years playing these types of games, and being in so many large raid groups that I've lost count, and being in several guilds/clans/etc, and associating with many many others, I can say that with the utmost confidence.

I can also speculate with a great deal of confidence that you probably have a history of getting kicked out of these types of groups because you just can't get along with others, and can't follow instruction from a raid leader, but in your mind it's everyone else that has the problem.



:D Silly in your myopic viewpoint you just can't grasp that someone who is anti-raid is so because they have experienced it from the big chair, and have found it to be a platform of elitism and fascism.

No if someone is anti raid they must not have been able to hang with a guild of their betters huh?

can you be more sickening?

Here is a brief resume of my past experience

Order Of the Sacred Sword UO: Fourth Largest Trammel guild.

First Fist of Light EQ (You may have heard of us since we were the second largest Guild on FV back in the day and the Third largest Guild over all in DAoC )

Fires Of Heaven WOW. We invented raid or die…trust me by the time AQ rolled around you were not worthy to make water and pots for us much less be on the alternate list.


So, yeah… been there done that and found it a bed of elitist jerks going through their Rand phase…in other words I, like Tigole, Furor, and vicarious looked around saw who and what we were hanging with and decided to grow up and move on. Apparently you are not there yet.

[Hagon]

Ya sure.....:rolleyes:

[Fernos]

Ya sure.....:rolleyes:


/smirk I guess that's all you got left. I almost feel sorry for you.

Edit: Damn son...in a little over four months you're clocking over 1500 post, that's almost 13 post a day....a day, and they say Raiders don't have OCD. :D

[Thibor]

... in other words I, like Tigole, Furor, and vicarious looked around saw who and what we were hanging with and decided to grow up and move on. Apparently you are not there yet.

Nice name dropping. :p

What I bolded is a reason to leave a guild, not trash guilds in general.

If you don't like the quality of person you're associated with, do something about it. Either seek change from within or step outside the confines of that group and start your own with a focus on what's important to you with regards to those you associate with.

A guild that focuses on recruiting good players instead of good people is more apt to end up with a higher percentage of egocentric drama queens than a guild who focuses more on the person behind the keyboard and knows what makes a good fit for their family.

The guild I've been in has never been in the super efficient HOV lane of raiding, but it's definitely on the raid progression highway. And we've had people leave our group because we don't progress fast enough. And that's fine. Individuals need to define for themselves what makes the game more enjoyable. But, we've also had several return after bouncing around a few high end raid guilds. And while they say that sure, the loots come in much faster and they've seen more new content in 2 months than we've done in 4 months, they couldn't get past the attitudes of those both in and running these guilds.

So yeah, I know the guilds you describe exist.
They're not the only ones.
Sorry for you that you haven't been in a guild that feels like "home" instead of the "office cubicle" where you slave away next to the annoying idiot that won't shut up but it's not everyone's experience.

Realize there is far more to guilds than arrogant, elitist jerks.

[Silverspar]

So, yeah… been there done that and found it a bed of elitist jerks going through their Rand phase…in other words I, like Tigole, Furor, and vicarious looked around saw who and what we were hanging with and decided to grow up and move on. Apparently you are not there yet.

:rolleyes:

The same Tigole and Furor who purposely crashed EQ servers because of their elitist jackassery in a vane attempt to make warriors into gods, the same Tigole and Furor who also went on to dungeon designers for World of Warcraft and of course made many assinine posts about it in the process, who also in turn tried toe levate the warrior in WoW as the only possible class to tank?

I sense a lot of gas in this post, and not a lot of truth. You can quote guild names till you are blue in the face, but hey, it's the internet, you can make claims on being hardcore, but when you start throwing around Tigole and Furor's name and not even stating what they've done, then I have reason to doubt your claims myself. And I know I am not a ahrdcore raider, and I got sick fo the mentality of the hardcore raider to.

[Fernos]

Nice name dropping. :p

What I bolded is a reason to leave a guild, not trash guilds in general.

If you don't like the quality of person you're associated with, do something about it. Either seek change from within or step outside the confines of that group and start your own with a focus on what's important to you with regards to those you associate with.

A guild that focuses on recruiting good players instead of good people is more apt to end up with a higher percentage of egocentric drama queens than a guild who focuses more on the person behind the keyboard and knows what makes a good fit for their family.

The guild I've been in has never been in the super efficient HOV lane of raiding, but it's definitely on the raid progression highway. And we've had people leave our group because we don't progress fast enough. And that's fine. Individuals need to define for themselves what makes the game more enjoyable. But, we've also had several return after bouncing around a few high end raid guilds. And while they say that sure, the loots come in much faster and they've seen more new content in 2 months than we've done in 4 months, they couldn't get past the attitudes of those both in and running these guilds.

So yeah, I know the guilds you describe exist.
They're not the only ones.
Sorry for you that you haven't been in a guild that feels like "home" instead of the "office cubicle" where you slave away next to the annoying idiot that won't shut up but it's not everyone's experience.

Realize there is far more to guilds than arrogant, elitist jerks.

I usually don't name drop...but it gets tiring hearing these arrogant jerks spew about how people who are Anti-Raid just can't grock the experience ..Because they are somehow less, There are many Ex Raiders that feel like I do, and the numbers are growing daily.

I get what you are saying, but to me (No Offense) it is a Straw Man defense. It seems to be fashionable nowadays to use the Oh that was those nasty other Raiders that's not us. I have been part of guilds that measured in the hundreds, I have helped countless other guilds start up and even pulled a few back from extinction and honestly it always ends up as a platform for elitism and drama..I'm sure somewhere some guild exist where that isn't the case...but the overwhelming majority inevitably ends up that way because it by it's very nature Models a fraternal Hierarchy...and no matter where you come from Frat boy usually ends up equaling jerk. Anyway I didn't start out to step on folks toes, I was just stating my experience before Hagon started with the patronizing assessment of who I was. I also understand that Raiders are defensive these days because their chosen style of play is going way of the Dodo.....I would think that given that one would step back and look at the reasons why, and adjust their behavior accordingly.

[Fernos]

:rolleyes:

The same Tigole and Furor who purposely crashed EQ servers because of their elitist jackassery in a vane attempt to make warriors into gods, the same Tigole and Furor who also went on to dungeon designers for World of Warcraft and of course made many assinine posts about it in the process, who also in turn tried toe levate the warrior in WoW as the only possible class to tank?

I sense a lot of gas in this post, and not a lot of truth. You can quote guild names till you are blue in the face, but hey, it's the internet, you can make claims on being hardcore, but when you start throwing around Tigole and Furor's name and not even stating what they've done, then I have reason to doubt your claims myself. And I know I am not a ahrdcore raider, and I got sick fo the mentality of the hardcore raider to.


You do get that Tig was all of 18 when he did that right? Trust me he's a little more Mature these days. (Also you might want to check out the new God in wow...it's a Hybird Class and is all Furors doing)

Actually my time with FOH was post Alex...(Jeff was strictly LOS) the only reason I mentioned them was at one point the epitomized ****** Raider, being placed headfirst in the industry allowed them to see different sides of the fence, and it has made the hobby more accessible to folks. Anyway never really asked for your belief ..just stating my opinion from my Authoritative base (I.E. what I have experienced)

[Silverspar]

Doesn't matter, they could of been 8, 18 or 80 for all I care. That will haunt them for the rest of their lives for anyone that remembers it, and 500,000 people I am sure will remember it quite well. As far as both sides of the fence, nah, they had to be reigned in on that, because they kept trying ot keep the warrior at center stage. I already know that much sicne I had to listen to the claptrap from them for quite a while, before I finally quit WoW in disgust.

[Thibor]

I get what you are saying, but to me (No Offense) it is a Straw Man defense. It seems to be fashionable nowadays to use the Oh that was those nasty other Raiders that's not us. I have been part of guilds that measured in the hundreds, I have helped countless other guilds start up and even pulled a few back from extinction and honestly it always ends up as a platform for elitism and drama..I'm sure somewhere some guild exist where that isn't the case...but the overwhelming majority inevitably ends up that way because it by it's very nature Models a fraternal Hierarchy...and no matter where you come from Frat boy usually ends up equaling jerk. Anyway I didn't start out to step on folks toes, I was just stating my experience before Hagon started with the patronizing assessment of who I was. I also understand that Raiders are defensive these days because their chosen style of play is going way of the Dodo.....I would think that given that one would step back and look at the reasons why, and adjust their behavior accordingly.

I would agree to an extent, prefaced with "the ones you often hear/read about."
As Don Henley sang, "We all know that crap is king, give us dirty laundry." And while he was bashing mainstream media, it holds true in most forums. If you want attention, stir drama or at least point it out to us.

Many so called reality shows function under the same premise.

I would wonder if you view organizations such as the American Legion or VFW as being filled with elitist "fratboy" jerks? Afterall, they are organizations who have a hierarchy, run functions, etc.

Again, perhaps it is the people you've chosen to associate with that is the problem. There are plenty of people who enjoy raiding that are not jerks, loot *****s, or egocentric narcissists and prefer not be associated with or dictated too by anyone fitting one or all of those descriptions.

If by raiding you mean group content, I highly doubt it's going the way of the dodo.

Now then, if you mean their mentality of how they attack group content ... assemble a group that plays their class to near perfection, regardless of how big an a-hole they are, and try to one up everyone by being the first to blaze through new content ... then yes ... maybe that playstyle is on the way out as more people realize there is more to mmorpgs then getting phat lewts at an accelerated pace.

[Fernos]

Doesn't matter, they could of been 8, 18 or 80 for all I care. That will haunt then for the rest of their lives for anyone that remembers it, and 500,000 people I am sure will remember it quite well. As far as both sides of the fence, nah, they had to be reigned in on that, because they kept trying ot keep the warrior at center stage. I already know that much sicne I had to listen to the claptrap from them for quite a while, before I finally quit WoW in disgust.



500k? uhhhh who is exaggerating now? :rolleyes: It effected the two servers that Crashed EQ had about 370K subscribers total back them. And no they didn't have to be reigned in, in fact Chris Metzen was all about making TBC all about the 40 man....it was Jeff and Alex that came to him and said We figured out a way to bring everyone to the show.....that is what has gotten Kaplan his last promotion from lead designer to Game Director. But as was said earlier this is the internet there is a lot of Ill informed "facts" floating around out there.

[Silverspar]

Ill-informed huh? Think you don't know your own history very well then. Maybe I should also point you to here (http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html) Since the highest point for Everquest was 550k subscriptions with nearly 450k being it's steady until the spike in 2004 and dropped. Ill-informed? Unlikely either since these two made themselves famous over at the WoW forums as well, so I suggest you stop pretending.

[Fernos]

I

I would wonder if you view organizations such as the American Legion or VFW as being filled with elitist "fratboy" jerks? Afterall, they are organizations who have a hierarchy, run functions, etc.


Yes and Saddams Elite Guard was Republicans, and Che Guevara's believed in Communal Conservatism......Nice try at the spin doctoring, but we both know the type of Fraternal I speak of. And that right there is why the vast majority of people who game today don't trust Raiders..they have an agenda to push and promote their form of gaming and if that means spinning the truth so be it.


I
Again, perhaps it is the people you've chosen to associate with that is the problem. There are plenty of people who enjoy raiding that are not jerks, loot *****s, or egocentric narcissists and prefer not be associated with or dictated too by anyone fitting one or all of those descriptions.

Yes you been here before... still dosen't make you correct

I
If by raiding you mean group content, I highly doubt it's going the way of the dodo.

Group content is very vague, let me clear it up for you Content that requires a private group of special friends to jump through silly hoops and spend ridiculous amounts of time in the hopes of being able to flash their e-peen at someone that has real world responsibilities...that is going the way of the dodo

[Fernos]

Ill-informed huh? Think you don't know your own history very well then. Maybe I should also point you to here (http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html) Since the highest point for Everquest was 550k subscriptions with nearly 450k being it's steady until the spike in 2004 and dropped. Ill-informed? Unlikely either since these two made themselves famous over at the WoW forums as well, so I suggest you stop pretending.

Guy please do you know how many times MMOchart has been called fro pulling numbers out of his ear? :rolleyes: keep trying I would suggest Wiki next it's as about as reliable.

[_Pax_]

Okay, ENOUGH ABOUT HTE RAIDING GULDS, Facist or otherwise.

BACK ON TOPIC, please!!

[Hagon]

/smirk I guess that's all you got left. I almost feel sorry for you.

Edit: Damn son...in a little over four months you're clocking over 1500 post, that's almost 13 post a day....a day, and they say Raiders don't have OCD. :DThat I can stop by the site a few times a day as a browse the net from work and take a minute here and there to post something doesn't mean a thing. Then again, there you go again spouting another classic from someone that doesn't know what they're talking about.

Way to make up some stories in a lame attempt to give yourself some cred. Never mind that most people go through these games having a fine time in their guilds/clans/corps that are filled with decent people and aren't elitist at all. That some guilds and clans want people that aren't jerks, or have the same interests as they do, or intend on experiencing the same content, or however their guilds are set up, doesn't make them elitist.

It's plain as day in reading your posts and how you talk to people what's happened. You keep joining guilds, keep being a jerk and making the guild unpleasant for everyone else, and keep getting the boot. Now guilds are elitist and think they're better than you.:rolleyes: roflcopters.

The same goes for raiding guilds and groups. The thing you don't get is that, by a vast majority, most big raiding guilds are made up of veteran players that are mature adults. You know what a mature adult is right? It's what you might be some day, although I kind of doubt it. Those kind of people wouldn't tolerate being "screamed at" and silliness like that. If you ever had led a raid group that wasn't full of a bunch of children you'd never have spouted that BS off. What is elitist about having the set number of players it takes for a given raid and keeping as many of those players as possible for each raid? You call that being elitist? It's called doing right by people. That's not it though is it? It's because little Johnny Fernos can never seem to get in one, or if he does he acts like such a tool they have no choice but to /gkick, so they must be elitist.

[Fernos]

That I can stop by the site a few times a day as a browse the net from work and take a minute here and there to post something doesn't mean a thing. Then again, there you go again spouting another classic from someone that doesn't know what they're talking about.

Way to make up some stories in a lame attempt to give yourself some cred. Never mind that most people go through these games having a fine time in their guilds/clans/corps that are filled with decent people and aren't elitist at all. That some guilds and clans want people that aren't jerks, or have the same interests as they do, or intend on experiencing the same content, or however their guilds are set up, doesn't make them elitist.

It's plain as day in reading your posts and how you talk to people what's happened. You keep joining guilds, keep being a jerk and making the guild unpleasant for everyone else, and keep getting the boot. Now guilds are elitist and think they're better than you.:rolleyes: roflcopters.

The same goes for raiding guilds and groups. The thing you don't get is that, by a vast majority, most big raiding guilds are made up of veteran players that are mature adults. You know what a mature adult is right? It's what you might be some day, although I kind of doubt it. Those kind of people wouldn't tolerate being "screamed at" and silliness like that. If you ever had led a raid group that wasn't full of a bunch of children you'd never have spouted that BS off. What is elitist about having the set number of players it takes for a given raid and keeping as many of those players as possible for each raid? You call that being elitist? It's called doing right by people. That's not it though is it? It's because little Johnny Fernos can never seem to get in one, or if he does he acts like such a tool they have no choice but to /gkick, so they must be elitist.


Uhhh yeah.....tell you what show me Ten Mature adults in large Raiding guilds...show me ten and I will concede. No you can't all you can do is cling to your delusions about me because you simply can't face a world where I am right. lol

Again I almost feel sorry for you. :D

[Hagon]

Uhhh yeah.....tell you what show me Ten Mature adults in large Raiding guilds...show me ten and I will concede. No you can't all you can do is cling to your delusions about me because you simply can't face a world where I am right. lol

Again I almost feel sorry for you. :DKid if you had actually played these games and not been a total anti-social misfit while doing it, then you'd have met these people, gotten to know some of them yourself, and you wouldn't need someone to point them out to you.

[Fernos]

Kid if you had actually played these games and not been a total anti-social misfit while doing it, then you'd have met these people, gotten to know some of them yourself, and you wouldn't need someone to point them out to you.

Yeah lay it on me Grand-pa :rolleyes:

Translation: I got nothing so I'm going to throw some more circular logic and Non-sequitirs. Yeah your done here, you have proven yourself to be a typical Raider. I mean at least Thilbor was coherent and we can agree to disagree....but you all you got is insults because you really don't have a leg to stand on


Oh and I'm looking forward to Sept so I can pwn your ass in game just like I have on the forums. :p

[Hagon]

Oh and I'm looking forward to Sept so I can pwn your ass in game just like I have on the forums. :pWell I think anyone that had any doubts about what we're dealing with here has now had them laid to rest. Thanks for doing more to bring to light than I could have. :)

[Fernos]

Well I think anyone that had any doubts about what we're dealing with here has now had them laid to rest. Thanks for doing more to bring to light than I could have. :)

Yes because humor is a bad thing. Poor lamb

What a silly clown. :rolleyes:

[Korrific]

Sure, I remember "Star Trek Online." Had lots of promise before it became a gigantic raiding guild... :eek:

[Fernos]

Sure, I remember "Star Trek Online." Had lots of promise before it became a gigantic raiding guild... :eek:



No I can say with a great deal of certainty that will never be the case with Cryptic..Jack Emmert has always had a big tent philosophy when it comes to content and progression. I think that a lot of these so called guilds that are forming that are expecting a Raid game are going to be more then a little disappointed. Successful guilds in STO will be more in common with the successful SWG guilds than the Successful EQ guilds.

[Hagon]

Sure, I remember "Star Trek Online." Had lots of promise before it became a gigantic raiding guild... :eek:No one is talking about wanting STO to be a "big raid" game, except for this Fernos character bringing it up for absolutely no reason, and not many, if any, of the fleets that are forming are doing so looking forward to the traditional type of raiding content seen in other games.

They're not because there's never been any indication that there'll be that type of content in STO. The closest thing described so far are possible large scale incursions by the Borg, and an as of yet unnamed ancient enemy, but these are most likely going to be events in which the entire faction is going to be a part of.

The fleets are forming because people want to build some friendships with people that they'll want to eventually group with in the game to do the PvE and PvP content available. The same reasons that guilds/clans/etc have formed for games for a long time.

[_Pax_]

BACK.

ON.

TOPIC.

PLEASE!!


Stop hosing down the deckplates with testosterone already. "Raiding guild" or "not raiding guild" isn't really related to the topic; it could be a SMALLER-than-massive-Raid group (say, 10 or 15 people), and the effort of herding cats through a mission is still worth recognition in terms of a modestly-increased reward.

It doesn't have to be "raid" content. Just group content. That's all.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: YEESH. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Cryptic_Fan_101]

I'm of this crazy persuasion that believes the act of playing a game itself should be rewarding.

I'm not trying to be flippant; intellectually I understand the premise of the topic. But personally, when I start equating time spent in a video game with "effort" and "investment" it's a pretty good sign the honeymoon is over.

[Father_Origin]

Risk = Reward causes a funny problem in MMO's

it creates...camping, twinking, meta gaming and many other ..er..unstar-trek things.
it doesn't take long for all the 'strategy' books to come out.....How to make Admiral in 7 days !!! ect..

I say....set rewards should be small with a random chance of either good additional rewards to
nothing extra at all. Make it totally unpredictable....Make endgame, something you can't
just grind to, grinding should get you to the lower middle levels and then be of no use.

Advancing to the upper levels should require, skill, luck, bravado, experience, being at the right
place at the right time...fame or imfamy...or any random combination of that.

just my take on it.

when SWG first came out and they didn't even give you a clue how to unlock
Jedi --- that was brilliant ...when they started giving out clues, that was a mistake,
when they changed the game so anyone could be jedi...that was just plain stupid.

famous or imfamous Admirals are rare....keep them rare, don't tell anyone how to do it,
let the players figure it out on thier own.

[Fernos]

Risk = Reward causes a funny problem in MMO's

it creates...camping, twinking, meta gaming and many other ..er..unstar-trek things.
it doesn't take long for all the 'strategy' books to come out.....How to make Admiral in 7 days !!! ect..

I say....set rewards should be small with a random chance of either good additional rewards to
nothing extra at all. Make it totally unpredictable....Make endgame, something you can't
just grind to, grinding should get you to the lower middle levels and then be of no use.

Advancing to the upper levels should require, skill, luck, bravado, experience, being at the right
place at the right time...fame or imfamy...or any random combination of that.

just my take on it.

when SWG first came out and they didn't even give you a clue how to unlock
Jedi --- that was brilliant ...when they started giving out clues, that was a mistake,
when they changed the game so anyone could be jedi...that was just plain stupid.

famous or imfamous Admirals are rare....keep them rare, don't tell anyone how to do it,
let the players figure it out on thier own.


That is an excellent and very true analyst. The big problem with games like these is sooner or later the slide rule/ spreadsheet crowd shows up they formulize the quickest way to X and all of the content, story and soul that went into the game is swept aside....the game is now about X, it is no longer a game it is a Acquisition simulator. I don't see that being the case here, at Gen-Con Jack said (and I'm paraphrasing) that

STO was not going to be about rushing to the max level farming content then complaining about how bored you are on the boards, and that if you were that type of gamer you might want to look elsewhere.

That to me was the second best statement I have ever heard from a developer, and it gave me a lot of hope for the Future of this game, of course I already had a lot of hope for how the game was going to turn out simply because the way Cryptic embraced the Star Trek community at the Vegas convention…which was a far cry from Perpetuals: "Were not making a MMO for ST fans". :rolleyes:

[_Pax_]

Risk = Reward causes a funny problem in MMO's

it creates...camping, twinking, meta gaming and many other ..er..unstar-trek things.
it doesn't take long for all the 'strategy' books to come out.....How to make Admiral in 7 days !!! ect..
Risk vs Reward does no such thing.

"Camping" is the result game design - the error of making certain spawns both (a) extremely high-value, (b) extremely rare, and (c) available at only one, or a very few, places.

"Twinking" is the result of several thigns intersecting. One: the resources available to advanced characters is greater than most/all new characters can natively access. Two: these resources - or the things they acquire - are transferrable from one character to another. Three: human nature.

As for "make admiral in 7 days" guides / strategies - that's inevitable in ANY game that has ANY advancement.

In all cases, I must reiterate: Risk-vs-Reward is NOT the source, nor cause, nro even a contributing factor.

Advancing to the upper levels should require, skill, luck, bravado, experience, being at the right
place at the right time...fame or imfamy...or any random combination of that.
Sorry, but ... when I subscribe to an MMO, I'm not buying lotto tickets. I won't want to have to "get lucky" to advance past the middle game - simple perseverance and dogged determination should be sufficient.

when SWG first came out and they didn't even give you a clue how to unlock
Jedi --- that was brilliant
I would tend to disagree (note: I never tried SWG at all). I think that was a colossally bad design decision.

when they changed the game so anyone could be jedi...that was just plain stupid.

famous or imfamous Admirals are rare....keep them rare, don't tell anyone how to do it,
let the players figure it out on thier own.
.... that's a very ... elitist attitude, IMO. And not one I can agree with, in the slightest.

[Hagon]

If anyone, and with all due respect that includes Jack Emmert, thinks that this game doesn't need to be heavily goal oriented, and provide suitable rewards for achieving those goals, then they're quite frankly barking up the wrong tree. It doesn't matter a plumb nickel whether it's Star Trek or not in that respect.

Being a Star Trek game isn't going to save it if people don't feel like they're having fun and getting somewhere. To most people getting somewhere in these games means achieving goals, and obtaining rewards from achieving those goals that make their character more advanced than those of people that haven't achieved the same, or comparable, goals.

The game doesn't need to have the traditional rush to the high end content, but players are going to want to achieve, and be rewarded for their achievements. They'll not stand for having the routes to the goal posts hidden or constantly moved around either. What SWG did with the Jedi at release was a total bonehead move, and one of the big reasons they payed the price of @500 000 people not paying for their second month's subscriptions and 10 000+ players a month leaving their game after that. There essentially was no point, or goals, to the game. The only real tangible one was eventually becoming a Jedi, and everyone almost instantly saw that to do that they'd have to go through a bunch of convoluted horse pucky and boring content to get there. So most of them left.

[Thibor]

If anyone, and with all due respect that includes Jack Emmert, thinks that this game doesn't need to be heavily goal oriented, and provide suitable rewards for achieving those goals, then they're quite frankly barking up the wrong tree. It doesn't matter a plumb nickel whether it's Star Trek or not in that respect.

Being a Star Trek game isn't going to save it if people don't feel like they're having fun and getting somewhere. To most people getting somewhere in these games means achieving goals, and obtaining rewards from achieving those goals that make their character more advanced than those of people that haven't achieved the same, or comparable, goals.

The game doesn't need to have the traditional rush to the high end content, but players are going to want to achieve, and be rewarded for their achievements. They'll not stand for having the routes to the goal posts hidden or constantly moved around either. What SWG did with the Jedi at release was a total bonehead move, and one of the big reasons they payed the price of @500 000 people not paying for their second month's subscriptions and 10 000+ players a month leaving their game after that. There essentially was no point, or goals, to the game. The only real tangible one was eventually becoming a Jedi, and everyone almost instantly saw that to do that they'd have to go through a bunch of convoluted horse pucky and boring content to get there. So most of them left.

*nods*

As Picard explained to B4 at the end of Nemesis regarding both Data and what it meant to be human ... we seek to better ourselves.

We seek to better our avatars in these games and it's the job of the devs to provide goals that help us do so. What type of betterment and how it's achieved can be a wide range of things. Here's to hoping there are many directions for us to work on bettering our in-game selves. :)

[_Pax_]

** applause **

Well said, Hagon. I concur 110%.

[Flatfingers]

Jumping in a little late, but the conversation recently got more interesting. :)

To start with, I thought Stopher87's reply deserved more of a response than it got, since it said everything that was necessary or sufficient to the initial proposition:

I am pretty sure people already took this into account because:

Risk=Investment

You are risking whatever you invest weather it is time or money or both. So one could argue that it would still be:

Risk=Reward

That said, I suspect that much of the disagreement in this thread comes from not being careful to distinguish the player from the character.

"Risks" and "rewards" that apply to a character in a gameworld aren't the same as the risks taken by and rewards potentially received by the person controlling that character.

So whose "risks" and "rewards" are we talking about here?

On a related note:

when I subscribe to an MMO, I'm not buying lotto tickets. I won't want to have to "get lucky" to advance past the middle game - simple perseverance and dogged determination should be sufficient.

It's worth noting that if perseverance (or anything else) can guarantee eventual success, then there's no actual risk. There certainly may be a cost, but "risk" is more; it implies a cost with no guarantee of reward.

If the game is designed so that persistence eliminates any risk of long-term failure, is it still a "game?"

Having proposed that, this is a question of particular interest to me because it highlights what motivates different people to play games.

Absolutely there are gamers who want to "win" through sheer determination. If they throw themselves at some challenge often enough, and refuse to give up, eventually their indomitable will to succeed should (in their minds) pay off. And they maintain that belief even when their effort is being applied to controlling a made-up character inside a fictional gameworld where the rules of reality can be whatever the developers want them to be.

But there are also gamers who place more value on other ways of solving problems. And of course they want their own naturally preferred forms of problem-solving to be rewarded in the games they play.

So some gamers are going to want to be rewarded not for (as they see it) mindlessly doing the same thing over and over again, but for perceiving a more elegant solution that bypasses brute force effort. Still other gamers will be bored by game challenges that reward what they view as joyless rules-manipulation, but will sing the praises of gameplay that rewards them for using their characters to resolve problems through optimistic personal negotiation. (I discuss this in a little more detail in "Persistence vs. Perception + (http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2007/12/persistence-vs-perception.html)".)

In other words, I agree that many people prefer gameplay that rewards persistence, that demands a close linkage between effort and achievement. (Hagon has pretty consistently articulated that viewpoint in this forum.) But I also believe that there are people looking for gameplay that grants particular respect to perceptiveness as an effective problem-solving style and rewards it commensurately, as well as people seeking gameplay that respects and rewards persuasiveness.

And so it seems to me that Star Trek Online would be the perfect game for satisfying these three kinds of playstyle preferences with balanced levels of combat, exploration and diplomacy content.

We seek to better our avatars in these games and it's the job of the devs to provide goals that help us do so. What type of betterment and how it's achieved can be a wide range of things. Here's to hoping there are many directions for us to work on bettering our in-game selves. :)

My feeling exactly.

Good luck to Cryptic on satisfying the unsatisfiable. :D

--Flatfingers

[Profedius]

The formula I find in these games is investment + time = reward or and more depressing investment + time + 40 friends = reward for 5 out of the 40 friends. I do not see risk as a factor since failing a mission just means you have to spend more time to do the mission over again. I think a failure should be just that you fail and can’t try the same mission again. As far as the rewards I really feel they should be some sort of points towards a promotion and not a gain of items.

[_Pax_]

It's worth noting that if perseverance (or anything else) can guarantee eventual success, then there's no actual risk. There certainly may be a cost, but "risk" is more; it implies a cost with no guarantee of reward.
I think you're taking "risk" a bit too seriously. The risk here is, in fact, as simple as "not succeeding", or "investing time and resources, for no reward".

If the game is designed so that persistence eliminates any risk of long-term failure, is it still a "game?"
Yes. It's just a different game than you, personally, are used to (ones with a definitive win/lose scenario).

Having proposed that, this is a question of particular interest to me because it highlights what motivates different people to play games.

Absolutely there are gamers who want to "win" through sheer determination. If they throw themselves at some challenge often enough, and refuse to give up, eventually their indomitable will to succeed should (in their minds) pay off.
Or, you know, maybe I'm hoping there are enough different paths to success, that my perseverence will eventually find the one(s) that I can succeed at, given my level of skill and style fo play / approach. :)

[Hagon]

(Hagon has pretty consistently articulated that viewpoint in this forum.) [/B]

However someone bests a challenge presented to them in game doesn't negate that they should still be rewarded in some way for doing it.. But I also believe that there are people looking for game play that grants particular respect to perceptiveness as an effective problem-solving style and rewards it commensurately, as well as people seeking gameplay that respects and rewards persuasiveness.

And so it seems to me that Star Trek Online would be the perfect game for satisfying these three kinds of playstyle preferences with balanced levels of combat, exploration and diplomacy content.

No I haven't "pretty consistently articulated that viewpoint in this forum", which just once again displays your unique talent to completely disregard what people are trying to tell you as you go off on some tangent.

I know because I don't subscribe to the game being a Star Trek simulation that is pretty much only about "living a pretend life in Star Trek" you like to try and paint me as some knuckle dragger that just wants to pew pew everything and get ahead that way, but I assure you that's not the case at all. I simply maintain that although elements like exploration, diplomacy, crafting, etc have their place, the lion's share of content still has to revolve around fun and exciting game play.

[rayljr]

reading this thread i have come to realize that i may not see this game well.
and i feel that i may have been missing something that everybody else knew.

i see myself as being on the ship, doing things with the SHIP.

i don't see myself going out of the ship to do things.

but now i see that this will almost certainly NOT be the way things will go.

i will be spending allot of time out of the ship.

i get the impression that away missions will be an important part of what happens.

so it may be that cryptic has the situation of building a game that has content for ship based players, and also for away mission players.

or more precisely, we will be players of both types of games.

the ships will probably be more than just "mounts", but that may be their prime function.

and rather than being disappointed that it will not be a primarily ship based game, i am looking forward to the mix.

so am i right?
did i just finally come to realize something that all of you already knew?

[Hagon]

The ship will be far far more than a "mount" to get you from point a to b. For example we know for certain that ship to ship combat will play an important role in the game, as well as using ships geared for exploration and scientific discovery.

Then there'll be the instanced away team mission elements, which presumably will be just as much of the content as the ship based stuff, although I don't believe that anyone from Cryptic has broken it down to a ratio yet.

I believe that yes, you just realized something that most did know already, but that's ok. Some people still think this is a Star Trek sim too.

[callsign11b]

I don"t believe that people believe this is a simm....
At this point people are guessing and making assumssions on what and how game play will happen.
yes theres going to be away missions as well as other missions, team play, exploration.
but as the dev. have suggested there is going to be play on in and out of your ship.
your ship is going to as important as your player.
in my opion if they produce half of what they said this game will be a nice change to the typlical style of mmo's out there now.

[CanyonTrader]

The ship will be far far more than a "mount" to get you from point a to b. For example we know for certain that ship to ship combat will play an important role in the game, as well as using ships geared for exploration and scientific discovery.

Then there'll be the instanced away team mission elements, which presumably will be just as much of the content as the ship based stuff, although I don't believe that anyone from Cryptic has broken it down to a ratio yet.

I believe that yes, you just realized something that most did know already, but that's ok. Some people still think this is a Star Trek sim too.

There is an official breakdown here (http://sknr.net/2008/11/18/star-trek-online-interview/).

GVK: What is the mix between planet, ship, and station missions, and will players have to be a certain level before they can board a ship?

CZ: About fifty percent of your time will be spent in space, and the rest of the time you will be exploring planets, boarding other ships, visiting space stations or performing tasks aboard your own ship.
We get you on the ships right away – you’ll fly your first ship during the tutorial, and from there the starships just get bigger and better.

[_Pax_]

I don"t believe that people believe this is a simm....
I wish that were correct. But there have been threads along the liens of PRECISELY that: turning STO fro MMOG to Simulation. :(

[Father_Origin]

I can sympathize with the folks that want to 'win' and get the very best, most awesome ships,
ect..

There is a heavy price for that, ever made a new character on WOW, the first thing
a new player usually says is wow, this place is dead.

70% of the population is max level and are not even playing in the core area.
30% of the players (mainly noobs) will last....half a second, in battle with the other 70%
and lastly, 99% of all new content is made for that upper 70%.

I don't want to see 70% of the game population in ships that are so powerful, they can
absolutely ignore any ship from a new of mid-level player, or be able to one-shot
30% of the ships out there.

With uber twink ships, strategy dissappears, if the game turns into a race to max level
so you can be uber and get access to exclusive content....the game has failed
to faithfully represent the world of star trek.

Does the most famous captains in star trek lore 'steamroller' over lesser enemy ships? ..no
defeat, yes..roll over them like they are not there...no

I know the current MMO gamer mind set, get to max as quickly as possible so you can
either...pvp like minded players or get exclusive challanging endgame content, if that is your goal...
then you would be happier playing another game...nothing against you, that just
does not fit star trek.

my opinion

[Hagon]

I can sympathize with the folks that want to 'win' and get the very best, most awesome ships,
ect..

There is a heavy price for that, ever made a new character on WOW, the first thing
a new player usually says is wow, this place is dead.

70% of the population is max level and are not even playing in the core area.
30% of the players (mainly noobs) will last....half a second, in battle with the other 70%
and lastly, 99% of all new content is made for that upper 70%.

I don't want to see 70% of the game population in ships that are so powerful, they can
absolutely ignore any ship from a new of mid-level player, or be able to one-shot
30% of the ships out there.

With uber twink ships, strategy dissappears, if the game turns into a race to max level
so you can be uber and get access to exclusive content....the game has failed
to faithfully represent the world of star trek.

Does the most famous captains in star trek lore 'steamroller' over lesser enemy ships? ..no
defeat, yes..roll over them like they are not there...no

I know the current MMO gamer mind set, get to max as quickly as possible so you can
either...pvp like minded players or get exclusive challanging endgame content, if that is your goal...
then you would be happier playing another game...nothing against you, that just
does not fit star trek.

my opinionWell these types of things can be pretty easily addressed in the game design. Things like scaling PvP areas and the sidekicking/exemplaring as is done in CoX, limiting the ability to trade to alts, design of "hub" areas so that all level of player continues to visit, etc etc.

I don't see what about pvping like minded players or getting exclusive and challanging endgame content does not fit Trek. Not to be rude, but that seems to be a convenient catch phrase used a lot lately and often where it's not applicable. This to me is one of those cases.

As I said, no the game does not have to be about a rush to the highest possible stage of progression for a character, but it can't be about everyone spinning their wheels either. Most people aren't going to stick around if they don't feel that there is a goal or point to what they're doing, that their character is gaining in power and progressing, and that their accomplishments are rewarded adequately in a way that that makes them feel their character has progressed further than those which have not completed comparable content.

[Flatfingers]

No I haven't "pretty consistently articulated that viewpoint in this forum"

Two things.

Firstly, yes, you have consistently advocated the viewpoint that rules-based, Achiever-oriented play should be favored in the design of Star Trek Online over content that favors other playstyle preferences. As you said previously:

"Being a Star Trek game isn't going to save it if people don't feel like they're having fun and getting somewhere. To most people getting somewhere in these games means achieving goals, and obtaining rewards from achieving those goals that make their character more advanced than those of people that haven't achieved the same, or comparable, goals."

and as you just finished saying:

"I simply maintain that although elements like exploration, diplomacy, crafting, etc have their place, the lion's share of content still has to revolve around fun and exciting game play."

Seems pretty consistent to me. And there's nothing wrong with that.

So secondly, when I noted that you're one of the members of this forum who's been particularly consistent in expressing this view, I was actually trying to pay you a compliment. I think you've done an excellent job promoting the position that Achiever-oriented content needs to given precedence in Star Trek Online. The fact that I disagree with you somewhat -- not entirely, just somewhat -- on that opinion doesn't mean I can't appreciate how well you express it.

What I can't figure out is why, despite evidence to the contrary, you choose to keep falsely asserting that there must be something personally antagonistic in anything I've said regarding any of your opinions. When I've agreed with something you've said -- and I have agreed with you on some things -- I've made an effort to say so publicly, just to make the point that I'm focusing on the opinions, not the person.

If I agree with you, I say so and try to explain why; if I disagree with you, I say so and try to explain why. Nothing personally negative in that at all, and no need for you to believe or claim that there must be.

And so it is in this thread.

Speaking of which....

If the game is designed so that persistence eliminates any risk of long-term failure, is it still a "game?"

Yes. It's just a different game than you, personally, are used to (ones with a definitive win/lose scenario).

With respect, _Pax_, you have no idea what games I'm used to playing, and that's really irrelevant, anyway.

My question wasn't rhetorical. I didn't have some definitive "yes" or "no" answer in mind. I posed it as an open question of game design that might be fun and useful to explore.

My goal was to elicit different opinions, to hear what you and others think about whether a guarantee of eventual success through persistence makes some activity less than a "game" by minimizing risk, or if risk and reward are actually immaterial because the action itself constitutes perfectly enjoyable gameplay for some folks.

It seems to me that that's a question worth asking because it provides a useful context for thinking about your initial question of how gamers evaluate risk vs. reward as gameplay. (Actually, this may be related to the old argument over whether Achievers really do enjoy risk and challenge as they publicly claim, or if they all secretly just want a "Win" button... but maybe we shouldn't go there...!)

Or, you know, maybe I'm hoping there are enough different paths to success, that my perseverence will eventually find the one(s) that I can succeed at, given my level of skill and style fo play / approach. :)

That's a really interesting question. I've been sitting here for the last thirty minutes knocking around different responses, so thanks for a fun half-hour. :)

It seems to come down to whether the process you're describing is really one of persistence, or if it's actually more about perception.

Let's say there's a locked door we want to open. What constitutes looking for "different paths to success?"

If I go, one by one, through all the weapons in my inventory and use each one to try to just bash down the door, that seems to me like a pretty clear focus on perseverance as a problem-solving approach.

Alternately, if I choose to look at the door, and study the lock, and examine the walls and ceiling and floor to try to discern some built-in way to simply open the door, then I'd say that was a perception-oriented approach typical of Explorers.

(Talking to the guards to try to convince them to open the door for me would be a persuasion-oriented approach that a Socializer might prefer.)

But what you seem to be describing is sort of a step back from all of those -- it sounds more like randomly trying each approach in turn, without giving any approach particular weight, until one of them just works.

I don't know what to call that!

It seems like persistence, but it could also be described as perceptive if most gameplay challenges are designed such that only one approach tends to work but you can never know which one is likely to be keyed to any given challenge.

So what is it? Is there some other "meta" term to describe the problem-solving technique of being agnostic toward problem-solving techniques?

Ouch. _Pax_ made my brain hurt.... :D

--Flatfingers

[Fernos]

If anyone, and with all due respect that includes Jack Emmert, thinks that this game doesn't need to be heavily goal oriented, and provide suitable rewards for achieving those goals, then they're quite frankly barking up the wrong tree. It doesn't matter a plumb nickel whether it's Star Trek or not in that respect.

You know...I don't remember anyone saying the game won't be goal oriented.....it just may not be the type of goals that a Uber gamer like yourself can latch onto and suckle...they may well mean that the game won't be popular with a certain type of player....it's more than a little arrogant to basically say the game will fail.

Being a Star Trek game isn't going to save it if people don't feel like they're having fun and getting somewhere. To most people getting somewhere in these games means achieving goals, and obtaining rewards from achieving those goals that make their character more advanced than those of people that haven't achieved the same, or comparable, goals.

Yes and fun always equals where’s my firgging uberness right? :rolleyes: No one said that folks shouldn't achieve...but achievement is a pretty big blanket, and it covers many things to many different people.

The game doesn't need to have the traditional rush to the high end content, but players are going to want to achieve, and be rewarded for their achievements.

Again no one said otherwise.....it just might not be what you consider achivement....but this game, it isn't really about you.


They'll not stand for having the routes to the goal posts hidden or constantly moved around either.

Yes because the dynamic content people have been begging for years is basically a lie and if they can't go to stosercrets.com and download the brain dump to fifty they will quit. God do you even listen to yourself ramble?

What SWG did with the Jedi at release was a total bonehead move, and one of the big reasons they payed the price of @500 000 people not paying for their second month's subscriptions and 10 000+ players a month leaving their game after that. There essentially was no point, or goals, to the game. The only real tangible one was eventually becoming a Jedi, and everyone almost instantly saw that to do that they'd have to go through a bunch of convoluted horse pucky and boring content to get there. So most of them left.


No including Jedi in the timeline that they put the game in was a total bonehead move, caving in to the ubergames that demanded their Epeen Extenze pill was a bonehead move. turning their backs on Star wars fans and trying to embrace basement dwelling EQ players was a bonehead move, and if you don't want to take my word for it...read what Raph Koster had to say.

Stamping your foot and demanding that this game had better have an elite end game path or it will fail is really rather silly, you can not predict what gamers will respond to, this isn't 1999. You can live here and play forum warrior all you want to...that dosen't mean this little agenda of yours is going to be pushed through.

[Hagon]

Two things.

Firstly, yes, you have consistently advocated the viewpoint that rules-based, Achiever-oriented play should be favored in the design of Star Trek Online over content that favors other playstyle preferences. As you said previously:

"Being a Star Trek game isn't going to save it if people don't feel like they're having fun and getting somewhere. To most people getting somewhere in these games means achieving goals, and obtaining rewards from achieving those goals that make their character more advanced than those of people that haven't achieved the same, or comparable, goals."

and as you just finished saying:

"I simply maintain that although elements like exploration, diplomacy, crafting, etc have their place, the lion's share of content still has to revolve around fun and exciting game play."

Seems pretty consistent to me. And there's nothing wrong with that.Nice try, but that bird won't fly.

You were trying to intimate that all I ever talked about was making a game where no skill or intelligence was needed.

Although that's not surprising since you consistently try to indirectly get across that anyone that doesn't want the game to be essentially a Star Trek simulation with all the possible minutia and mundane details included is some sort of Neanderthal gamer, and that those that want to "live" a pretend life in a Star Trek simulation (in fact you think every MMOG should be a sim) are the "enlightened" ones. :rolleyes:

[Hagon]

You know...I don't remember anyone saying the game won't be goal oriented.....it just may not be the type of goals that a Uber gamer like yourself can latch onto and suckle...they may well mean that the game won't be popular with a certain type of player....it's more than a little arrogant to basically say the game will fail. You have absolutely no idea what kind of gamer I am. None. You're making assumptions. How about you get over having your particular brand of hate called into question by me, be mature, and quit chasing me around the forum like a little angry pup?

[Fernos]

You have absolutely no idea what kind of gamer I am. None. You're making assumptions. How about you get over having your particular brand of hate called into question by me, be mature, and quit chasing me around the forum like a little angry pup?

So back to the name calling..okay. The only one who is behaving in a angry manner here is you.

Anyway I like several others on this forum are only going by what you yourself have said in the now pushing 2k post. And anyone that questions you is immediately stalking you and plotting against you, have you considered that you are more than bit paranoid? At the end of the day Cryptic is going to make the game they are going to make guy, I have a feeling the majority of the game is already done and they are into the polish stage. If it’s not the type of game you’re looking for there are zillions of other MMO’s…there is really no need to devote all this time campaigning over one game. :rolleyes:

[Hagon]

Didn't you already have a thread or two locked because of your trouble making, and were warned by the mods about it?

We're here discussing things. I like to discuss things. You seem to have a problem with people that have high post counts. Maybe that's an issue you can see someone about? Instead of polluting the forum with it? Maybe when you're there you can work out these problems you have with guilds/fleets and raid groups too? You know, how you don't like them because them being prevalent in a game means it's harder for people that are rude and obnoxious to get way with it and still succeed in things. You might feel better.

By the way, as many here are very well aware of, all I ever advocate is that the game be some long term fun. If it ends up coming out and isn't fun, then it won't just be me that's looking for another game to play. It'll be all of us, because if it isn't fun it'll be failing after the first month the same as Star Wars Galaxies was.

Anyway, as I have now been advised to do by a better, and since it's very clear that you're simply trolling for confrontation, it's time to do what I've never done on a forum before. Put you on ignore. Rave on young one.

[Fernos]

Didn't you already have a thread or two locked because of your trouble making, and were warned by the mods about it?

Nope I have never once had a thread locked or have had a Mod warn me. Razor and crew send you a nice private message when you are warned, and what does that have to do with the topic at hand?


We're here discussing things. I like to discuss things. You seem to have a problem with people that have high post counts. Maybe that's an issue you can see someone about? Instead of polluting the forum with it? Maybe when you're there you can work out these problems you have with guilds/fleets and raid groups too? You know, how you don't like them because them being prevalent in a game means it's harder for people that are rude and obnoxious to get way with it and still succeed in things. You might feel better.

Not at all, I as well as a lot of other people do take issue with the way you ride roughshod over anyone that has a diametric viewpoints than you do. Also taking what one person says and attempting (badly I might add) to turn it around on them...isn't a very effective way to get your point across. :)

By the way, as many here are very well aware of, all I ever advocate is that the game be some long term fun. If it ends up coming out and isn't fun, then it won't just be me that's looking for another game to play. It'll be all of us, because if it isn't fun it'll be failing after the first month the same as Star Wars Galaxies was.


All of us...who is this us you keep talking about? Do you speak for every player on this board? Are you some sort of Over-mind of the entire STO community? And really who are you to designate what is and is not long term fun? And why in gods name is a fourm conversation getting you this worked up? Also you do know that the way you are presenting this whole this game better have X Y and Z or else sounds like a threat to cryptic ..right?

Anyway, as I have now been advised to do by a better, and since it's very clear that you're simply trolling for confrontation, it's time to do what I've never done on a forum before. Put you on ignore. Rave on young one

While the whole "Betters" thing smacks of elitism, (But no more when you were saying in a previouse post that I was put in my place :rolleyes:) it sounds like good advice, though I am afraid that you will be doing this a great deal in you future when the discussion dosen't go your way.

Best of luck.

[Flatfingers]

You were trying to intimate that all I ever talked about was making a game where no skill or intelligence was needed.

For the record, no, I wasn't, since I don't believe that. And I don't waste time "intimating" anything; if I believe something, I come right out and say it.

I'm happy to let what I've said speak for itself.

Although that's not surprising since you consistently try to indirectly get across that anyone that doesn't want the game to be essentially a Star Trek simulation with all the possible minutia and mundane details included is some sort of Neanderthal gamer, and that those that want to "live" a pretend life in a Star Trek simulation (in fact you think every MMOG should be a sim) are the "enlightened" ones. :rolleyes:

Now you're just being silly.

If you disagree with my actual view, which is that it would be healthy for the industry for some AAA-quality MMORPGs to offer more diverse gameplay than the typical extremely Achiever-oriented "kill it and take its stuff" content, and that Star Trek Online in particular is a good candidate for being designed as one of those more balanced games... then why not engage on that level? Why try to make it personal?

As always, while the unnecessary and diversionary personal stuff makes it harder to consider your ideas fairly on their own merits, I'll continue to try to do so. You often articulate game design perspectives that are worth thinking about.

Even if I don't always agree with 'em. :)

as many here are very well aware of, all I ever advocate is that the game be some long term fun.

Respectfully, I don't think that's quite accurate.

If that truly was all you ever advocated, who could disagree? I think it's safe to say that all of us want this game to be fun over the long term.

The differences of opinion come up because you -- and I, and many others -- go beyond just stating a nice high-level goal to proposing specific opinions on how we think Cryptic could best achieve that goal. And because different people have different definitions of "fun," our opinions on how to achieve that fun over the long term are also different. It's why we're able to have productive conversations like the one in this thread about how perceptions of risk and reward should condition the design of multiplayer games.

So I think there is reason to expect people to disagree with you, and with me, and with each other. Furthermore, I'd suggest that it's reasonable to be OK with that, especially in a public forum. Speaking just for myself, if I got angry anytime someone expressed an opinion that contradicted some opinion of mine, I'd spend a lot of time angry! :D And I'd miss out on some fun (and enlightening) conversations I might otherwise have had.

Life's too short.

Just another opinion to add to the mix, there.

Now, what were we saying about the idea that "investing" our time in playing a game should guarantee some kind of in-game reward...?

--Flatfingers

[_Pax_]

There is a heavy price for that, ever made a new character on WOW, the first thing
a new player usually says is wow, this place is dead.

70% of the population is max level and are not even playing in the core area.
30% of the players (mainly noobs) will last....half a second, in battle with the other 70%
and lastly, 99% of all new content is made for that upper 70%.
You're kidding ... right?

I mean, I myself did just rejoin WoW myself; all my prior characters were gone, so I chose a new realm - Baelgun - and started over with a level 1 Blood Elf Paladin. I didn't know anyone on the realm at all,

Even playing somewhat casually, timewise (I'd say ~15 hours per week - just over 2 hours a day) - I'm now at level 35, member of a guild (nor Raiding - more "social" in nature). And never, NEVER has WoW seemed unduly unpopulated for whichever time of day I've been logged in. The cities are always busy, and even out in the most remote parts of wildernessI frequently run across one or two other people during my hour-long sessions. Heck, right now i Stranglethorn Vale, I can't go fourty feet without tripping over SOMEONE else, either travelling through, or questing like I am.

[...] faithfully represent the world of star trek.
I sense a Red Flag here. Why don't you explain what you think would be a "Faithful representation" of Trek, hmm? I expect I'll be spending time explaining to you how such a "faithful respresentation" would be an utter failure as an MMOG ,,, *shrug* ...

I know the current MMO gamer mind set, get to max as quickly as possible so you can
either...pvp like minded players or get exclusive challanging endgame content, if that is your goal...
then you would be happier playing another game...nothing against you, that just
does not fit star trek.

my opinion
You know, "being fairly rewarded for my efforts" and "racing to max level" are [b]not[/b one and the same. :rolleyes:

[Hagon]

For the record, no, I wasn't, since I don't believe that. And I don't waste time "intimating" anything; if I believe something, I come right out and say it.

I'm happy to let what I've said speak for itself.



Now you're just being silly.

If you disagree with my actual view, which is that it would be healthy for the industry for some AAA-quality MMORPGs to offer more diverse gameplay than the typical extremely Achiever-oriented "kill it and take its stuff" content, and that Star Trek Online in particular is a good candidate for being designed as one of those more balanced games... then why not engage on that level? Why try to make it personal?

As always, while the unnecessary and diversionary personal stuff makes it harder to consider your ideas fairly on their own merits, I'll continue to try to do so. You often articulate game design perspectives that are worth thinking about.

Even if I don't always agree with 'em. :)



Respectfully, I don't think that's quite accurate.

If that truly was all you ever advocated, who could disagree? I think it's safe to say that all of us want this game to be fun over the long term.

The differences of opinion come up because you -- and I, and many others -- go beyond just stating a nice high-level goal to proposing specific opinions on how we think Cryptic could best achieve that goal. And because different people have different definitions of "fun," our opinions on how to achieve that fun over the long term are also different. It's why we're able to have productive conversations like the one in this thread about how perceptions of risk and reward should condition the design of multiplayer games.

So I think there is reason to expect people to disagree with you, and with me, and with each other. Furthermore, I'd suggest that it's reasonable to be OK with that, especially in a public forum. Speaking just for myself, if I got angry anytime someone expressed an opinion that contradicted some opinion of mine, I'd spend a lot of time angry! :D And I'd miss out on some fun (and enlightening) conversations I might otherwise have had.

Life's too short.

Just another opinion to add to the mix, there.

Now, what were we saying about the idea that "investing" our time in playing a game should guarantee some kind of in-game reward...?

--Flatfingers
It's not personal on my part at all, except maybe I'll cop to certain level of frustration when dealing with you because you refuse to accept facts like clear market trends, reasons given by failed game's developers themselves, etc, and sidestep them by speaking of things in terms of theory that's not based on anything but your own wishful thinking.

Restating the same theories over and over and writing page after page on a blog about them doesn't make them come true Flatfingers. There's no debate about what most people find fun about these games. It's all there to see for anyone that's open minded enough to go look, and that goes for developers as well. Contrary to what some children with chips on their shoulders believe, I'm not all about teh uber raidz, nor all about the PvP, nor all about anything much beyond having fun. That's why I play these games for the most part. One look at what I want BOK to be about, and any conversation with any of my fleetmates that have been around for a bit would tell anyone that. I enjoy diverse game play probably just as much as anyone, and I absolutely don't believe in forcing people to take part in content they don't find fun. I've never argued with you that Cryptic shouldn't offer diverse game play either. I've simply always maintained that they need to concentrate on those elements that will provide the general MMOG enthusiast a fun experience first and foremost, what most of those people generally find fun isn't a mystery, and that the secondary content needs to compliment the primary content and not get too bogged down in minutia so as not to bore most people to death.

Whereas you keep maintaining that if they concentrate more on what most MMOGers consider the secondary and more mundane features, some mythical market will suddenly appear from out of the mists of time and populate the game.

So getting back to be somewhat on topic, all I'm saying is that whether you or I or anyone else agree with it, I believe that the game has to offer rewards that suit the challenge of the content completed, whatever that content entails, or time a player has put into completing it. As far as time goes, it shouldn't be based on every players individual time to complete, but on an average time it should take determined by the developers during testing. I firmly believe that without rewards for achievement that make players feel like they have progressed their character further than those that have not completed the same or comparable content, most players will find completing the content pointless, and if they find completing the content pointless they simply will turn their backs on the game. There's nothing about that that says the game needs to have the same kind of raid content as WoW does either. Nothing.

It's kind of the same belief that I have about PvP. If the only PvP offered in a game is shallow and meaningless and is just tacked on for players that want to do battle just for the sake of doing battle with another player, I believe players lose interest in it very fast.

[Cryptic_Fan_101]

I wish that were correct. But there have been threads along the liens of PRECISELY that: turning STO fro MMOG to Simulation. :(

With more minutia and tedium than real life... not to mention than ever was depicted in a Star Trek movie or television show.

[RyanRosco]

You know...I don't remember anyone saying the game won't be goal oriented.....it just may not be the type of goals that a Uber gamer like yourself can latch onto and suckle...they may well mean that the game won't be popular with a certain type of player....it's more than a little arrogant to basically say the game will fail.



Yes and fun always equals where’s my firgging uberness right? :rolleyes: No one said that folks shouldn't achieve...but achievement is a pretty big blanket, and it covers many things to many different people.



Again no one said otherwise.....it just might not be what you consider achivement....but this game, it isn't really about you.




Yes because the dynamic content people have been begging for years is basically a lie and if they can't go to stosercrets.com and download the brain dump to fifty they will quit. God do you even listen to yourself ramble?




No including Jedi in the timeline that they put the game in was a total bonehead move, caving in to the ubergames that demanded their Epeen Extenze pill was a bonehead move. turning their backs on Star wars fans and trying to embrace basement dwelling EQ players was a bonehead move, and if you don't want to take my word for it...read what Raph Koster had to say.

Stamping your foot and demanding that this game had better have an elite end game path or it will fail is really rather silly, you can not predict what gamers will respond to, this isn't 1999. You can live here and play forum warrior all you want to...that dosen't mean this little agenda of yours is going to be pushed through.


LOL HAHAHA so you have meet Hagon Get used to writing LONG posts. He will twist your words to try to suit his arguments and will pretty much just waste your time. He thinks he is always right and he will argue with anyone about anything. Read some of his other posts its hilarious. I can only see his post when someone quotes him. I suggest you do the same. LOL hahahah Im sorry I cant stop laughing.

[Hagon]

Not often you get to see a forum poster with a kiddie fan club. Neat.

Nice to see the contribution from another member that has a chip on their shoulder because they don't like people pointing out when they're wrong, and so follows said person around posting insults whenever they can to try and get back at them. You and Fernos the same person? Or just at the same young age where you think everyone has to agree with you or they're being a big meanie?

[thefreshjedi]

You know, a lot is made of the idea of "Risk-vs-Reward", or "The risk you face and the reward you seek to acquire should be balanced to each other". Expressed mathematically, one could write it as so:

Risk = Reward

And on the surface, this looks fair, reasonable, and correct ... doesn't it? One would naturally assume that the reward for an activity should be directly commensurate with the risk faced in pursuit of that reward ... right?

Well, I have been coming to believe that this premise is false ... because it is incomplete. It does not take into account the effort you must expend in pursuit of that reward. It also neglects the cost in expendable resources involved - and/or repair costs - that will be consumed during that pursuit.

So I think that what the "Risk-vs-Reward" paradigm neglects to take into account is, quite simply, your investment. This, I think the paradigm should be re-written to say "Risk and Investment, versus Reward". Or, again mathematically:

(Risk + Investment) = Reward

Specifically, consider two missions. Both bear the same risk, both expect the same expenditure of consumables. One will take you fifteen minutes to attempt ... the other, will take you four hours.

Shouldn't the one that takes longer, also have a better reward? I think it should.

So ... agreement, disagreement, alternate concepts?

I think the equasion would have to be something like the following, but I don't feel like doing the math right now to prove it. And I think risk would actually have to be a negative factor as well in order for it to really work. But if memory serves in math, two negatives when multiplied or divided will equal a positive result.

(Investment - Risk)/Effort = Reward


-Avery

[Flatfingers]

It's not personal on my part at all, except maybe I'll cop to certain level of frustration when dealing with you because you refuse to accept facts like clear market trends, reasons given by failed game's developers themselves, etc, and sidestep them by speaking of things in terms of theory that's not based on anything but your own wishful thinking.

Hey, right back at you. ;)

I do appreciate your getting back to a friendlier tone, though. Thanks.

So getting back to be somewhat on topic, all I'm saying is that whether you or I or anyone else agree with it, I believe that the game has to offer rewards that suit the challenge of the content completed, whatever that content entails, or time a player has put into completing it. As far as time goes, it shouldn't be based on every players individual time to complete, but on an average time it should take determined by the developers during testing. I firmly believe that without rewards for achievement that make players feel like they have progressed their character further than those that have not completed the same or comparable content, most players will find completing the content pointless, and if they find completing the content pointless they simply will turn their backs on the game.

I actually agree with you that there are a lot of current online gamers who do expect -- strongly -- that in-game rewards should be proportional to the player's effort expended in seeking those rewards.

Are they right to have that expectation? Different question, and one whose answer is not so clear.

I think it actually goes further than online games: I think there've always been lots of people who believe that putting in their time should guarantee a desirable outcome.

Where things get interesting is when people who see the world a bit differently -- that would be me :) -- express our natural belief that the quantity of effort expended matters (or should matter) less than the quality of effort. It's the old, "work smarter, not harder" mindset. In other words, perception > persistence.

Of course that's not true. Perception isn't always more important than sheer cussed determination not to be beaten, which in some circumstances, such as survival situations, is not only desirable but admirable.

The thing is... not every situation is a survival situation. In some cases -- particularly where creativity or cooperation have high value -- perception or persuasion (respectively) may be clearly superior to persistence. Sometimes finding a key or a friend is better than just hammering on the door.

And I think that applies to the content of a game like Star Trek Online, too. Sometimes -- and for some gamers -- it's just more fun to find a solution that's clever or based on negotiation than to do something over and over until a timer expires.

So while I'm with you that even Star Trek Online needs plenty of content that plainly and directly rewards achievement, I also think that this game in particular -- based on the license -- needs plenty of content that rewards creative discovery and social interaction. I don't believe it's correct to think of those things as "nice if we can get to them" kinds of fun; I think for this game, content that satisfies the desire for these styles of play needs to be made an integral aspect of the overall game design.

That's not saying I think Star Trek Online should be any kind of pure sim -- it's saying that I think Star Trek Online in particular will benefit from having more simulationist and narrativist elements than the typical major MMORPG. That said, there's still plenty of room for content that appeals to folks who expect to be rewarded for the time they "invest" in playing. It's just a question of where to draw the lines in balancing the different forms of content.

Finally, for all the folks who want to knock this as sounding like "The Sims: The Next Generation," implying that such a game couldn't possibly be commercially successful, it's worth noting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PC) that The Sims and The Sims 2 have together sold 29 million units (not including expansions). That compares pretty darn well to WoW, Guild Wars, and EQ, which combined have sold 19.5 million units. Of course those are rough numbers (and they don't include ongoing subscription income for the online games). But they're not so rough that we can simply dismiss them when considering what people have demonstrated they're actually willing to pay for.

So sure, it's my considered opinion that Cryptic will do well to design Star Trek Online with plenty of content that appeals to people who want their gifts of perception and persuasion to be rewarded, along with plenty of content for those who want their talent for perseverance to be rewarded.

But it's just one opinion among many. I hope we'll hear others in this thread on this question: what percentage of content in STO should be designed to reward only an investment of time played?

Or is there a better way to pose that question?

--Flatfingers

[Hagon]

Finally, for all the folks who want to knock this as sounding like "The Sims: The Next Generation," implying that such a game couldn't possibly be commercially successful, it's worth noting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PC) that The Sims and The Sims 2 have together sold 29 million units (not including expansions). That compares pretty darn well to WoW, Guild Wars, and EQ, which combined have sold 19.5 million units. Of course those are rough numbers (and they don't include ongoing subscription income for the online games). But they're not so rough that we can simply dismiss them when considering what people have demonstrated they're actually willing to pay for.

So sure, it's my considered opinion that Cryptic will do well to design Star Trek Online with plenty of content that appeals to people who want their gifts of perception and persuasion to be rewarded, along with plenty of content for those who want their talent for perseverance to be rewarded.

But it's just one opinion among many. I hope we'll hear others in this thread on this question: what percentage of content in STO should be designed to reward only an investment of time played?

Or is there a better way to pose that question?

--FlatfingersSo I guess the question begs to be asked as to why you completely avoided citing games that are more accurately comparable to a MMOG?

Games like The Sims Online, that never achieved numbers greater than an average of 25K concurrent subs before the lights were mercifully turned out.

Or a game like Second Life, that despite it being maybe the most high profile online game in the public consciousness ever (it would be a toss up between it and WoW), in terms of number of mentions in mainstream media and such, has never achieved average numbers higher than @50k subscriptions, and for most of it's life has sat around 10 to 20K.

[Loekii]

You're kidding ... right?

I mean, I myself did just rejoin WoW myself; all my prior characters were gone, so I chose a new realm - Baelgun - and started over with a level 1 Blood Elf Paladin. I didn't know anyone on the realm at all,

Even playing somewhat casually, timewise (I'd say ~15 hours per week - just over 2 hours a day) - I'm now at level 35, member of a guild (nor Raiding - more "social" in nature). And never, NEVER has WoW seemed unduly unpopulated for whichever time of day I've been logged in. The cities are always busy, and even out in the most remote parts of wildernessI frequently run across one or two other people during my hour-long sessions. Heck, right now i Stranglethorn Vale, I can't go fourty feet without tripping over SOMEONE else, either travelling through, or questing like I am.

While that is your experience, mine has been more inline with the 'empty' feeling. In fact, when I tried to go back and play a little in my spare time, I could not find a server with a large enough population to provide enjoyable content.

I am not saying your experience doesn't count, but rather just saying that it is not the only experience.

I think in most MMOs, population numbers is something that needs to be carefully watched and not taken for granted.

[_Pax_]

Loekii ... what is it that you "need" for a play experience to be enjoyable - so many people in the overworld that you have to line up and wait for spawns?

Becuase honestly, aside from that sort of population requirement, I just can't see how you'd be that unable to find a server with a useful population of low- and mid-level characters.

[Loekii]

Loekii ... what is it that you "need" for a play experience to be enjoyable - so many people in the overworld that you have to line up and wait for spawns?

Becuase honestly, aside from that sort of population requirement, I just can't see how you'd be that unable to find a server with a useful population of low- and mid-level characters.

I play MMOs because I enjoy the social interaction.

If I wanted to play on a social ghost town, I would simply play single player games.

When there are only 3 people in a zone, scenarios are not popping for hours, and groups are not forming for group content, it is a bad thing.

[Fernos]

Not often you get to see a forum poster with a kiddie fan club. Neat.

Nice to see the contribution from another member that has a chip on their shoulder because they don't like people pointing out when they're wrong, and so follows said person around posting insults whenever they can to try and get back at them. You and Fernos the same person? Or just at the same young age where you think everyone has to agree with you or they're being a big meanie?

Wow I really don't think I have ever met anyone so conspiratorial minded. Oh and the signature is a tad creepy as well.

[thefreshjedi]

I play MMOs because I enjoy the social interaction.

If I wanted to play on a social ghost town, I would simply play single player games.

When there are only 3 people in a zone, scenarios are not popping for hours, and groups are not forming for group content, it is a bad thing.


I post in forums cause I like the social interaction.

But considering the heat in some of these forums, I wouldn't mind a social vacuum sometimes. But then the discourse wouldn't lead to anything useful. But one could argue that the discourse isn't very useful here either.

Lets hope the forums don't reflect the intellectual absorption rate of the posters we find here.

This isn't a knock at you Loekii, I mostly agree with you, but based on the pie-slinging elsewhere, I have doubts.

-Avery

[_Pax_]

Lets hope the forums don't reflect the intellectual absorption rate of the posters we find here.
The minds of most human beings over the age of ten are about as permeable to new ideas, as neutronium is permeable to ... well ... anything aside from gravity, actually.

[_Pax_]

I play MMOs because I enjoy the social interaction.

If I wanted to play on a social ghost town, I would simply play single player games.

When there are only 3 people in a zone, scenarios are not popping for hours, and groups are not forming for group content, it is a bad thing.

.... 3 people in "a zone"; by that, do you mean an entire area such as "the Barrens", or "the Arathi Highlands" ...?

Because if you do ... dang, man, even with 500 people in the Barrens, it'd be entirely possible - once you're well out of sight of the Crossroads, and not especially close to any of the smaller settlements (i.e., Camp Tuarajo) ... that you could pick a direction and run, yet, still not see more than 2 other players in the span of ten minutes. The overworld regions are simply that big.

Nonetheless, I still regularly ran into people now and again - primarily because I'd return to a settlement to "cash in" one or another quest, or "clear my inventory" to make room for new loot and resources.

In the actual Capitals - Horde side at least, I haven't made any Alliance characters this time around - especially in the primary commercial centers, you (almost literally) can't walk five FEET without tripping over two other players.

So, I'll ask for further clarification: do you mean, you need to have 3+ people very close by, such that there's probably one person every fifty in-game-scale feet, throughout a non-city zone ...?

Well, if that's the case ... then blecch, I don't want to have to FIGHT for spawns of X or Y NPC; I don't want to have to line up and wait my turn at the current whack-a-mole quest I'm on. That's not "populated", that's ludicrously overcrowded.

[Flatfingers]

So I guess the question begs to be asked as to why you completely avoided citing games that are more accurately comparable to a MMOG?

Never give an inch, huh? :)

As I've mentioned before, I've been told by someone who worked on TSO that EA never let them add the content that was necessary for that kind of game to succeed.

And Second Life isn't a game.

So I bizarrely persist in thinking that nothing yet "proves" the MMORPG industry can't grow by offering some games that better serve more kinds of people.

When someone makes a AAA MMORPG that sincerely tries to create and maintain a rough balance between mechanics-driven play and narrative or exploration (real exploration, not just toting up new "been there" badges) play, then we'll have a fair basis for comparison.

Until then, you and I both are just guessing. Naturally, we both feel we're making educated guesses... but they're guesses just the same.

Meanwhile, I'm still looking forward to hearing other views on whether playing time should in all cases be enough to guarantee advancement in a MMORPG, or if other styles deserve some content. I'm pretty confident you and I aren't the only people in this forum who have an opinion on this subject. ;)

--Flatfingers

[Fernos]

Meanwhile, I'm still looking forward to hearing other views on whether playing time should in all cases be enough to guarantee advancement in a MMORPG, or if other styles deserve some content. I'm pretty confident you and I aren't the only people in this forum who have an opinion on this subject. ;)

--Flatfingers



I just think that the ability to spend massive amounts of time behind a Keyboard should not be the end all of measurement of achievement...heck if anything time should not even factor into it. People were asking questions at Gen-Con and end game (Which Jack said there was no end game, there was an Elder game) came up, and Jack asked them what they would like to see? And his answer was the same old massive amounts of time with 39 of your closest friends, and Jack asked him wouldn't you rather have an adventure every time you log in, and be able to really explore the galaxy discover new planets, and be Immersed in a story? Most people in the audience said hell yes, the Raider and his pals walked out.

The only way Cryptic can make this game for people like Hagon is to basically adopt the EQ end game paradigm…and honestly anyone with an IQ over 84 can see that this game isn’t going to be like that, I honestly believe that Advancement will be more of a continual process rather than rush to end game then raid your little heart out…honestly I would imagine that we will more than likely have a chapter story line quest system, with a epic Chapterbook type quest at different milestones of your Characters lifespan. Not unlike how LOTRO is approaching it, the difference will be that the quest system is dynamic which means what one players gets the other may not, and if they do it will probably have a different objective or a some other sort of variable, in other words (I’m going to use a term Hagon detest) It is going to be an Immersive MMO.

Will this **** hardcore Raiders off? You betcha, but will it appeal to a much borader audience and speak to the thousands of Hardcore Star Trek fans? In my opinion yes it will.

[Hagon]

Well it was nice to get the PM that you still had a hate on for me and were being childish again.

Again, you have no idea what kind of game play I want. All you are going off is that you've been having a little mini-tantrum for a few days now because someone had the audacity to point out that your little immature generalizing and insulting rantings about people in guilds and people that take part in raids weren't based on anything factual at all. That they just come off as whining coming from a child lashing out because they have a chip on their shoulder.

You can't understand that the people that like those things are just regular people for the most part. You can't understand that the vast majority of them aren't anything like the elitists you try and make them out to be. You can't understand that just because someone points out the fact that you're wrong about those people doesn't mean that hardcore endgame raiding is all that person wants to see in every game they look forward to playing.

You can't even understand the example you vainly use to support your position here either.

There's nothing in what was said at the convention that eliminates that there'll most likely be suitable and desirable rewards for completing elder game content, however that content is presented. By the way, just to clue you in yet again, that's what this thread is about. It's not about end game raiding. No one has been talking about end game raiding except for you. You're the only one in this thread that's so myopic that as soon as they hear rewards they think end game raiding. Play MMOs much? I didn't think so.

What was being said, since you need it spelled out for you, was that people probably wouldn't be seeing much of the traditional raiding type content seen in games like WoW, EQ, etc. Which is absolutely nothing new either. Many games don't want to go down that route, and it has nothing at all to do with your cockamamie theories. It's because that kind of content is very very hard for most development houses to keep churning out on a consistent basis, and a lot of them are reluctant to get on that treadmill.

[Fernos]

Well it was nice to get the PM that you still had a hate on for me and were beinblah blah blah

Edited for yet more ranting and insipid content.

Blah blah...more editing.....

Okay first off did you know that Thorazine now comes in grape flavor? You might want to ask your doctor about it. I really wouldn't talk about PM's guy. If you had any clue how many people PMed me to tell me to ignore you because you are considered the forum nut job...well don't go there k? I'm trying very hard not to embarrass you

There's nothing in what was said at the convention that eliminates that there'll most likely be suitable and desirable rewards for completing elder game content, however that content is presented.


Ummm were you there? And no one said anything about there not being suitable and desirable rewards at the elder game guy, what the cryptic guys were getting at is that it wouldn't be rush to elder game and Raid, that is all I said...that is what you are having a cow about.


By the way, just to clue you in yet again, that's what this thread is about. It's not about end game raiding. No one has been talking about end game raiding except for you. You're the only one in this thread that's so myopic that as soon as they hear rewards they think end game raiding. Play MMOs much? I didn't think so.

I understand that, but traditionally most MMOs to this point have been about end game Raiding, my point was STO from all practical Purposes wasn't following that path. Why does this drive you into this pseudo-manic rage? God knows you have drove a topic into the ground again and again…and quite frankly what I post is none of your concern, you are not a Mod, nor are you a employee of Cryptic..your’e just a sad Middle aged guy who spends most of his time ranting on a forum and trying to shout down those you don’t agree with.

What was being said, since you need it spelled out for you, was that people probably wouldn't be seeing much of the traditional raiding type content seen in games like WoW, EQ, etc. Which is absolutely nothing new either. Many games don't want to go down that route, and it has nothing at all to do with your cockamamie theories. It's because that kind of content is very very hard for most development houses to keep churning out on a consistent basis, and a lot of them are reluctant to get on that treadmill.


Guy.... did you even read my post or did you see your name mentioned and went into another seizure? I get that, and my post relects that.....again you do understand that you are getting worked up over a forum poster that you have never even met before?..... right?

Honestly maybe you should just take a step back for awhile.

Oh and I thought you had me on ignore so you wouldn't have to see my post? I still think that is the best thing you can do seeing as how you are really not dealing well with all of this.

[Hagon]

Sorry there guy, but you probably would be best advised to poke your head up out of wherever you have it stuck and be aware of your surroundings so that you aren't saying more silly things.

A whole bunch of people around here have been having good discussions with me for a good while now, some coming from completely different viewpoints, but we still talk to each other with respect. Because see, they're mature enough to know that someone disagreeing with them isn't the end of the world. They can accept the differences in people, agree not to agree, and move on to the next topic. They don't need to hate because someone points out they're wrong, the same as I don't have to hate when they point out I'm wrong.

Seems funny that in all these discussions, in all these threads, with all these different people, I get the misfortune of running into the couple of crazies that can't deal with someone disagreeing with them. Such is life I guess. I know you're probably used to pulling this little cyber stalker act and shutting people up by doing it, but sorry there pup, not this guy. You want to act like a child you get treated as one. Ignoring your kind of forum stalker only passes you on to someone else.

[Fernos]

Sorry there guy, but you probably would be best advised to poke your head up out of wherever you have it stuck and be aware of your surroundings so that you aren't saying more silly things.

uhhhh say what? :rolleyes:

A whole bunch of people around here have been having good discussions with me for a good while now, some coming from completely different viewpoints, but we still talk to each other with respect. Because see, they're mature enough to know that someone disagreeing with them isn't the end of the world. They can accept the differences in people, agree not to agree, and move on to the next topic. They don't need to hate because someone points out they're wrong, the same as I don't have to hate when they point out I'm wrong.

Do you ever read what you write before you post it? Who are you to say anyone is wrong?

Seems funny that in all these discussions, in all these threads, with all these different people, I get the misfortune of running into the couple of crazies that can't deal with someone disagreeing with them. Such is life I guess. I know you're probably used to pulling this little cyber bully act and shutting people up by doing it, but sorry there pup, not this guy. You want to act like a child you get treated as one. Ignoring your kind of forum stalker only passes you on to someone else.

Hey guy you might want to sweep around your own back door I'm not the one with a loony sig. If you knew how many people are going WTF? over that one.....:rolleyes: And if Razor thought that I was breaking the forum rules in any way he would let me know in no uncertain terms. The only one with a problem here is you. I suggest you climb down from that Cross you put yourself on use to wood to build a bridge and get over it.

[Hagon]

Rave on there cyber stalker.

[Fernos]

Rave on there cyber stalker.



Hey genius...last count it was you that responded to my post.....I understand that you have a hard time with reality but try to focus. This isn't your forum...anyone can post here as long as they abide by the rules. So get some new material you geriatric wind bag.

[_Pax_]

If you had any clue how many people PMed me [...]
Classic Troll-move. Nice faceplant there, pal.

[Fernos]

Classic Troll-move. Nice faceplant there, pal.


:confused: That's a classic Troll move? :rolleyes:

[_Pax_]

:confused: That's a classic Troll move? :rolleyes:

Yes - cite "all the private messages I've gotten" ... IOW, cite the "massive support" you have, except it's all in a place noone can SEE to REFUTE.

[Fernos]

Yes - cite "all the private messages I've gotten" ... IOW, cite the "massive support" you have, except it's all in a place noone can SEE to REFUTE.

Hehe okay….. I never said anything about massive support I just said quite few pmed me telling me to ignore the resident nut-job….and really aside from you I don't see a lot of folks rushing in to defend Hagon the guy would argue with a fence post just to see his words in print. It's nice to see he has at least one fan...I get the feeling he doesn’t have a lot of friends.

Oh and it's no one, two words.

[Hagon]

Hehe okay….. I never said anything about massive support I just said quite few pmed me telling me to ignore the resident nut-job….and really aside from you I don't see a lot of folks rushing in to defend Hagon the guy would argue with a fence post just to see his words in print. It's nice to see he has at least one fan...I get the feeling he doesn’t have a lot of friends.

Oh and it's no one, two words.Ahhh it's too bad one can't post a good ol' "ORLY" pic here.

Just more evidence of the maturity level we're dealing with here, and of how this person, like some others, just can't handle people disagreeing with them. Still with the schoolyard mentality that if a person challenges them on their caustic attitude and pretend "facts" it's grounds to launch into juvenile personal attacks and trying to split everyone up to different sides of the sandbox (you can bet good money that this type will be the first to post the obligatory "I'm taking my ball and going home" post if/when the game doesn't turn out exactly the way they want it too). Someone so used to bullying their way through internet forums by stalking anyone that disputes the vitriol they spew at good folk, that they have a complete meltdown when they run up against someone they can't scare away. :rolleyes:

I'm actually starting to feel a bit sorry for you Fernos. It must be horrible living under that bridge being full of all that hate. :(

[Fernos]

Ahhh it's too bad one can't post a good ol' "ORLY" pic here.

Just more evidence of the maturity level we're dealing with here, and of how this person, like some others, just can't handle people disagreeing with them. Still with the schoolyard mentality that if a person challenges them on their caustic attitude and pretend "facts" it's grounds to launch into juvenile personal attacks and trying to split everyone up to different sides of the sandbox (you can bet good money that this type will be the first to post the obligatory "I'm taking my ball and going home" post if/when the game doesn't turn out exactly the way they want it too). Someone so used to bullying their way through internet forums by stalking anyone that disputes the vitriol they spew at good folk, that they have a complete meltdown when they run up against someone they can't scare away. :rolleyes:

I'm actually starting to feel a bit sorry for you Fernos. It must be horrible living under that bridge being full of all that hate. :(

Nothing but love here guy...c'mon lets be friends give us a hug. :)

[Hagon]

Sure. As many here already know full well, I can be friends with pretty much anybody. :)

[Fernos]

Sure. As many here already know full well, I can be friends with pretty much anybody. :)

Cool we can agree to disagree. We obviously have had completely different experiences as far as Guilds go, we can argue the finer points of who is right and who is wrong all day…. it’s really doing nothing to advance the community. I think that STO will have something to offer both of us.

[RyanRosco]

What another argument with Hagon hahahahahahahah. Thats so funny. Dont worry there are many people of forums that have heard that hagons argument. Im taking a wild swing on this but.... Let me guess, your a kid throwing a temper tantrum because you just cant handle hagon's vast knowledge . LOL it's just typical Hagon. You should know he already knows everything LOL:rolleyes:. Good to see you guys kiss and make up tho:)