Is this real life, or is it fantasy?

The presence or absence of goals or obstacles is irrelevant to the point that Bowen Bloodgood made. He is describing the potential impact of unsolicited aggressive human interaction on some players' ability to enjoy the game. Most people are not open to such interaction, and many players are likely to bring that viewpoint with them into the game. Are they wrong? No, theirs is a legitimate play style. They are not avoiding in-game goals and obstacles, but typically the ones that they have are different, and have nothing to do with unwanted interference from other players.

Fortunately this game provides the necessary mechanics that allow players to completely avoid unwanted interactions. It is OK for them to not be OK with you. The game allows them to go their own way.

To answer the original question, everything that you experience when awake is part of your life, whether it is going to work or playing a game. I guess that makes it all real life, because it all has impact.

 

I disagree. If the game designers (those who erect the goals and put the obstacles in place) have included multiplayer, and have included player-versus-player conflict in the game design, the "aggressive human interaction" is solicited merely by playing the game.

Let us say I play the first-person shooter Quake. I could comment to the developers "I wish to run around on your levels and not be impacted by aggressive human interactions", they would of course look at me funny. "You want to avoid aggressive human interaction in our game?! That's how we designed it! Play the single player maps."

It is of course perfectly valid to wish for a game in which one is playing with others, but totally disconnected from them vis-a-vis goals and obstacles. And in this game one can achieve that, to some degree or another. But it is obvious that the game's designers have decided that part of the game is obstacles made up of other human players. Every player has to evaluate the goals and obstacles presented, and make a choice on whether to participate in that structure.

I don't know about "completely avoid", that is to be seen. Personally I would wonder why someone wants to play in a multiplayer video game that in every respect other than chatting and emotes, ignores other players. Again, that sounds a lot like Second Life (the goals you make are solely your own, and your interactions with other players are 100% controlled by the individual). Of course I hope as many people as possible can enjoy this game and take part; I only have an issue when someone wants the developers to actively reign in or radically change their vision for the game because they have an emotional connection to their characters that doesn't allow for a wide array of play styles and challenges.

Yup! And having the intellectual and emotional wherewithal to recognize when an avatar is just an avatar is part of a well-rounded and cohesive worldview. All of this is certainly my opinion, of course. ;-)

EDIT: spelling, grammar

 

Strumming my pain with his fingers,
Singing my life with his words,
Killing me softly with his song,
Killing me softly with his song,
Telling my whole life with his words,
Killing me softly with his song.

 

As it should be, but when there are no compelling reasons that are based on the game's flimsy narrative and if success in those aggressive player interactions involves compromises/modifications on the fly (switching armor types when switching decks based upon opponent type) that isn't consistent with the development of one's character; if a character who wants to participate in those interactions have to game the game (e.g. @Duke Avery 's Sheeple thread) in order to avoid the risks baked into the system; and if the obstacles in the game involve spawn camping entrances, then you will have problems with players such as myself wanting to participate in PVP. Believe me, I want all of multiplayer online mode to be PVP but not with the problems I mentioned. In addition I do not want there to be a Single Player Online and Friends Only Mode (of which, to be transparent, I am taking advantage of to further some of my crafting goals, unfortunately); Single Player Offline, yes, because it bears no consequence to other players who participate in Multiplayer mode.

To break it down, yes there is an attachment I have to the character I play. I am a role player. The way I am developing him does involve compromises, e.g. I use spell fists because there is no unarmed skill for fighting. I use leather armor exclusively and don't switch between different armor types in order to be more effective against certain types of damage. I have gimped myself for the sake of my play style which makes me unable to compete or be effective enough to counter those that have tailor-made their characters to compete or dominate. However, there are fundamental problems with design as I have mentioned above which does not compel me to make further compromises to my play by entering into PVP. Until those are solved, it's hard for me to participate.

 

I agree, the SPO and FPO just waters everything down. It's confusing and makes the logistics of balance a lot harder to figure out. I think it would be cool if it was just multiplayer online and single player offline. I'm not bothered by the other modes personally, I just don't understand them.

Very cool!

I admire your play style and dedication to your "role". But however noble and interesting your play of style is, you cannot expect to be exempt from the systems in place, driven by the visions of the designers. I know of course you aren't asking to be exempt, but there is a note of "I'm sacrificing to play the way I do, so give me a break!" in your tone. Do you catch my meaning? The way you play is a sacrifice and true to your vision, and I think it should remain exactly that: a sacrifice. You will pay a price, whether in terms of rate of advancement or competitive edge, for limiting yourself within the context of the systems as programmed.

I hope I'm making sense, and I also hope I'm not sounding dismissive of your playstyle, I think it's very cool to RP in that way.

 

I get what you're saying, but the thing is I want to participate, and will when some glaring issues are fixed, namely the camping issue which could be fixed by random spawn points in all scenes. I just don't want to game the game anymore than I am (if that makes sense) because the PVP system itself is not organic in its execution and is hampered by technological limitations ( at least I hope that is the case and not just design laziness or thoughtlessness). If the system is set up where I have to decide "Okay I'm going to PVP today. I'll just wear my Royal Founder armor just to PVP. I'll leave all my stuff in the bank. I'll make my ammo unstacked. These are the decks I'll switch between just to PVP. Okay, now I can flag up." then I'm opting to take on a play style and role that is more min/maxing than organic which makes the disparity between PVE and PVP play even more glaring because I can switch back and forth between these roles and it shouldn't have to work that way. That's where the problem lies when it comes to participating in the fantasy and managing the realities of the system.

I doubt if my play style would be an issue if there weren't these flaws. It's not about losing or dying or even losing resources I happen to be carrying. I can handle that. It's about the way the system is unpolished and how it directs a player to a certain type of play style in order to participate in a particular game mode.

 

*I* wasn't complaining and if all you got out of that was "lose your time" then I'm afraid you may have missed the point. I was speaking very broadly as to why there's a difference between getting killed by NPCs vs players. Each persons reasons for playing the way they do are their own which why I specifically avoided going there. The point being, is that it isn't "just pixels".. you're interacting with real people.

 

I understand you here...and you know, even the games very good at handling PvP haven't perfected it. For PvP to co-exist with PvE is hard to figure out, and it may never be as organic as you want it to be. I hear talk of a whole PvP "region" with a couple of towns within it; I think that sounds like (maybe?) a good direction to go in.

Totally understood. And again, it may never be a fluid movement between PvE and PvP. What's most important is to make the MOST people happy with some sort of compromise. There are some people on either side, however, who seem unable to think critically or realistically. They have a "perfect system" dreamed up, and while any daylight exists between that and what shows up, they will constantly complain. I really appreciate your approach in finding the weaknesses of the system and being more thuoghtful than "NO WAY HERE'S WHY THAT SUCKS XYZ, BROKEN!"

 

Yes, it depends entirely on game design and what the gameplay is supposed to be designed around ! This is why I hate the 'playstyle' argument. Games don't need to support every form of gameplay. If the gameplay you want isn't supported by one game, play a different one !

That's why different games exist.

Personally, I'm open to all different forms of gameplay. I'll play action games, strategy games, single player, multiplayer, PvE, PvP. I do expect that SotA be a role-playing game in the tradition of the Ultima series. In some aspect, that might require restrictions on and moderation of PvP. I already described how I thought the PvP in UO harmed role-playing. But similarly, on the opposite extreme of this, my belief is if the devs give players every type of convenience to support their playstyle, and no inconveniences, it will water down the role-playing elements, and SotA will turn into a virtual chat room or theme park MMO and not much more; and not really interesting, and not what people pledged for.

 

Am much of a fan of immersion as I am.. you're talking about such an extreme that if it were ever really true I would be worried. For all RP purposes, I try to think of the world and the people as real and treat as such sure.. but when someone named Ima Killya & SpongeBob Roundpants suddenly appears and attacks you without provocation it's pretty obvious they're not RPing and have no such motivation.. Nobody is going to sit there thinking "well gosh these guys are here to RP I should treat them like regular folks".. Hail and well *gets hacked to pieces*

 

Real people who are safe and sound in their homes, represented by pixels. I don't believe in griefing (or forced PvP, or whatever) personally, or think it's a particularly nice thing to do; however, that does not allow you to place an arbitrary and unrealistic value to the pixels that represent you. People are empathetic and kind to each other in real life because none of us want to be hurt, emotionally or physically. If someone else doesn't value his pixels at all (in other words, has a healthy sense of disconnection from his avatar), why would he value yours?

As much as this person upsets you, you absolutely cannot make any moral judgement about him or her.

 

Save that we are Avatars... We are Not of this world we inhabit... The NPCs are, and recognize us as different.
We Avatars each know the others and from whince we came... Earth.

 

I never said it was or should be. We are all different and there are many ways we relieve stress. Someone people do it by decorating their home.. others do it by going out and engaging in PvP. But "goals and obstacles" is not an excuse or argument for non-consensual PvP.. Or at least given the context of what you're replying to I have a hard time imagining what else you may be getting at here.

Ok at this point.. no. No one is going to think "I should just let other people have their fun at my expense" You're basically saying here that non-PvPers should just accept being attacked because that's how a PKer gets their kicks. If you're a PvPer.. and you're intentionally going after soft targets.. you should be saying to yourself.. "I should try to target other PvPers cause I know these other people probably won't enjoy being killed for no reason." The person doing the PKing is the one that should be empathetic here as they're the one forcing themselves unto others. Not the other way around.

No.. you're being snarky. By you're logic.. you should go play first person shooters because SotA will never have non-consensual PvP. "goals and obstacles" are not limited to other players. Nor should other players be confined to that definition.

 

What game are you playing? Devs have said from the start that non-consensual PvP wasn't going to happen. That is NOT a feature of the game.. you have to take extra steps to opt into it.. not just logging in to play.

You want unrestrained aggressive human interaction in SotA?! That's not how they designed it!

Which hasn't happened. PvP was always intended to be Opt-In since Kickstarter.. so if this is your motivation.. then why are you arguing about it in the first place?

 

You've missed the point. I'm not talking about attachment to pixels.. but your enjoyment of the in-game experience and you're going back to what Ravicus was doing by saying "it's just pixels".. which is essentially treating the personal controlling those pixels.. like they're "just pixels".. You're basically asking why should you value someone else's experience?

If it's "just pixels" then you should have no problem with griefing.. or botting.. or any other kind of behavior that's normally frowned upon.

 

Lol

 

It is my belief that players such as myself who engage in Friends Only and Muliplayer modes enjoy the social interaction Certainly, these experiences are real , even if they occur in a fantasy world Friendships can develop in-game which spill over into the real world, and if you are lucky enough, you might even find your one true love (I know I did...)

 

Well, there's a distinction here.

Playing a game speaking and acting as your character is roleplay, hence RPG. You are playing a character. A game that allows you to do that well we call immersive and I can see why players would not want that disrupted. Playing a game and identifying to the exclusion of your sense of self (becoming the character) is a problem and I would agree that is some type of disorder that requires attention.

I think most people are the former. They know they're sitting at a computer controlling a character. I've never personally met a gamer who was the latter. I'm not saying they do not exist, but I think it's very rare.

Projecting a corner case on a larger group just to justify a position is ridiculous. Try again.

 

I was not trying to project anything, just making a point. You validated my position by agreeing with it, even in a limited manor. Its cool though, I do not need to be coddled or put in a safe room, I can handle dissent.