Valhira Online

[Valdred]

I agree with Namkcor. You could make different servers with different rules though.

[Ryex]

I'm going to have to agree with the others on this one, lv40= permanent pvp is a really bad idea. per had on a server dedicated to pvp but you still need a server where people don't have to pvp if they don't want to.

[Draco6slayer]

Sure, constant PvP is annoying, but were talking level forty here. Also, the way the world is set up, you won't get gang killed unless on enemy borders, or in enemy territory. Basically, it's pretty easy to avoid PvP. Think WoW, it's that basic set up.
And also,

Did you know that an overwhelming majority of MMO players don't join guilds?  Or play with other players at all?

Where did you get that information? I did some research into it, but could't find anything. But nevertheless this game is made for community, as opposed to individualism. It's not supposed to be an individual player game, with some interaction, it's meant to be a multiplayer game, with some division. Obviously it has not been released yet, so these things cannot be tested. However, if it isn't a good solution then players will complain and the game will change.

[winkio]

Did you know that an overwhelming majority of MMO players don't join guilds?  Or play with other players at all?

Where did you get that information? I did some research into it, but could't find anything. But nevertheless this game is made for community, as opposed to individualism. It's not supposed to be an individual player game, with some interaction, it's meant to be a multiplayer game, with some division. Obviously it has not been released yet, so these things cannot be tested. However, if it isn't a good solution then players will complain and the game will change.

It's true, I saw stats for Runescape, Guild Wars, and WoW, and pvp was under 50% for all of them.  Wow was the highest with around 40%, guild wars was around 8%, and runescape around 2%.  This was the percentage of time that the average player spent engaging in pvp battles while in the game.  I got the stats from a link in some Guild Wars forum two years ago.

[Draco6slayer]

Well, I guess my point is this: We've never seen this type of game before. As far as we know this could be awesome, or it could totally suck. By having a closed mind about these things, we really prevent all forms of gaming evolution. Perhaps even with PvP, players will still ignore there opponents. Perhaps there will be so much PvP that it will demonstrate real war. Perhaps there will be too much PvP. Anyway it goes, we can't know until it does.

As far as being able to not fight in a war, were talking medieval ages here. If somebody goes to your house and attacks you, youw ill fight back. So in that case, you are fighting in war, whether you like it or not. But this is unimprtant, the imprtant thing is to see how it goes before you complaing about it.

[winkio]

Wait, we've never seen an MMO before?  This must be the most revolutionary concept ever where you were from.  Did you come here in a time machine from 1990?

Also, your justifications hold no logic.  If you want to demonstrate real war, wipe a player's account when they die.  Then see who plays your game.

[Blizzard]

If you want to demonstrate real war, wipe a player's account when they die.  Then see who plays your game.

QFT
HAH!

[Vell]

You quote WoW as your basis, yet WoW can pull off having PVP servers because it's so commercialized and is able to run literally hundreds of servers. And of those, there are Normal servers, RP servers, and PVP servers. And in that case, there are areas even in PVP servers where you don't have to be flagged for PVP.

You're not simulating actual war, you're just using a dated system. It already was tried out, I mean it's not like it takes a brilliant mind to say 'lolololol you can always die.'

And didn't Diablo have something where you cna play on a hard mode and when you die your character is locked?

[tSwitch]

Sure, constant PvP is annoying, but were talking level forty here. Also, the way the world is set up, you won't get gang killed unless on enemy borders, or in enemy territory. Basically, it's pretty easy to avoid PvP. Think WoW, it's that basic set up.
And also,

In WoW, there are PvE servers where you always have to flag or nobody can attack you.  WoW gives you the option to PvP or not PvP.
Your suggestion doesn't.
Being max level is irrelevant, people don't just start wanting to pvp at max level if they aren't interested in it to begin with.

Did you know that an overwhelming majority of MMO players don't join guilds?  Or play with other players at all?

Where did you get that information? I did some research into it, but could't find anything. But nevertheless this game is made for community, as opposed to individualism. It's not supposed to be an individual player game, with some interaction, it's meant to be a multiplayer game, with some division. Obviously it has not been released yet, so these things cannot be tested. However,

Blizzard themselves has said that they feel too few players join guilds.  That's why they're implementing guild progression and levels an bonuses in Cataclysm, because they want people to guild up.

if it isn't a good solution then players will complain and the game will change.

I'm not the only one saying this.

Well, I guess my point is this: We've never seen this type of game before.

Yes we have.
WoW has PvP servers where you can be attacked at any level anywhere (except Sanctuaries, few and far between), this is comparable to your level 40 experience.  Unless you like PvP, it's not fun.

[Draco6slayer]

Alright, that's like 90 complaints all at once, lolz. I'll try to answer them. Working from top to bottom.

Wait, we've never seen an MMO before?  This must be the most revolutionary concept ever where you were from.  Did you come here in a time machine from 1990?

I meant an MMO of this nature. I have never seen a game with this type of PvP system, that may be because it's a bad system, and may be because people reject it. I want to find out which before I complain about how it is. There are a few games you can be attacked whenever anybody wants, but the basis behind this is that fighting somebody who fights back strategically is more difficult than fighting a defenseless NPC. And no, you'll never find my time machine. I didn't come here from 1990,persay. I'm not a time traveler.

Also, your justifications hold no logic.  If you want to demonstrate real war, wipe a player's account when they die.  Then see who plays your game.

So by no logic, you mean limited logic, correct? I know a few games that almost demonstrate this, but this is not realistic war. You will have X players who go in to war, X-Y players die, remaining players shrivel up and ignore eachother. Real war has constant incoming troops, with people coming of age, people who were already strong entering war, and etc. this is demonstrated by allowing current players to go on. Not precisely realistic, I'll admit, but damn close. You make a good point though, perfect realism is unfun. Also, that part of the post was in response to the earlier quote by NAMKOR,

People can very well not fight in a war.  It happens all the time.

QFT HAH!

Unfortunately I don't know what QFT stands for, so I guess I can't combat that argument/compliment/easy money making guide/cheese. No sarcasm intended, I honestly don't know what it means...

You quote WoW as your basis, yet WoW can pull off having PVP servers because it's so commercialized and is able to run literally hundreds of servers. And of those, there are Normal servers, RP servers, and PVP servers. And in that case, there are areas even in PVP servers where you don't have to be flagged for PVP.

I don't understand how having multiple servers with lots of players applies. More player=More death, not less. And from what I understand(Correct me if I'm wrong, but) it costs like 50 bucks to change servers. Also, as far as the PvP safe zones, I think that is virtually created in this game by the fact that each side will avoid hanging out in the enemy side's main cities, because that would be stupid, you would die.

You're not simulating actual war, you're just using a dated system. It already was tried out, I mean it's not like it takes a brilliant mind to say 'lolololol you can always die.'

Since when is realism dated...? and I'm getting tired of the sarcasm at this point. There better not be too much more...

And didn't Diablo have something where you cna play on a hard mode and when you die your character is locked?

I'm not sure, I don't own diablo. But I don't think this is an argument point, so I'll move on.

In WoW, there are PvE servers where you always have to flag or nobody can attack you.  WoW gives you the option to PvP or not PvP.
Your suggestion doesn't.
Being max level is irrelevant, people don't just start wanting to pvp at max level if they aren't interested in it to begin with.

Again, avoid the borders, avoid PvP. It's practically the same system, only a little more limiting. I never said anything about max level...

Blizzard themselves has said that they feel too few players join guilds.  That's why they're implementing guild progression and levels an bonuses in Cataclysm, because they want people to guild up.

So if a big company like Blizzard has a bright idea to encourage getting into guilds, why can't a little game that does the same by making being in guilds a way to live easier?

I'm not the only one saying this.

Not sure what you mean, but you also have never played the game, and neither has anyone else who's saying that the game should change. I'm also not saying that the game should change prior to testing.

Yes we have.
WoW has PvP servers where you can be attacked at any level anywhere (except Sanctuaries, few and far between), this is comparable to your level 40 experience.  Unless you like PvP, it's not fun.

Dang it! We have not seen this game before. That's all I mean! You can't cut off a feature without testing the freaking thing!
Again, let me say this. If you have never played the game, you can't criticize it. It's like watching previews and then reviewing the movie.


EDIT: I probably sounded really angry in this post, and I'm going to apologize up front for that, but more importantly I'd like to say why I sounded so angry, and you probably have the same concern. I'm arguing the same point, over and over again against other people who are arguing the opposite point again and again. And we know what this means... were talking about a basic level flame war. And basic level flame wars can grow, oh so easily. So I propose we accept our differences on this PvP topic, and move on to discussing other features. I, for one, am not interested in continuing the argument and trashing up this post with annoyances. No, I'm not trying to get the final word, I'm trying to maintain all of our sanity. After all, this is a proffesional class forum. It's no place for mindless blather. However, I may feel compelled to argue if anyone argues with me(as you probably already want to) so... we'll see how this goes. Thanks.

[Blizzard]

QFT HAH!

Unfortunately I don't know what QFT stands for, so I guess I can't combat that argument/compliment/easy money making guide/cheese. No sarcasm intended, I honestly don't know what it means...

QFT means Quoted For Truth. It would have taken you less time to write down those two sentences than to type it in Google as it took me more time to write this down right now. I only seconded winkio's statement because I concur.

Yes we have.
WoW has PvP servers where you can be attacked at any level anywhere (except Sanctuaries, few and far between), this is comparable to your level 40 experience.  Unless you like PvP, it's not fun.

Dang it! We have not seen this game before. That's all I mean! You can't cut off a feature without testing the freaking thing!
Again, let me say this. If you have never played the game, you can't criticize it. It's like watching previews and then reviewing the movie.

You are implying that a 100% predefined concept cannot be critized. Forcing PVP to be active for players over level 40 is a very well defined concept. It's not like previewing a whole movie, it's like seeing 30 seconds of a scene and saying "I think that one chick in there was hot". It can be an irrelevant fact of the movie or it can be the reason why there will be 20% more males watching the movie.
PVP is a feature. It's been tested in many, many games. Even forcing PVP isn't original an idea. The only that is original (probably not even that one) is that the forced PVP occurs after level 40. (Personally, I think the idea is not a good one and will scare players away that don't want to PVP rather than attract any additional kind of players. People that want PVP will start with level 1 and not wait until 40. Everybody who gets 40 will just get frustrated and stop playing because all the childish no-life players that have already level 300 love to kill them.)

EDIT: I probably sounded really angry in this post, and I'm going to apologize up front for that, but more importantly I'd like to say why I sounded so angry, and you probably have the same concern. I'm arguing the same point, over and over again against other people who are arguing the opposite point again and again. And we know what this means... were talking about a basic level flame war. And basic level flame wars can grow, oh so easily. So I propose we accept our differences on this PvP topic, and move on to discussing other features. I, for one, am not interested in continuing the argument and trashing up this post with annoyances. No, I'm not trying to get the final word, I'm trying to maintain all of our sanity. After all, this is a proffesional class forum. It's no place for mindless blather. However, I may feel compelled to argue if anyone argues with me(as you probably already want to) so... we'll see how this goes. Thanks.

That's because you are so absorbed with the idea that you are right regardless of the arguments and you can't stand somebody not sharing your opinion as you see your opinion as a fact rather than an way to look at things. You see it as an absolute truth rather than a point of view or perspective. And now you are pissed that you are losing a fight and try to back off for damage control. That's fine. You can only make things worse so stopping is the best option here. But with a stubborn attitude like that you won't get far in life, dude.

[Draco6slayer]

Dang... You see where you put me now? If I argue, I lose. If I don't, I lose. I would have thought at least you would have some idea about how flame wars work...An analogy here would be that I poured a bucket of water on a flaming forest. I'm gonna hold out and not argue, at least until somebody calls me out on it, so please don't do it. I'm using every ounce of self control not to go into some form of angry post that will surely be the end of this entire topic. As a matter of fact I can see the end of the topic within a few days, and it says "Locked".

[winkio]

Oh great, another game developer that is too stubborn to accept criticism.  This is giving me bad deja vu of cw7.

[Draco6slayer]

About the gardening system: Will players be allowed to purchase a plot of land, for some price, to allow them to keep it in the long-term, or will they have to rent indefinetely?
And graphically, will it look cool, or is it just an event that you check occasionally?
EDIT: And no, I'm not the game developer. Heck, I didn't even know the game existed until 5 days ago. And believe me, this is what I consider "provoking".

[winkio]

I know this might come as a shock to you, but there are game developers on this site that are not working on this specific game.  You are in fact one of them.

[Draco6slayer]

I'm going to give you one last warning. If you don't believe that I'm an expert on these things, just google "Draco6slayer". And let me tell you, they are all me. I've been everywhere, I know how internet mobs work. If any of you know what the mob mindset is, that is how flame wars work. In any flame war you start with somebody making a point. Somebody else agrees, and it goes on until somebody makes an opposing point. The "Mob" at this point has built up just enough momentum to argue. The first party argues back, and then the flaming starts. Both arguments are repeated again and again and again. Both groups grow more and more sarcastic, and develop more and more violent language. (This is where I noticed we had a problem, and it is the last possible chance I had to stop it.) After that enough Mob Mind Momentum is built up that everything is ignored to make a point. Now you may think that this hasn't happened yet, but look at this:

Blizzard: Your orginal statement was simple and made a nonargued point. It was that most developers don't release unencrypted versions, and that others can be found elsewhere. Now look at your more recent posts:

QFT means Quoted For Truth. It would have taken you less time to write down those two sentences than to type it in Google as it took me more time to write this down right now. I only seconded winkio's statement because I concur.

You're getting angry at me for asking a question that took you 20 seconds to answer, and then you plow straight through my apology for getting worked up. Then you go on to insult my personality and tell me I won't get anywhere in life. This is after I pointed out that we had a flame war approaching. You did make a good point in the middle, and that's a good sign that this topic hasn't dies yet.

Winkio: You started out by point out actual data, which is great. But more recently:

Oh great, another game developer that is too stubborn to accept criticism.  This is giving me bad deja vu of cw7.

I know this might come as a shock to you, but there are game developers on this site that are not working on this specific game.  You are in fact one of them.

Firstly you attack my personality, like Blizzard, and secondly you compare me to somebody who apparently you didn't like. I haven't seen you act like this anywhere else in the forum. Then in your next quote, you get strangely angry when I don't understand your meaning. Whenever this has happened elsewhere on the forum, people are OK with mistakes. Also you have switched to using facts that you don't know are true, and in fact are not. The biggest game I have ever made was 5 maps. If that counts as game developing in your mind, than sure, I'm a developer. But still I'm not being stubborn about my game, so it doesn't apply.

Draco6slayer: I started out by making the point that we should have an open mind to these things, and shouldn't just reject them. My most recent arguing post included words like "Hell" and "Damn" and said this:

Since when is realism dated...? and I'm getting tired of the sarcasm at this point. There better not be too much more...

Even now, as I try to keep my cool, I onl seconds ago argued Winkio's point:

The biggest game I have ever made was 5 maps. If that counts as game developing in your mind, than sure, I'm a developer. But still I'm not being stubborn about my game, so it doesn't apply.

Believe me I'm not criticizing you, I'm warning you. I've seen all of this before, and it looks as if I'll see it again. If you choose to press on, please do so in another thread. I at least don't want this thread to go down with this argument.

[Ryex]

About the gardening system: Will players be allowed to purchase a plot of land, for some price, to allow them to keep it in the long-term, or will they have to rent indefinetely?
And graphically, will it look cool, or is it just an event that you check occasionally?
EDIT: And no, I'm not the game developer. Heck, I didn't even know the game existed until 5 days ago. And believe me, this is what I consider "provoking".

wait... your not working on this game? then why are you defending it like this. not that is is a bad thing it just seems strange to me.  

On topic:

to all the developers on this game, what I'm asking (and what I think most every one else who has made this point) is that you consider VERY carefully the impact forced PVP would have on your player base which is inevitable going to be small any way, one thing it definitely will NOT do is attract more players than it will turns away.

here is a good rule for any developer who is getting feed back from a group of people. if your getting feedback from your audience the the ratio of positive to negative feedback on any one feature will scale from a small group to a very large one with the exactly same ratio.
ie. if 50% of the people in a group of say 100 think a feature needs some revision then if you tried to get the same feedback from 10,000 people that 50% would still hold (with some variation, a small group can predict a large group perfectly, but the vast majority of the time it will be close)
my point, unless your getting positive feedback in equal proportion on this Idea defiantly think about revising it, also feed back coming from other people who are working on the project doesn't count the same as feed back form people observing the project

[Draco6slayer]

Glad were back on topic  . The reason I was defending it was because I believe people were too quick to reject it. I'm pretty sure none of us have tested this system, and thusly we can't rightfully argue that it definitely won't work. My opinion, though, and I don't believe people are in favor of it. I kept up my argument, and that went bad, so I did the best I could to prevent it from being worse. But I'm very glad were not doing the whole anger thing anymore. It's not the kind of thing that fits Geek PvP discussion, lol. Thanks .

Oh, and also back on topic. Your post made sense, staff should look into such a situation, but you had a slight inaccuracy. Silent Majority is a term that describes the fact that the group that is currently being supported will not voice there opinions unless the opposing group takes power(The fact that it was first used by Nixon descreases it's credibility, but still). Obviously that rule does not apply at a major level here, but it has some implementations. Also keep in mind that this is not the only site he is broadcasting on. If you really want staff attention, though, you should check out the Valhira Forums, which you can access from the site. It has a whole thread dedicated to complaints.

[Blizzard]

Dang... You see where you put me now? If I argue, I lose. If I don't, I lose. I would have thought at least you would have some idea about how flame wars work...An analogy here would be that I poured a bucket of water on a flaming forest. I'm gonna hold out and not argue, at least until somebody calls me out on it, so please don't do it. I'm using every ounce of self control not to go into some form of angry post that will surely be the end of this entire topic. As a matter of fact I can see the end of the topic within a few days, and it says "Locked".

Actually I got you cornered and turned out the fire. Though, I don't understand why you lose if you stop arguing. If you stopped, that would have been it. But counterintuitively you decided to keep on arguing. To be honest, this is fascinating. You say one thing and truly analyze the problem. And then you do exactly the mistake that you just explained before.

I've been everywhere, I know how internet mobs work. If any of you know what the mob mindset is, that is how flame wars work. In any flame war you start with somebody making a point. Somebody else agrees, and it goes on until somebody makes an opposing point. The "Mob" at this point has built up just enough momentum to argue. The first party argues back, and then the flaming starts. Both arguments are repeated again and again and again. Both groups grow more and more sarcastic, and develop more and more violent language. (This is where I noticed we had a problem, and it is the last possible chance I had to stop it.) After that enough Mob Mind Momentum is built up that everything is ignored to make a point.

I have to admit that I find it amusing how you are obviously knowledgeable in these kind of things, yet you fail to see the very same mistakes you are making and keep it up. Pretty much what I just said above.
I guess the big words of self-control are gone with the wind.

Now you may think that this hasn't happened yet, but look at this:

Blizzard: Your orginal statement was simple and made a nonargued point. It was that most developers don't release unencrypted versions, and that others can be found elsewhere. Now look at your more recent posts:

QFT means Quoted For Truth. It would have taken you less time to write down those two sentences than to type it in Google as it took me more time to write this down right now. I only seconded winkio's statement because I concur.

You're getting angry at me for asking a question that took you 20 seconds to answer

Anger? Where exactly can you tell that I am angry. I was merely pointing out your lack of effort. I even ended my post with the word "dude" to comfort you and make it clear that I am not being angry (even though I was being very harsh). But I have given up the belief that anyone can change so I'm not really putting effort into this. It's not the fact that people can't change, the problem is that they don't want to.

If somebody is literally obsessed with their own beliefs or opinions, they will do whatever it takes to protect them because they are so insecure that those are the only things they can cling on. Even if it means that they have to resort to moving away from the original topic to a completely irrelevant one (such as being the victim because of having been cornered in a debate) rather than being a man and stopping the nonsense. Furthermore, rather than understanding that they actually are digging themselves further and further in and making themselves only look more and more of a jackass, they decide they will take every single statement related to the topic and make it about them. They take it personal because it's a losing fight so they can pity themselves afterwards. It's really fascinating.
Trust me, I know what I am talking about. Been there, done that.

and then you plow straight through my apology for getting worked up.

I am not sure you understand the concept of apology. Apology means that you are sorry and that's that. An apology without the intention of apologizing has no meaning and an apology is not followed by the word "but". Saying "I'm sorry, but you suck anyway" or "I'm sorry, but you did the same thing" or "I'm sorry, but you started it" is not apologizing.

Then you go on to insult my personality and tell me I won't get anywhere in life.

Please open up a dictionary and look up the terms "insult" and "constructive criticism". Insulting is simply telling somebody something bad about them while constructive criticism is pointing out mistakes and giving either suggestions to fix them or explaining the weigh of their actions and a possible impact on the future if the mistakes keep being repeated. Of course, I am not being 100% accurate of those words. This is my own short interpretation. That's why I suggested you look them up so that you don't confuse those two terms in the future.

This is after I pointed out that we had a flame war approaching. You did make a good point in the middle, and that's a good sign that this topic hasn't dies yet.

I'll be blunt here so you understand what you are doing before you misinterpret my constructive criticism and the psychoanalysis I gave you about yourself (which you obviously do not like) again. Stating that a flame war is approaching does not take the responsibility off you causing it.

I am sure winkio can defend himself, but before he does (if he even bothers to reply because I wouldn't if I wasn't the admin and responsible for order), I'd like to add that his liking or not liking of a member does not have anything to do with anything. cw7 was repeatedly behaving inappropriately and for that he was banned permanently. You reminding him of cw7 means that you are behaving inappropriately.

I'm going to give you one last warning.

Let me explain this to you. I don't care who is right and who is wrong. If you are causing trouble, you WILL be banned. Giving out "warnings" to staff members (which is quite an offense already IMO, but my opinion is not absolute) whose posts you seem to interpret whatever way you like and exaggerate their meaning to enormous proportions is not cool. If you wish to be banned, please say so and save us all the hassle of a forum drama. I will gladly oblige. It wouldn't be the first time a member asked to be banned for a certain amount of time.

EDIT: I see you posted in the meanwhile. I hope you mean it and don't continue this nonsense. Because next time I might be in a bad mood and instead of bothering to reply, you will be banned (maybe not even by me).

[Draco6slayer]

My regrets for the drama. Mind if I delete all of my posts that did not apply to the topic. Personally, I would hate reading this if I was trying to find information about the game.