So this guy builds up his virtual character since 2003, and then uses the power he acquired over all this time to attack and gank players of another group, just because he can, and because he doesn't like them and the way they play. So the other players point out that the fight is uneven, they don't have 7 years of training and all the attack possibilities that the veteran has, and they start shouting that this is "unfair". Are they right, was that attack unfair? Or was that fight fair, because the other players have the same starting conditions, and anyway could get up to nearly the veterans level in half a year, if they work hard enough?
If you are an EVE player and just spontaneously cried out "of course that is fair", you are probably going to change your mind in a second, when I explain what I am talking about.
I'm talking about me creating the virtual character of Tobold, the Blogger, back in 2003, and having since then frequently attacked PvP on my blog. More specifically I attacked EVE PvP and the PvP fans this week. In response I got several comments that I wasn't giving the game "a fair shake", and complained about my journalistic "standards". Not so fun being on the receiving end of the ganking, is it? Well, what did you expect? I always hated PvP, always posted that I hated PvP, especially the asymmetric kind, and that is something that isn't likely to change. You could say that my reporting on EVE PvP is exactly as predictable and "fair and balanced" as a Fox News report on president Obama. See, journalistic standards, there they are!
But seriously: Many of the comments I got also contained disparaging remarks about World of Warcraft, probably written under the mistaken assumption that it somehow would hurt me if you insulted WoW. It doesn't, but it serves to demonstrate that EVE players aren't shy to say negative things about other games they don't like. Why should I not have the right to say negative things about the parts of a game that I don't like? Just because, and I quote: "Tobold is one of the most popular WoW bloggers, with an audience certainly in tens of thousands, if not hundreds. If he is going to "test" a game and post about it, he has a certain standard of intelligence and interaction to rise to."? I feel strongly negative about PvP, and when I write about EVE PvP my remarks will always be strongly negative. I'd say I easily reached the standard of intelligence demanded, it is just that people on the internet tend to think that everyone not agreeing with them is a moron. And I also met quite high standards of interaction, playing EVE for three weeks now, which is more than most professional reviewers give a game, not to mention Ed Zitron. If you think, as many of you said, that I don't "understand" EVE PVP, you are mistaken, I fully understand it, I just hate it. What the critics are effectively saying is that I should only write about aspects of EVE that I like. Sorry, reviewing games doesn't work that way. Bloggers tend to be passionate and thus often biased about something, and you don't get to complain if you end up at the wrong end of that bias. Especially if you are defending a game in which treachery and underhand attacks are part of the game, and are often "played" outside the game itself on forums or other places, so you're basically still playing here.
Because, see, all of the "advice" the EVE fans gave me also applies to this situation: If you feel that my blog having a lot of readers gives me an unfair advantage in a battle of opinions, all you have to do is to open your own blog, work hard on it for 6 months, and you can have thousands of readers too. This blog is my territory, my nulsec, in which I staked out certain positions, which includes a strong anti-PvP bias. I will do everything to defend my position, I have all the weapons I need for that, and if that makes you feel unfairly ganked, well, life is harsh as you repeatedly told me. Maybe you shouldn't enter unfriendly nulsec in the first place, if the result is that you complain afterwards about unfairness! There certainly were enough warning signs posted at the gates.
Tobold's MMORPG Blog : Bitching about PvP since 2003
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
EVE and constructive criticism
How do you evaluate a sandbox game with a non-linear game structure and no fixed goals? Well, given enough time, the only method I can think of is to play different gameplay elements one at a time, and blog about them one at a time. That is what I have been doing.
Of course it was unavoidable that when I wrote about PvP in EVE, I came out strongly against it. Check my blog, I have strong opinions against PvP, 7 years worth of archives. That reflects my personal attitude towards PvP in general, and is not specific to EVE, although of course EVE has a particularly asymmetric form of PvP due to the absence of fixed objectives.
Now EVE players are even more defensive of their game than most other MMORPG players, so I'm not particularly surprised that my opinion was strongly criticized. But there is a certain irony in EVE players telling me that I am playing EVE wrong. It shouldn't be possible to play a true sandbox game wrong. Everything is supposedly allowed and possible, and that must be true for me as well. If there is a right way and a wrong way to play EVE, then it isn't a sandbox.
Nevertheless of course there are probably aspects of EVE gameplay that I haven't written about yet, and which would be more fun for somebody who is new to the game and not interested in PvP anyway. So I'm inviting you to suggest me something that I should try and write about. What in EVE is fun for new players without having to wait weeks for skill training or running a strong risk to get podded? I liked scanning, but I don't think entering wormholes would be something you should suggest to new players. I already wrote about mining and running missions. What else is there to suggest for new players in EVE?
Of course it was unavoidable that when I wrote about PvP in EVE, I came out strongly against it. Check my blog, I have strong opinions against PvP, 7 years worth of archives. That reflects my personal attitude towards PvP in general, and is not specific to EVE, although of course EVE has a particularly asymmetric form of PvP due to the absence of fixed objectives.
Now EVE players are even more defensive of their game than most other MMORPG players, so I'm not particularly surprised that my opinion was strongly criticized. But there is a certain irony in EVE players telling me that I am playing EVE wrong. It shouldn't be possible to play a true sandbox game wrong. Everything is supposedly allowed and possible, and that must be true for me as well. If there is a right way and a wrong way to play EVE, then it isn't a sandbox.
Nevertheless of course there are probably aspects of EVE gameplay that I haven't written about yet, and which would be more fun for somebody who is new to the game and not interested in PvP anyway. So I'm inviting you to suggest me something that I should try and write about. What in EVE is fun for new players without having to wait weeks for skill training or running a strong risk to get podded? I liked scanning, but I don't think entering wormholes would be something you should suggest to new players. I already wrote about mining and running missions. What else is there to suggest for new players in EVE?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Institutionalized bullying
In retrospect it was a mistake to start my post about bullying with a flight into nulsec, because it resulted in the predictable response of "You shouldn't fly into nulsec as newbie" and "Players must gatecamp to protect their territory". I don't know if I hadn't made it clear enough, or people just didn't *want* to understand what I wrote, that I was fully aware that newbies *will* be shot down in nulsec, because that *is* necessary to defend territory.
My point was that asymmetric PvP, whatever you want to call it (ganking, bullying, ...) is bad, because it is neither satisfying to the winner nor to the loser. It is negative sum PvP in which *both* sides are worse off, the loser because he didn't have a chance, and the winners because they spent hours watching that gate for somebody to come through and then he doesn't put up a fight.
The point of flying into nulsec was to show that this asymmetric PvP in EVE is the rule, not the exception. And just about every EVE player commenting on that thread confirmed that in different words: Being ganked when entering nulsec is "normal". EVE is institutionalized bullying. There is no fair PvP in EVE, or as one commenter said "If in EVE you get into a fair fight, somebody made a mistake".
Personally I don't like unfair fights. There is a deeper philosophical discussion to be had about the moral dimension of liking unfair fights in your favor against other players. But for now it suffices to say that I think it isn't very good game design, based on the assumption that good game design produces a maximum amount of fun for a maximum number of players.
My point was that asymmetric PvP, whatever you want to call it (ganking, bullying, ...) is bad, because it is neither satisfying to the winner nor to the loser. It is negative sum PvP in which *both* sides are worse off, the loser because he didn't have a chance, and the winners because they spent hours watching that gate for somebody to come through and then he doesn't put up a fight.
The point of flying into nulsec was to show that this asymmetric PvP in EVE is the rule, not the exception. And just about every EVE player commenting on that thread confirmed that in different words: Being ganked when entering nulsec is "normal". EVE is institutionalized bullying. There is no fair PvP in EVE, or as one commenter said "If in EVE you get into a fair fight, somebody made a mistake".
Personally I don't like unfair fights. There is a deeper philosophical discussion to be had about the moral dimension of liking unfair fights in your favor against other players. But for now it suffices to say that I think it isn't very good game design, based on the assumption that good game design produces a maximum amount of fun for a maximum number of players.
New level 80
So my paladin hit level 80 this weekend, after 10 days and 4 hours of /played time, just under 250 hours from level 1 to 80. When he dinged he was wearing full iLvl 187 blue gear from his blacksmithing profession, which is actually better than anything you can find in normal dungeons. Then I proceeded to smith the iLvl 200 epics, but it became obvious very fast that my dual spec choice up to that point, protection and retribution, wasn't going to work at level 80: Nobody wants a tank that isn't extremely overgeared, and I could barely reach the defense cap. Thus change of strategy, and I went for holy / retribution, because I thought that for a healer gearscore mattered less, healing in heroics being so easy.
It also happened that I had picked up earlier the two recipes for the iLvl 245 Sunforged chest and bracers for holy paladins. Thus I had two iLvL 245 pieces, and three iLvl 200 epics (helmet, boots, weapons) just from blacksmithing. Then I went shopping and bought the jewelcrafting epic necklaces and ring, plus an iLvl 200 epic caster shield and a trinket. In my first heroics I got a better weapon (iLvL 232 caster sword) and enough emblems (already had over 30 of them from leveling) to buy a second trinket, iLvl 245. Overall gearscore now 3769. This is certainly much better geared than my first level 80, also a healer, when he entered his first heroics some weeks after Wrath of the Lich King came out. We weren't wearing epics already then before even starting with heroics. We didn't already have emblems of triumph for iLvl 245 then before even reaching level 80.
And in spite of that there is hardly a heroic group in which I don't get a comment along the lines "you can heal in that gear ????". One guy even asked whether I could keep the tank alive, which shows a profound lack of knowledge of how paladins heal in heroics, because I barely ever heal the tank, I just slap a beacon on him and then he automatically gets healed for what I have to put on heals on the overeager dps. In one particular group I was with a death knight whose gearscore was much worse than mine, and he did under 1k dps, and people were still making comments about *my* gear, not his. And of course I heal just fine. I obviously need more mana breaks than somebody with a 5k+ gearscore, but I never failed to keep the tank alive, and even healed through Pits of Saron on heroic twice without problem. In all fairness, I did get a comment about "nice healing" after the fact, but the first reaction is nearly always complaints about me being undergeared.
I'd love to hear from the people who think that I'm undergeared for heroics from where exactly they think I should get my gear if not from heroics. I already spent over 10k gold on the materials for my smithed epics and the boe epics I bought, and there aren't any affordable epics left for me to buy for gold. I need emblems for better gear, and that means running heroics. If the Dungeon Finder AI puts me into a group for Pits of Saron, it obviously thinks that I'm geared well enough for that, and I don't really get the choice which dungeon I'm placed in. If some people are only interested in a free ride with both the tank and healer being over 5k gearscore, then they should shut their mouth and just leave any pickup group which isn't overpowered enough for them!
It also happened that I had picked up earlier the two recipes for the iLvl 245 Sunforged chest and bracers for holy paladins. Thus I had two iLvL 245 pieces, and three iLvl 200 epics (helmet, boots, weapons) just from blacksmithing. Then I went shopping and bought the jewelcrafting epic necklaces and ring, plus an iLvl 200 epic caster shield and a trinket. In my first heroics I got a better weapon (iLvL 232 caster sword) and enough emblems (already had over 30 of them from leveling) to buy a second trinket, iLvl 245. Overall gearscore now 3769. This is certainly much better geared than my first level 80, also a healer, when he entered his first heroics some weeks after Wrath of the Lich King came out. We weren't wearing epics already then before even starting with heroics. We didn't already have emblems of triumph for iLvl 245 then before even reaching level 80.
And in spite of that there is hardly a heroic group in which I don't get a comment along the lines "you can heal in that gear ????". One guy even asked whether I could keep the tank alive, which shows a profound lack of knowledge of how paladins heal in heroics, because I barely ever heal the tank, I just slap a beacon on him and then he automatically gets healed for what I have to put on heals on the overeager dps. In one particular group I was with a death knight whose gearscore was much worse than mine, and he did under 1k dps, and people were still making comments about *my* gear, not his. And of course I heal just fine. I obviously need more mana breaks than somebody with a 5k+ gearscore, but I never failed to keep the tank alive, and even healed through Pits of Saron on heroic twice without problem. In all fairness, I did get a comment about "nice healing" after the fact, but the first reaction is nearly always complaints about me being undergeared.
I'd love to hear from the people who think that I'm undergeared for heroics from where exactly they think I should get my gear if not from heroics. I already spent over 10k gold on the materials for my smithed epics and the boe epics I bought, and there aren't any affordable epics left for me to buy for gold. I need emblems for better gear, and that means running heroics. If the Dungeon Finder AI puts me into a group for Pits of Saron, it obviously thinks that I'm geared well enough for that, and I don't really get the choice which dungeon I'm placed in. If some people are only interested in a free ride with both the tank and healer being over 5k gearscore, then they should shut their mouth and just leave any pickup group which isn't overpowered enough for them!
Serial Ganker quits Darkfall
It appears that Sid67's thoughts on Darkfall are remarkably similar to my current thoughts about EVE. Key quotes:
And that is a principal problem of PvP MMORPGs: MMORPGs by definition have character advancement, in one form or another. Whether it is time played, gear gathered, real time skill training, or skills used, a player of a MMORPG is always getting better with time. Which doesn't matter all that much if he is facing PvE challenges, which can be scaled to his current power level. But if he is facing PvP challenges, the new player is at a fundamental disadvantage versus the veteran player. And even if he is more talented and learns quickly, he might never catch up. The only solution I see that this is systems like Guild Wars, where you quickly reach a cap (and can even create capped characters) and then only grow horizontally into more options, not vertically into more power.
I get extremely suspicious nowadays whenever I hear of a game which allows you to achieve great things, lead an empire, and rule over the masses. Because by definition there are more of the downtrodden masses than there are emperors. And especially new players coming later to the game are highly likely to end up as downtrodden mass, and highly unlikely to end up as emperor. And the worst of that is that existing players have an interest to lie to you about this, because just like every pyramid scheme you need to recruit the next lower level to get higher up in the pyramid.
If I want to lead empires, I play single-player games. Looking forward to Civilization 5 very much, for example. In a single-player game my time to advance isn't depending on whether I start the game at release or much later, and the computer AI doesn't mind playing the downtrodden masses while the humans can all be emperors.
"And despite how much time I've put into it, my character has barely broken into the tier just above the 'newbie' stage."Now EVE is a lot more carebear than Darkfall, because in EVE you can just stay in high security space. But even there you look at gameplay activities like mining or manufacturing and realize that it would take months to become even remotely competitive. Even buying low and selling high effectively needs skill training in EVE.
"Which just makes me wonder, is it even worth it?"
"Biggest Lie: New players can contribute in PvP"
"I don't want to be a cog in the machine. I want to contribute. I want to win. That's what drives me and motivates me. I'm just realizing now that I can't keep up that motivation when it's going to take a minimum of four more months to get competitive."
"I think I would have an entirely different perspective if I had played Darkfall from launch."
"The overall experience would just be more enjoyable because I wouldn't feel that I'm losing solely based on longevity."
"This is a perspective that I just don't think a long-time Darkfall player would understand."
And that is a principal problem of PvP MMORPGs: MMORPGs by definition have character advancement, in one form or another. Whether it is time played, gear gathered, real time skill training, or skills used, a player of a MMORPG is always getting better with time. Which doesn't matter all that much if he is facing PvE challenges, which can be scaled to his current power level. But if he is facing PvP challenges, the new player is at a fundamental disadvantage versus the veteran player. And even if he is more talented and learns quickly, he might never catch up. The only solution I see that this is systems like Guild Wars, where you quickly reach a cap (and can even create capped characters) and then only grow horizontally into more options, not vertically into more power.
I get extremely suspicious nowadays whenever I hear of a game which allows you to achieve great things, lead an empire, and rule over the masses. Because by definition there are more of the downtrodden masses than there are emperors. And especially new players coming later to the game are highly likely to end up as downtrodden mass, and highly unlikely to end up as emperor. And the worst of that is that existing players have an interest to lie to you about this, because just like every pyramid scheme you need to recruit the next lower level to get higher up in the pyramid.
If I want to lead empires, I play single-player games. Looking forward to Civilization 5 very much, for example. In a single-player game my time to advance isn't depending on whether I start the game at release or much later, and the computer AI doesn't mind playing the downtrodden masses while the humans can all be emperors.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Bullies in the sandbox
Just to make sure the stories weren't exaggerated, I took a small frigate I didn't need any more, insured it, updated my clone, and took the shortest route into null sec space in EVE Online. I had to cross two low sec sectors, but nothing happened there. On entering null sec however, within seconds I got warp scrambled so I couldn't escape, and then three much bigger ships shot me into pieces and then even podded me. I survived null sec less than a minute.
This exemplifies the fundamental problem of communication I have with EVE players: They consider this "normal". You enter null sec space, other players will shoot you down, not just your ship, but also your pod. For no reason other than that they can and for no crime other than you being there. There is no strategic challenge in this sort of PvP, it is simply ganking.
Much is being made of EVE being a sandbox game, but in reality the new players are just playing in the dirt on the outskirts of the playground. The sandbox with the fine sand and the nice toys is occupied by bullies, and if you even get close they are going to beat you up and kick you out. So the goal in life for EVE players is to become strong, gather friends, and be able to beat up the bullies, kick them out of the sandbox, and become the bigger bully.
Personally, I don't see the point of it all. I don't want to become the bigger bully. I don't enjoy beating weaker players for no purpose. I don't even enjoy beating up the bullies. I am clever enough to realize that this isn't the only playground around. There are lots of other playgrounds with as nice or even nicer sandboxes and toys, with supervision by grown-ups, so there is no bullying. Sure, in those supervised sandboxes you can't do everything you want, because the grown-ups will prevent you from hurting the other kids or doing other too dangerous stuff. But if you just want to play with the toys in the sandbox, without having to fight the bullies over it, those other playgrounds are much better suited for you. Because the only restriction is that you can't do the stuff you shouldn't be doing anyway if you were a nice kid. If you aren't a bully yourself, those supervised, bully-free playgrounds are the much better places.
This exemplifies the fundamental problem of communication I have with EVE players: They consider this "normal". You enter null sec space, other players will shoot you down, not just your ship, but also your pod. For no reason other than that they can and for no crime other than you being there. There is no strategic challenge in this sort of PvP, it is simply ganking.
Much is being made of EVE being a sandbox game, but in reality the new players are just playing in the dirt on the outskirts of the playground. The sandbox with the fine sand and the nice toys is occupied by bullies, and if you even get close they are going to beat you up and kick you out. So the goal in life for EVE players is to become strong, gather friends, and be able to beat up the bullies, kick them out of the sandbox, and become the bigger bully.
Personally, I don't see the point of it all. I don't want to become the bigger bully. I don't enjoy beating weaker players for no purpose. I don't even enjoy beating up the bullies. I am clever enough to realize that this isn't the only playground around. There are lots of other playgrounds with as nice or even nicer sandboxes and toys, with supervision by grown-ups, so there is no bullying. Sure, in those supervised sandboxes you can't do everything you want, because the grown-ups will prevent you from hurting the other kids or doing other too dangerous stuff. But if you just want to play with the toys in the sandbox, without having to fight the bullies over it, those other playgrounds are much better suited for you. Because the only restriction is that you can't do the stuff you shouldn't be doing anyway if you were a nice kid. If you aren't a bully yourself, those supervised, bully-free playgrounds are the much better places.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Open Sunday Thread
As every Sunday, I'm taking a day off from blogging, and leave you this thread for discussion, suggestions, and questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)