This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Watching "MMOs are anything But", and it made me think of Guild Wars 2:

edited September 2011 in Video Games
Rym: "The world is now different...You didn't save the city. That city is gone for everybody."

If GW2 lives up to it's promise, it's going to at least feel like you affect the world in a real way. The area will reset after you've moved on, but the idea is that to you, everything you did had consequences.


The driving force of this is what they called Dynamic Events. The developers like to talk about one of the iconic WoW quests if you ever played on the horde (though they don't name WoW directly). They say, "You click on a guy and you are told that the camp is under attack by centaurs. And your job is to help defend the camp! But your actual quest objective is 'see those centuars standing around in a field? Go kill 10 of them."

In GW2, they say, if you are told centaurs are attacking, you can go to that location and witness them attacking. And if you or someone else doesn't stop them, they will take over the town, and you won't be able to see the vendors there anymore. Now the event you get when you approach the town won't be "stop the centaurs from attacking!" but rather "stop the centaurs from reinforcing the town!" If you succeed, now you can try to take back the town. If you do that, your next step will be to go rescue the prisoners.

All of this happens in the single world, and anybody can participate. Now these chains will repeat, because even though they have a lot of scripted events (1500 total they have said, they don't have an infinite amount. The hope is, though, that you never see the same section of any DE chain twice, because by the time it repeats, you will have leveled up to the next area.

I'm quite excited to see if they actually pull this off.

You also mentioned MMOs not having the character decisions to be called a Role-Playing game. GW2 is fixing that too, by giving every character a personal storyline quest chain. These quests will be unique to your character based upon your race and the decisions you make in character-creation and while participating in personal-storyline quests. The capitol city for your race will have only one "instanced" section, which is your personal home instance. In that neighborhood, the consequences of your progress on your personal storyline will be played out. If you fail to save someone, you can go there and visit their grave. if you do save them, they will be there to thank you. You can invite other people into your home instance and invite htem to help with your personal story, and they will get XP/loot for helping.

All in all I'm very optimistic, but we'll have to wait and see. Though I think if you watch all these videos you'll probably be as excited as me :) Beta will be later this year, that's when I'll decide to buy it or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU1JUwPqzQY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OyHwqokkKk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBC_ig73aMs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4VKhrCDWfg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvHV7HB2BDc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ttfOuxB6Gc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3uMlHSbPSY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMTs74eWBJ4

The first two are the Arenanet official videos for GW2, and the rest are some fan made videos from Gamescom and from released trailers. Two are them are playthroughs with commentary by Totalbiscut, who is a British game critic in the vein of Yahtzee (he will find something wrong with the game, always). Oddly, TB couldn't find anything bad to say about his 40 min playthrough of GW2, and he stated that fact in the video.

So anyway, I hope this breaks the mold as much as it claims it's going to. Here's to Arenanet and innovation in the MMO space.
«1

Comments

  • edited September 2011
    As far as I can understand, "affecting" the world in Guild Wars 2 is just altering what happens in your own instanced version of the world. The change which occurs while you play the story does not propagate to any of the other player's worlds. It is, in essence, exactly what Scrym were talking about but taken a level further. Your entire story world is instanced; the game is essentially a massively single player game, where you can have other players interact with your world. The FAQ states that there is a persistent over world, but you can't change anything in it, only the stuff in your story world.


    Planetside 2 actually holds much more promise IMHO. There is zero instancing. If your faction captures an outpost, every other player experiences that change. Battlelines will change over time. You'll need to do massive coordinated pushes to capture territory. While I can't speak with too much confidence on how it will play out, it's certainly much more of an improvement over anything else in development.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • In GW2, they say, if you are told centaurs are attacking, you can go to that location and witness them attacking. And if you or someone else doesn't stop them, they will take over the town, and you won't be able to see the vendors there anymore. Now the event you get when you approach the town won't be "stop the centaurs from attacking!" but rather "stop the centaurs from reinforcing the town!" If you succeed, now you can try to take back the town. If you do that, your next step will be to go rescue the prisoners.
    I think I saw a bit that said it went one step further. With, if you don't take back the town, they'll start sending out raiding parties to harass people on the roads, and/or to pillage other nearby settlements, making it increasingly beneficial for players to band together and take them out for the benefit of all, even if they aren't particularly interested in just the one town.

    Also, importantly - no autoattacking =D. If they take a similar stance towards loot as GW1, which is to say that getting the optimal weapons and armor is non-random and trivial and obtained simply through the leveling process, I may have to take a serious look at this game.
  • I still want to see a fully persistent MMO where you pay per life. Maybe 50 cents per spawn. All death is permanent and the world is extremely hazardous. Of course, your meager inventory would be on your corpse for anyone to take. There would be no levels, just equipment.
  • I still want to see a fully persistent MMO where you pay per life. Maybe 50 cents per spawn.
    Imagine WoW raids... Jesus, when I used to play we would wipe 40~ times a night sometimes.
  • edited September 2011
    That'd work pretty good set in the Fallout universe. Welcome to New New Mexico. All the raiders, bandits and slavers are other folk who decided to be a dick this playthrough. Civilization is only maintained by players banding together. Lets see what happens.
    Post edited by open_sketchbook on
  • Imagine WoW raids... Jesus, when I used to play we would wipe 40~ times a night sometimes.
    You wouldn't respawn in your raid. You would be back to the very beginning of the game. Like Diablo hardcore mode.
  • edited September 2011
    This reminds me of the holographic game world in the Caprica TV show (which wasn't really that good). In the show there was a game where you would put on a headset and essentially enter a massive virtual world. In it you could do anything. Build cities and vehicles, go to events, meet new people, get fucked up (the device had some sort of brain chemical interaction thingy), and pretty much be free. The caveat? Once you die, you can never enter the world again. The device records your DNA sequence and permabans you from the world once you die. You get one chance. Don't fuck it up.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • To be fair, it also made me think quite a bit of Guildwars II. But Andrew is right, Guild Wars II and Star Wars - The Old Republic are missing some elements of persistence, verisimilitude, and significance that are not yet easily feasible (even with The Old Republic's enormous budget). The big dream is to create that one giant RPG where every characters actions matter, and you have the potential to really change the "game world".

    Eve online is actually one of the stronger contenders for a persistent world where your actions have meaning. The whole game is a player-driven monster. What Eve lacks that the others have is a meaningful narrative. There is a narrative, but it's more like the narrative of the players than the narrative of the world or the story.

    You know what else this topic reminded me of? The "Organized Play" community in the pen and paper world. When I heard about Living Greyhawk, I thought it was the coolest thing ever - finally a way to play a character in a persistent world where my actions have consequence. Then I played some. It's persistent in that your character is portable from game to game (with a record of what adventures your character has been on). Individual groups and sessions could be quite fun, all told, but there was no "world". You couldn't even craft items when I played. It was a game with essentially a stock progression designed to allow for portability and potentially competition - but it lacked meaningful action. Characters were largely replaceable, hundreds of groups would run the same adventure, and the overall difference you made in the narrative was limited to statistics and rarely, if you played in select games, some meaning.

    When I came back from Gencon in 03, I actually tried to "fix" the "Organized Play" thing a bit more to my liking. I was the "Play-by-Post" moderator on Enworld, and came up with the idea for "Living EN World" which captured at least part of that. Characters were portable, from one game to another. Each game had its own unique significance to the game world. Long-running characters became pillars that made new characters lives that much easier (by making the items they would use and such). But it has a lot of weaknesses, not the least of which is the play-by-post medium itself. It's still going though, and has migrated to a new edition, and it's a little different now from my original vision, but so long as they're still playing it I'm still happy it's being played. The smaller community, though, and probably less dicks to drag it down, so it did at least offer something people were not getting elsewhere. It also mediated one of the problems that the medium has (games fizzling out). People, like me, would spend hours building incredibly detailed characters, backstories, and personalities for games that might last less than a year and then die (slowly or quickly). Having the backup that any character that went on a failed out adventure could continue their career in a new adventure under a new DM had appeal.

    But leveraging that personal hand-holding of having a specific DM and custom adventures that's available in that medium is not a strength available (without great expense and time right now) to the MMO genre. I think that we are making little steps every year though. World events, persistence, overall quality of narration, and such are improving by fair strides every year. But it takes a lot of code, and a lot of art, and a lot of thought to do it well.

    I may have a lot more emotionally invested in the subject than most people. The end goal has been my end-goal since playing the original Dragon Warrior. Or rather, since reading the instruction booklet for the original Legend of Zelda. In some perspective, it's a useless thing to want, but it's still something I want.
    I still want to see a fully persistent MMO where you pay per life. Maybe 50 cents per spawn. All death is permanent and the world is extremely hazardous. Of course, your meager inventory would be on your corpse for anyone to take. There would be no levels, just equipment.
    I would try to get into the insurance racket on items.
  • edited September 2011
    What Eve lacks that the others have is a meaningful narrative. There is a narrative, but it's more like the narrative of the players than the narrative of the world or the story.
    Is this a bad thing? Shouldn't the whole point of a MMO be the emergent narrative from the players? This is why EVE stories are very interesting to read, but due to game mechanics and fiddly bullshit it's not nearly as interesting to actually play.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • As far as I can understand, "affecting" the world in Guild Wars 2 is just altering what happens in your own instanced version of the world. The change which occurs while you play the story does not propagate to any of the other player's worlds.
    This is true of your own personal story, which is a lot more like a single player RPG so you can get some actual Role Playing done inside the larger MMO world. But the dynamic events I talked about are not instanced. If you save the town from the centaurs, that's the same town everybody sees. Watch the dragon fight on one of those videos (the one on the shakey-cam). That's an outdoor raid boss that is NOT instanced. Everyone on the server that goes to that spot will be able to see him and fight him, and he'll scale in difficulty. He's the size of a mansion, and if you don't stop him he changes the area around him (I think).
    Also, importantly - no autoattacking =D. If they take a similar stance towards loot as GW1, which is to say that getting the optimal weapons and armor is non-random and trivial and obtained simply through the leveling process, I may have to take a serious look at this game.
    That's my understanding as far as gear goes. BTW, in the competitive PVP section, they will have what is essentially an FPS-style server browser where you can hot-join matches in progress. Your character is auto-leveled to 80 and given all skills, and you are given a set of gear to choose from; the same set as everyone else. It sounds like for the PVP they are trying to emulate FPS/TPA games, which I don't have a problem with at all.
    I still want to see a fully persistent MMO where you pay per life. Maybe 50 cents per spawn. All death is permanent and the world is extremely hazardous. Of course, your meager inventory would be on your corpse for anyone to take. There would be no levels, just equipment.
    That's pretty hardcore, but it would certainly be an interesting world. Minecraft almost has that feel when you first start out (minus the monetary penalty).
  • edited September 2011
    BTW, in the competitive PVP section, they will have what is essentially an FPS-style server browser where you can hot-join matches in progress. Your character is auto-leveled to 80 and given all skills, and you are given a set of gear to choose from; the same set as everyone else. It sounds like for the PVP they are trying to emulate FPS/TPA games, which I don't have a problem with at all.
    Balls. If this is true, I think I'm completely sold.
    Post edited by Xefas on
  • edited September 2011
    What Eve lacks that the others have is a meaningful narrative. There is a narrative, but it's more like the narrative of the players than the narrative of the world or the story.
    Is this a bad thing? Shouldn't the whole point of a MMO be the emergent narrative from the players? This is why EVE stories are very interesting to read, but due to game mechanics and fiddly bullshit it's not nearly as interesting to actually play.
    The problem for me is the gap between the player narrative and the character narrative. In eve, you have an avatar of sorts... but no character. When someone talks about the incredibly wealthy, incredibly powerful, brilliant tactician that heads an enormous and powerful corporation - they are not talking about the character. They are talking about the guy that plays the character, and what he's accumulated and accomplished in the game. Eve often makes me think of a stock market on various different varieties of bitcoins with a wargame element.

    That and I find it incredibly boring to play the way I want, and the metrics for reward do not actually make me feel involved or interested in the world or the game.

    Edit: In one word, what it comes down to is "immersion". I get none of that with Eve.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • edited September 2011
    BTW, in the competitive PVP section, they will have what is essentially an FPS-style server browser where you can hot-join matches in progress. Your character is auto-leveled to 80 and given all skills, and you are given a set of gear to choose from; the same set as everyone else. It sounds like for the PVP they are trying to emulate FPS/TPA games, which I don't have a problem with at all.
    Balls. If this is true, I think I'm completely sold.
    They further split this "competitive" PVP mode into "casual" and "tournament" modes. You can play casually anywhere from (I think) 4vs4 to 10vs10 in those hot joinable matches (like any FPS game). However, if you want turely competitive play, you and your guild can enter the 5v5 tournament matches. You simply queue up (like an RTS game) and when 8 teams are ready an automated single elim tournament starts. The top teams in that tourny are given "qualifier points" and once you have enough qualifier points, you can buy your team a spot in the monthly "big" tournament. Every team who wins a monthly tourny gets to go on to the big annual championship.

    It just sounds fucking amazing to me. It's what PVP should be. And since the combat is much less like a hotkey MMO (where you press the same combination of buttons over and over), and more like an action RPG (there is active blocking and dodging of attacks), it's bound to be more skill based than most other MMOs.

    In addition, they are striving to remove the Holy Trinity. There's no such thing as a healer "class." Every class has a slot for a heal skill. You're responsible for your own survival (through dodges and choice/use of your own heal skill). If you do go down, you are "down" in the borderlands sense. When you are in a "downed" state your character is unable to move and has a new set of skills. You can maybe throw rocks to do a bit of damage, or encourage your teamates to buff them. ANY player on your side can come up to you and revive you (a-la L4D or borderlands). Also like borderlands, if you manage to kill something while in your downed state, you revive yourself. I also know that rangers have a skill that allows their pets to "lick your wounds" so you can revive yourself unless your opponent has killed your pet.

    However, in PVP everyone has access to a Coup-de-gras that takes about 2-3 seconds and eliminates downed characters forcing them to respawn. Downed characters also take damage so they might die just by area damage.

    This death system is also in PvE as well AFAIK.

    For more info, watch the PVP video in one of those links with TotalBiscut. There's also another fan video in there that gives an overview of PVP.

    I'm just so god damned excited by this game. I'm starting a podcast about it soon :)

    What Eve lacks that the others have is a meaningful narrative. There is a narrative, but it's more like the narrative of the players than the narrative of the world or the story.
    Is this a bad thing? Shouldn't the whole point of a MMO be the emergent narrative from the players? This is why EVE stories are very interesting to read, but due to game mechanics and fiddly bullshit it's not nearly as interesting to actually play.
    The problem for me is the gap between the player narrative and the character narrative. In eve, you have an avatar of sorts... but no character. When someone talks about the incredibly wealthy, incredibly powerful, brilliant tactician that heads an enormous and powerful corporation - they are not talking about the character. They are talking about the guy that plays the character, and what he's accumulated and accomplished in the game. Eve often makes me think of a stock market on various different varieties of bitcoins with a wargame element.

    That and I find it incredibly boring to play the way I want, and the metrics for reward do not actually make me feel involved or interested in the world or the game.

    Edit: In one word, what it comes down to is "immersion". I get none of that with Eve.
    Those are my exact same thoughts as well. I LOVE the emergent gameplay that can happen, I just hate playing the actual game to create the emergent gameplay. I love what Eve represents as possible, but not what it is.
    Post edited by Bridger on
  • edited September 2011
    Apreche, that idea is retarded. I guess that's your point because you're against micro-transactions and MMOs, so you come with an idea that's never going to be viable. Seriously, would you ever play Diablo if you had to pay again for the game after you die? No, you would not. You could've made the barely less retarded suggestion of paying to respawn somewhere near where you died, with all your shit, instead of being kicked back to lvl 0. Even then, that's not a viable idea in this fucking world because nobody would play such a game. Because it's too confrontational, that's why people pay per month, regardless of what the hell happens in-game. Die? Whatever. Don't play? Whatever. It's still going to cost the same.
    Post edited by Not nine on
  • His is just one small mechanic. It could be as simple as a persistent world game set up in an arcade machine. Every time someone plays it, that's their life. They can make it as far in the dungeon as they want. Then they die there.

    MMO Arcade Demon's Souls.

    I'd play it. I'd watch people play it.
  • instead of being kicked back to lvl 0
    Who says there's leveling in such an MMO? Make advancement be based soley on equipment and player skill. Fallout without levels.
    Because it's too confrontational
    This wouldn't target the people who pay for access to a grinder.
  • The big problem I see with a system that restarts you at 0 is 2 fold. First it requires that all progress be external to the player and second it means that the barrier to entry would be hard for most people. I don't think the idea as a whole is bad, but to actually make a game with that does that would be more than a challenge.
    The first problem isn't that big of a deal if you make a real living world. The second i think is the big flaw in this. Mostly I'd say think of how much you die in a game like STALKER, Fallout, or really any other game. If you had to restart every time you die it would be obnoxious.In an MMO setting you have even more problems, like other players. How would you handle PvP? If someone plays for a while gets good gear a dies in a firefight, they then lose everything invested into that character.in a statefull game I think such a mechanic would more likely just decrease player engagement than do anything particularly productive.
    Playing an MMO without respawning to some degree would probably be like playing a modern game without the ability to save, ever.
  • edited September 2011
    I'd play a Roguelike MMO. I wouldn't pay 50 cents a death, though. It'd be much cheaper to just download ADOM and pretend the jackals are griefing me and will posthumously /teabag my corpse.

    edit: Now that I think about it, I recall playing Legends of Kesmai when I was much younger. It was an MMO where death left your entire inventory on your corpse in the world, and there was free PvP everywhere (although there were town guards to discourage it in civilized areas). I...probably had fun? I must have been about 7 years old at the time.
    Post edited by Xefas on
  • edited September 2011
    I'm of the opinion that most mechanics are double edged or sliding scales. Most of the time, comparing any two related mechanics, you can see strengths and weaknesses that are inherent in them. I don't necessarily mean there are no "bad" mechanics, but I do mean that more often than not there are trade-offs that need to be measured.

    In the case of you die, pay to try again, you gain a certain amount of real impetus to get better at the game. A game that focuses purely on skill, strategy, or knowledge becomes more rewarding rather than less. Even in a stateful game, it can have meaning.

    Let's say that, in an example, the game incorporates a world-spanning puzzle. The only way to solve the puzzle is to learn a whole lot of information from all over the game world. The world is full of traps and dungeons, and monsters that are each essentially a puzzle in themselves to figure out and overcome. But once you've learned how to avoid a particular trap, fight a particular monster, and solve a particular dungeon - the task becomes routine. Every time you pay your ante, you're not just trying to build up a character, what you're really paying for is the opportunity to go back with what you've just learned that doesn't work, and try to solve the problem in a different way.

    In some sense, if you removed the penalty (let's say you just restart every room every time you fail and have to repeat it), the cost for failure might not be sufficiently high to keep the tension at the desired level.

    Once again, I'm not saying this is in itself a good design. But I like to keep in mind that virtually any mechanical change is a trade-off of sorts. By making the cost of failure higher, you can influence how victory feels. That's why I immediately fell back on the game Demon's Souls. It's a very good example of how, for some players, making a game that brutally punishes can be more rewarding.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • MMO Arcade Demon's Souls.
    Creamsteak, you genius.
  • dsfdsf
    edited September 2011
    I played more wow then I care to admit, but I put it down a while ago. Much of the reason for not having a dynamic environment in wow is due to technological limitations. Before I left they had begun to implement a technology that they called phasing which allowed the environment to change based on what part of the narrative the player was in. Fore example, the player arrives in Westfall and the region is over run by Gnolls and humans that have taken to looting since the economy has collapsed. As the player works through the quest chains the areas begin to clean up and physically change. Ultimately the quests end with a battle for the newly built fortress around sentinel hill that involves Gnolls rushing in and trying to over run the place. Some of the issues with this is there is no real consequence for falling. Also, you can't chose to work for the Defias and work to undermine Stormwind's interests there. Another issue related to the no consequence is that if you do not complete the quest to "kill 10 Gnolls" as they are rushing in to sentinel hill, then they just keep rushing in forever and get locked into eternal battles with npc's who tank them until you can finish them off. Lastly, you can only see other players that are on the same "phase" as you. All in all, it's a step in the right direction, but trying to create a fully immersive environment that has true consequence is a difficult task that requires more technological innovation.

    As far as Eve is concerned, Eve is a Starship pvp sandbox. It's sort of like MMO meets a 4x game. Player corporations vie for control of null-security space and build their own sovereign empires. There is a civilization-esq planning of building stations, starbases and sovereignty structures to produce resources to use in conquering other player empires. Even the intro "high security" zones are not free from pvp. You can literally be killed anywhere at anytime since game mechanics don't prevent players from attacking each other but instead, in high security, NPC "police" come after the offending players after the fact. Eve has plans to bring in more character development with the launching of its Incarna expansion, but so far you can only design your character and walk around your quarters in the station. But again, the devs of these games are actually trying to bring about most of the changes that players demand. It has just becomes an issue of: "how do we do this?" "How much money will it cost?" And not an issue of: "Do we want to do this?"
    Post edited by dsf on
  • begun to implement a technology that they called phasing
    Phasing is parallel play, not massive play. It's little better than what would happen if you played a single player game next to another person playing the same single player game. What's the point of a massive world if you have no way to change it and go through the same motions as everyone else. There's no possible legacy of anything you ever do.
  • I think the main reason the MMOs have a hard time with any persistent world changes is that their business focuses on the individual player. They want each person to subscribe and stay subscribed. That means they have to focus on the experience of the individual. They have to make you feel like you are the important hero. If you are just some bum, why keep paying to play a game where you get to be a bum? That's the problem Star Wars Galaxies had. Everyone wanted to be an important Jedi.

    I think the solution, without changing the business model, is to move away from individual achievement and move towards a co-operative model of everyone vs. the environment. Think about a game like the Pandemic or Shadows over Camelot with thousands of players vs. the computer all at once. Even if you suck, you are still helping. It's like the entire game is one gigantic and impossibly hard raid. Therefore it will still have the effect of making players feel obligated to keep playing to help the team.
  • I think the solution, without changing the business model, is to move away from individual achievement and move towards a co-operative model of everyone vs. the environment.
    I think apart from PvE, you focus on true faction based PvP. Once again see PS2.
  • What I have craved for a long time now is a persistent exploration based MMO. I've got an explorer type bent (in addition to all the others to lesser degrees). Or at least one with an interesting exploration based mechanic. Basically, MMO Minecraft/Elder Scrolls.

    Having not yet read "Ready Player One", I think that might talk about an imaginary game that has a sort of aspect of this.
  • begun to implement a technology that they called phasing
    Phasing is parallel play, not massive play. It's little better than what would happen if you played a single player game next to another person playing the same single player game. What's the point of a massive world if you have no way to change it and go through the same motions as everyone else. There's no possible legacy of anything you ever do.
    I don't think what you are proposing is going to happen for awhile. Sure there are attempts made, but to bind the "WoW" experience to a truly changeable world would require some pretty crazy man-power to manage and make sure that a small faction of player don't ruin the game(as a business model having a few elite players control the game is not very viable if you want the max number of people to play and pay you). So yeah technology, game balance and manpower are the biggest obstacles to a truly changeable world at the moment. I know some good attempts have been made but there are still problems resolving player management, narrative to the mix.
  • edited September 2011
    What about a MMO trapped in a groundhogs (day/week/month/quarter) paradox? Limited persistence is probably more feasible than trying to let a game progress indefinitely. This is actually fairly common in some of the web based "strategy" MMOs I've played. One had players building space fleets and colonizing worlds, and the game starts and ends every month or so. In some ways, it was "eve-light", but the idea stuck with me - that you could build a game that expands its breadth rather than depth. Each successive galaxy is a little different, a little more detailed, a few more features, but every cycle everyone has to start over. Some lucky player will discover the one ring and try to deliver it to mordor, and some people will try to help him, and some people will try to fight him. Layer that deep enough and it "might" be interesting. Just a random thought.

    It's certainly not the same thing as a simulated world, but I think it can be a cool tool to make something work in the interim before we can really support huge comprehensive simulations.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • Towards those who don't think that the perma-death and losing your loot on death isn't viable probably never played any of the old MUDs, Most of which were perma-death and/or loot drop on death.

    Those were fun games! When seeing a bad-ass character wander into the room you're in and realizing you have to RUN FOR YOUR LIFE or you'll be set back days/weeks/years. That actually got your heart pounding. Dying hundreds of times in wow doesn't affect me. There isn't any consequences to it. Dying in EVE is closer and does get your blood up. You just have to deal with spending hours working for those few seconds of watching attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, watching C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.

    *ahem*

    Without risk, success is meaningless. Being afraid to lose is a terrible way to live.
  • Towards those who don't think that the perma-death and losing your loot on death isn't viable probably never played any of the old MUDs, Most of which were perma-death and/or loot drop on death.
    Some of the old MUDs even had completely persistent worlds. If you changed something in a room, it was changed for everyone forever.
  • Towards those who don't think that the perma-death and losing your loot on death isn't viable probably never played any of the old MUDs, Most of which were perma-death and/or loot drop on death.
    Some of the old MUDs even had completely persistent worlds. If you changed something in a room, it was changed for everyone forever.
    Oh yeah, awesome stuff that. I played one called Federation where you got to build whole planets and add tons of content. Fun times that.
Sign In or Register to comment.