Right, but if I remember correctly, you get a random chance to get an item the other player had or nothing... I'm saying that maybe that chance should be increased slightly. If you had two people going back and forth as described, you'd be just as bad off, but not as quickly. I'm not suggesting that players drop 2-3 times as much as they were carrying. Even if they dropped everything they had, they still have to buy a new ship. Net loss.
And yes, I understand the risk reward balance. In whatever MMO I play, the only way I can have fun is with no loss, but great risk (challenge) for the reward. If I spend time getting some item, I don't want some other player to be able to simply kill me for it.
I'm the same... I don't know if we'd be classed as Solvers or Pacifists. I think in terms of Tomb Raider, we'd be pacifist, doing everything but solving the game.
I hate PVP combat, which is part of the reason I stopped playing Eve, but I can see your point. I just don't see the point in killing each other when personal time, cash, and such things are involved. I have no problem with FPS game type PVP because you can pretty easily get power-ups and weapons by learning the levels, but when it involves days/weeks/months of work to get an item and someone is going to kill you in 5 minutes for no good reason... I lose interest.
I guess if it were me, I'd petition to have a greater reward for taking out another player's ship to help compensate for your inevitable loss instead of dropping money on "gold." If PVP combat is so taxing on the income of the player, maybe PVP combat should net better rewards/salvage instead of forcing the "farming" route. That way PVP'ers could have fun instead of wasting time or personal money on farmers?
I've never been in a game without money as playing through the quests, missions, and/or leveling up has provided me with plenty of money to spend in game on things that I need to continue PVE content.
This covers security and exploits, account trading and sharing, and real world transactions. If your game has enough players to pay your salary, it has enough players that someone will exploit or explore any mechanism that you provide, and they will come up with their own alternatives to any mechanism that you don't provide.
Personally, I never understood why someone would want to buy money in an MMO...
But your logic makes it sound like the person in charge should just suck it up and stop trying to prevent people from doing what they want. If I apply that to real life, I should be able to massacre everyone in a square mile of myself so I can have peace and quiet... and the government should provide me the tools to do so.
They could always make servers specific to parts of the globe...
Server1 - Pacific Server2 - Atlantic
Set the reboots to 12 hours from each other and the people will choose the one that doesn't have a reboot during their play time. If you get popular enough, split them into 6 hour blocks.
I'm glad someone appreciates the information... I was modded overrated and redundant on every other post pointing this out. Seems someone is trying to keep this firmly pointed at Sony.
What they need is a standard format "PC" plate that you can mount straight to the back of an HD TV using the mounting holes. You should then be able to mount that to a wall bracket for wall mounting or leave the TV on the stand. It would make no difference. This "PC" plate should have a removable standard sized tray that computer manufacturers could create PCs or other decoding devices can be "slid into". Think of it like a slimline rack mount device. You plug in whatever sources you need and viola, an upgradeable TV PC case.
The Daggerfall engine wasn't the best though... I remember getting climb up and it ended up hurting my game more than helping. I would climb up doors in dungeons and end up in "The Void."
Just an observation, but you prefer to kill remotely. IE: You'd rather let the AI kill each other than do the deed yourself or control the battlefield instead of grabbing a sword and going toe to toe with others. I assume you don't play much FPS or if you do, you enjoy to snipe?
Not to worry though, I don't think. I do the same whenever possible. I hate PVP in online games ("mano a mano") but I love to let the world destroy itself and/or distance myself from the carnage. One example I can think of that I love to do in games with trajectory is sit back with a tank and lob shells into the enemy base. If they had artillery, I'd use it, but in games like Warhawk, I'll grab a tank and start lobbing shells at strategic points in the distance.
I'm not specifically referring to this instance, but I agree that preventing it would be preferable as long as you are preventing it correctly. I'm referring more to the likes of the person that would rather sacrifice the ability for everyone in the country to leave the house at night because someone was shot or enforcing an overly strict requirement on something because of a fluke accident. (I basically read into the AC's post a bit more than I should have.)
My post also springs from this whole health care debacle we have going on here in the States. The system they want to implement is downright retarded and broken and they'd rather bankrupt the US and push it through than resolve it in other ways. (Bankrupt the country to give health care to people unwilling to use already available free clinics?) I guess it's the relationship between governmental programs gone wrong and health/death that got to me, sorry.
It's an interesting argument (to me at least...) and I see it in the media and politics every day. People are more concerned about one death than they are about the implications to society in overreacting to that one death. "Someone died, therefore we must do everything in our power to stop it from happening again... even if it would bankrupt us and cause hundreds more deaths."
I just installed KDE on my Debian Laptop about a week ago just to check it out. Last time I tried KDE was 3.[something]. (I grabbed the version from the testing repository, don't remember the version.) I have to say it's actually quite nice if you like eye candy. The widgets work fairly well. The only one I had a problem with was an RSS reader. There are quite a few customizations that can still be done and the theme process worked great (downloading, installing, etc.) I wasn't a big fan of Vista/7's look and feel, but I am quite happy with the direction that KDE is taking in that regard. I know a lot of people will disagree, but I think it's good for Linux's image of consumer friendly.
That said, there was a slightly annoying bug with access rights concerning the login screen themes a few quirks like the rss reader widget, and the apparent total lack of an integrated WiFi manager like Gnome carries with it (in most distros) but my connection did re-establish using my Gnome manager and worked flawless even though I didn't have that little icon to let me know.
I'm actually having more trouble trying to get ia32 libraries (I'm looking at you ia32-gtk-libs / ia32-apt-get conflict!) to work.
Slashdot Mirror
When does it matter? You might lose a ship.. but nothing else of any importance happens.
Right, but if I remember correctly, you get a random chance to get an item the other player had or nothing... I'm saying that maybe that chance should be increased slightly. If you had two people going back and forth as described, you'd be just as bad off, but not as quickly. I'm not suggesting that players drop 2-3 times as much as they were carrying. Even if they dropped everything they had, they still have to buy a new ship. Net loss.
And yes, I understand the risk reward balance. In whatever MMO I play, the only way I can have fun is with no loss, but great risk (challenge) for the reward. If I spend time getting some item, I don't want some other player to be able to simply kill me for it.
I'm the same... I don't know if we'd be classed as Solvers or Pacifists. I think in terms of Tomb Raider, we'd be pacifist, doing everything but solving the game.
Maybe it's someone who just like to run straight into a crowd of enemies and immediately die repeatedly for hours on end.
Runner
Or someone who logs in and just sits there not moving for hours. Or any number of other things that probably wouldn't even be classified as "play"
Pacifist or Solver
I think Metas would fall in the Pacifist branch.
In case anyone else was trying to figure out these roles... (page 6 last two paragraphs - > page 7)
Veterans = The power gamers, deaths usually only environmental.
Solvers = Die often (mainly from falling), methodical, slow.
Pacifists = Cannon fodder basically.
Runners = They run, they die, they run. The first thing that comes to mind here is a player that goes for the flag immediately in CTF.
I hate PVP combat, which is part of the reason I stopped playing Eve, but I can see your point. I just don't see the point in killing each other when personal time, cash, and such things are involved. I have no problem with FPS game type PVP because you can pretty easily get power-ups and weapons by learning the levels, but when it involves days/weeks/months of work to get an item and someone is going to kill you in 5 minutes for no good reason... I lose interest.
I guess if it were me, I'd petition to have a greater reward for taking out another player's ship to help compensate for your inevitable loss instead of dropping money on "gold." If PVP combat is so taxing on the income of the player, maybe PVP combat should net better rewards/salvage instead of forcing the "farming" route. That way PVP'ers could have fun instead of wasting time or personal money on farmers?
I've never been in a game without money as playing through the quests, missions, and/or leveling up has provided me with plenty of money to spend in game on things that I need to continue PVE content.
Ah right. I forgot about that... must not have been on the top of my list of demands when I played.
This covers security and exploits, account trading and sharing, and real world transactions. If your game has enough players to pay your salary, it has enough players that someone will exploit or explore any mechanism that you provide, and they will come up with their own alternatives to any mechanism that you don't provide.
Personally, I never understood why someone would want to buy money in an MMO...
But your logic makes it sound like the person in charge should just suck it up and stop trying to prevent people from doing what they want. If I apply that to real life, I should be able to massacre everyone in a square mile of myself so I can have peace and quiet... and the government should provide me the tools to do so.
They could always make servers specific to parts of the globe...
Server1 - Pacific
Server2 - Atlantic
Set the reboots to 12 hours from each other and the people will choose the one that doesn't have a reboot during their play time. If you get popular enough, split them into 6 hour blocks.
I'm glad someone appreciates the information... I was modded overrated and redundant on every other post pointing this out. Seems someone is trying to keep this firmly pointed at Sony.
And another: http://marcansoft.com/blog/2009/06/enabling-intel-vt-on-the-aspire-8930g/
Honestly, that's my last link... Google for others. It's not hard. I suggest looking for: "laptops with locked out vt"
Then start hating on Lenovo as well. They show you the option, but don't let you change it. I think you're just looking for ways to hate on Sony:
http://forums.lenovo.com/lnv/board/message?board.id=ideaPad&thread.id=11293&page=2
I'm sure there are other manufacturers doing this as well.
Sorry for the double post, but here's another one:
http://forums.lenovo.com/lnv/board/message?board.id=ideaPad&thread.id=11293&page=2
Two seconds on Google:
http://forums.lenovo.com/lnv/board/message?board.id=X_Series_Thinkpads&thread.id=10864
I find it interesting how Sony is being narrowed out in this when other brands (like Lenovo) started doing this as well.
Most of them can be re-enabled:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=345282
To be fair, just about every manufacturer ships with this feature disabled. Sony just made it harder to enable.
I think anyone that's played an MMO has...
The only thing it's missing is getting 100 cups of coffee for the film crew in Stage 4.
What they need is a standard format "PC" plate that you can mount straight to the back of an HD TV using the mounting holes. You should then be able to mount that to a wall bracket for wall mounting or leave the TV on the stand. It would make no difference. This "PC" plate should have a removable standard sized tray that computer manufacturers could create PCs or other decoding devices can be "slid into". Think of it like a slimline rack mount device. You plug in whatever sources you need and viola, an upgradeable TV PC case.
The Daggerfall engine wasn't the best though... I remember getting climb up and it ended up hurting my game more than helping. I would climb up doors in dungeons and end up in "The Void."
Just an observation, but you prefer to kill remotely. IE: You'd rather let the AI kill each other than do the deed yourself or control the battlefield instead of grabbing a sword and going toe to toe with others. I assume you don't play much FPS or if you do, you enjoy to snipe?
Not to worry though, I don't think. I do the same whenever possible. I hate PVP in online games ("mano a mano") but I love to let the world destroy itself and/or distance myself from the carnage. One example I can think of that I love to do in games with trajectory is sit back with a tank and lob shells into the enemy base. If they had artillery, I'd use it, but in games like Warhawk, I'll grab a tank and start lobbing shells at strategic points in the distance.
I'm not specifically referring to this instance, but I agree that preventing it would be preferable as long as you are preventing it correctly. I'm referring more to the likes of the person that would rather sacrifice the ability for everyone in the country to leave the house at night because someone was shot or enforcing an overly strict requirement on something because of a fluke accident. (I basically read into the AC's post a bit more than I should have.)
My post also springs from this whole health care debacle we have going on here in the States. The system they want to implement is downright retarded and broken and they'd rather bankrupt the US and push it through than resolve it in other ways. (Bankrupt the country to give health care to people unwilling to use already available free clinics?) I guess it's the relationship between governmental programs gone wrong and health/death that got to me, sorry.
It's an interesting argument (to me at least...) and I see it in the media and politics every day. People are more concerned about one death than they are about the implications to society in overreacting to that one death. "Someone died, therefore we must do everything in our power to stop it from happening again... even if it would bankrupt us and cause hundreds more deaths."
I just installed KDE on my Debian Laptop about a week ago just to check it out. Last time I tried KDE was 3.[something]. (I grabbed the version from the testing repository, don't remember the version.) I have to say it's actually quite nice if you like eye candy. The widgets work fairly well. The only one I had a problem with was an RSS reader. There are quite a few customizations that can still be done and the theme process worked great (downloading, installing, etc.) I wasn't a big fan of Vista/7's look and feel, but I am quite happy with the direction that KDE is taking in that regard. I know a lot of people will disagree, but I think it's good for Linux's image of consumer friendly.
That said, there was a slightly annoying bug with access rights concerning the login screen themes a few quirks like the rss reader widget, and the apparent total lack of an integrated WiFi manager like Gnome carries with it (in most distros) but my connection did re-establish using my Gnome manager and worked flawless even though I didn't have that little icon to let me know.
I'm actually having more trouble trying to get ia32 libraries (I'm looking at you ia32-gtk-libs / ia32-apt-get conflict!) to work.