Peregrine

You miss the point: "plz" is NOT A ****ING WORD. If you don't care enough about your request to invest the tiny bit of effort required to type three extra letters, why should anyone care enough to help you?

I'll say the same thing I've said before: you have absolutely no undersanding of game design. Single player and multiplayer (especially MMOs) have entirely different design concepts. Being a good single player game does not translate into being a good multiplayer game, just like good multiplayer doesn't mean the single player is good. While it's possible to have both in one game, that happens because the developers put considerable effort into developing BOTH modes, essentially producing two different games. And immediately get sued by Bethesda for the obvious copyright violation. Trying to sell a mod for money is one of the more suicidal ideas you could have, the developer will enforce their rights. Any plans by Bethesda to make a multiplayer game (which are still pure speculation) are because they feel it is the correct/profitable decision, not because of any efforts by modders. Seriously people, read the earlier posts. I've already explained why this kind of multiplayer is not possible without completely destroying the spirit of the Elder Scrolls series.

*bashes head against wall* Why do I feel like I'm talking to myself? Read the damn post I made a little higher on this page. It explains why you are wrong, and why this idea sucks. And Diablo II was NOT an MMORPG. It was a small-party hack and slash action game with no persistent world or large-scale player interaction. While a successful game, its design concept is 180* apart from Morrowind's (though sadly, it isn't so far away from Oblivion's). It would suck beyond belief. It would have absolutely nothing to do with the Elder Scrolls series or their traditional gameplay. Here's a hint: Diablo II only worked with that kind of multiplayer because it was completely linear and the plot was just a flimsy excuse to kill lots of monsters. Now go read my comments on this kind of multiplayer so I don't have to copy/paste them. And then come apologize for being wrong and wasting our time. Oh, perfect. My master thief will just run into your god-mode door and that won't harm my gameplay experience at all! Oh, perfect, lets turn the existing loot system (NO RANDOM LOOT) that is both realistic and perfectly balanced into a WoW-style slot machine. And lets make the gameplay into WoW-style item hunting instead of focusing on the story. Here's a hint: if I wanted to play WoW, I would buy the damn game. And then shortly after that, I would kill myself to end the pain. I don't expect to see WoW's awful game mechanics crossing over into other games. Oh, just what we need. Let's be sure TES V has the story depth of a puddle, so you have something to do when the WoW servers are down. To state the blindingly obvious (that you somehow miss): many story concepts such as rival factions require you to kill NPCs. You know, you should've just admitted this in the first sentence and immediately identified yourself as someone with absolutely no knowledge of proper game design. It would've saved me the bit of effort I wasted in correcting you if I'd realized you were a hopeless cause.

That would be option #2. Personally, I don't like it, it goes completely against the spirit of the games... well, Morrowind at least. For Oblivion it wouldn't be much of a change. Considering the vast differences between my ideal TES V and your hypothetical multiplayer variation, you might as well develop an entirely separate game. It would probably be easier than trying to re-work the game mechanics to function consistently in such completely different ways.

Discussion of the unmentionable. Goodbye Povuholo. It's sad to see you go like this, it was nice knowing you. But to be a fair administrator, Dark0ne can't bend the rules for you just because you're a staff member. After all, it didn't save me... maybe you'll get lucky and just get booted from your staff position? (Read the Terms of Service)

It would be nearly impossible to do this, if you want to have any depth to your game world. Even Oblivion had far too much complexity to make this practical. Think about it... if someone who made different choices enters your game (such as grabbing all of the good unique items) joins, whose game world is used? If it's the host's, what happens to things like the client's house and stash of needed items? And what happens when someone decides to make story choices that conflict with what you are planning to do, such as assassinating key NPCs? Who is going to want to re-do the same quests again because you are all at different places in the game (and what's the point in having multiplayer if you go off and do your own thing and never see your fellow players?)? There are only two options for a multiplayer RPG: 1) Have a fixed storyline, like Neverwinter Nights multiplayer. This isn't a perfect answer, since there's still the issue of finding people who are at the same place in the game to avoid boring gameplay. I can't even count the number of times I've played the early stages of Neverwinter Nights and Diablo II in various multiplayer attempts. But at least it resolves the problem of conflicting game worlds: there are none. Player actions can't impact the world in any meaningful way, so it's easy to say "we're playing Chapter 6", and every player's idea of Chapter 6 is exactly the same. 2) Have essentially no storyline, and make the game revolve around hack and slash action. Diablo II is the classic example, the storyline didn't matter, the only question in organizing a multiplayer game was deciding which massive hordes of monsters you were going to kill with which character levels and equipment. The fact that you already killed Baal and made yourself the hero doesn't matter, you're going to kill him a million times more anyway. Just mow down the hordes of your enemies and pull the lever of the slot-machine boss again, you might actually get an item!

(note: it's considered good manners to at least put some effort into explaining how you survived an attack: in this case, a multi-gigaton kinetic strike capable of wiping out all life on an entire continent) For a brief moment, the space outside Retribution was lit by the flashes of exploding frost atronachs. Retribution's point defense batteries had been designed to stop a full-scale salvo of shielded missiles closing at near-relativistic speeds. Against a horde of slow-moving and effectively un-armored creatures, the results could only be described as a massacre. When the hailstorm of anti-snowballs lifted, only a few drifting shards of ice remained, glittering in the harsh sunlight. It was quite pretty. Basic rule of tactics, Retribution's commander thought as he keyed in the next salvo coordinates, control the high ground and win the war. The warship's computers had effortlessly traced the atronachs' path back to their origins. Within moments, another multi-gigaton sledgehammer obliterated all trace of the heretic's base, along with all trace of life in a thousand mile radius. It was a good year to be in the ice-skating business... Everywhere and Nowhere, the Almighty Lord Peregrine contemplated the last series of moves. It was almost disappointing, He realized, that the only players of the Great Game to rival His skill were long departed. With a fatalistic sweep of a wing, He nudged another pawn, and another rival disappeared in a burst of Cleansing Fire. But His Heart wasn't truly in it, the Glorious Crusade had become almost a chore. It was such a lonely job being omnipotent...

Two words: EVE Online When you say "MMORPG" you really mean "World of Warcraft and its clones". The problems you're talking about are the painfully bad design choices of the developers, not inherent flaws in the MMORPG concept. It is very possible to create a game with deep player interaction as the focus, it just takes a little creativity and the courage to take some risks instead of going for the sure profit.

Goodbye. Enjoy your forum ban. It was nice knowing you!

Everywhere and nowhere, Peregrine laughed at the feeble mortal's attempt to kill him. Not surprisingly, the physical weapon did absolutely nothing to an incorporeal god. With a laugh, Peregrine shifted a bit more of his presence into the mortal realm. Should have fired at the ship, a voice whispered in Ben's mind. Wouldn't have done anything either, but at least it would've looked pretty. A mental nudge sent Peregrine's pawn sliding across the Great Board. In a distant corner of the universe, Retribution fired again. And again, another heretic was consumed in his own miniature sun. And again the Almighty Lord of Everything pondered the heretic Ben's fate. Did he repent of his sins in his final moment, glimpsing the true Power and Glory of the Hellbird? Or did he depart the universe defiant to the last, sealing his fate for all eternity? Of course Peregrine, being an omnipotent being, could easily find out, but what fun are philosophical questions when you already know the answer?

For a brief moment, space outside the Retribution flared blinding white, as the wave of snow-nukes detonated. Sheets of deadly radiation washed over the ship's energy shields, creating a rather pretty fireworks show, but doing little else. Built to withstand the full force of a modern capital-world's defenses, the massive dreadnought's shields shrugged off the blow with hardly a note in the log files. But for the ship's bored captain, it was a long-awaited opportunity. "There goes another one," he noted, turning to his gunnery officer. "Fire at will." The simple order was delivered with great anticipation, like a child on christmas morning. With a cold smile beginning to show on his face, he turned to watch the planet far below. The deck shifted slightly under his feet as the Retribution aligned with the target, locking in the precise coordinates. Almost there... he thought as the target indicators locked into place. You should've stayed home today... Retribution fired. The ship's spinal-mount railgun battery sent a salvo of heavy-water- snowballs streaking down into the planet's atmosphere at almost a full third of lightspeed. To any observer below, their final sight in the mortal world would appear as a blinding flash and the deafening hammer blow of the gods. That is, for the brief moment before the radiation burned out their eyes, and the shockwave splattered their bloody remains across the icy landscape. Ginji himself fared little better. Retribution's computer analysis had aimed the railgun shots with deadly precision, directly on top of the launch point of the snow-nukes. Impact shocks shattered the ground for miles, ripping apart all trace of the missile silos. Compressed far beyond critical mass, the warheads in Ginji's remaining snow nukes began to detonate. But that was only the start of the assault... as mushroom clouds began to blossom across the landscape, the snowballs reached their own critical point. In a fraction of a second, the heat and compressive force ignited the deuterium in the ice. For those few seconds, Ginji's fortress was home to a new sun, its cleansing light wiping away the enemies of God. Meanwhile in orbit, Retribution's captain nodded in approval. Ginji's missile batteries were now the center of a vast boiling ocean, quickly spreading outward as it melted away the shores. While even this hellish fury couldn't last forever against the supernatural cold, the perfect mirror-smooth circle of ice it would finally form would be a perfect reminder to future challenger's to the Hellbird's Eternal Rule. It's so elegant, he thought, how violence can produce such a work of art...

If it is illogical, then change the situation. Illogical behavior should not be accepted, join in on my side and tell Dark0ne to fix his forum. And those insults were not exceptionally virulent, in fact they wouldn't even earn a PG-13 rating in a movie. If anything, I was too nice to those people. A poster who fraudulently creates quotes is a liar. This is a dictionary definition, not an insult. A poster who admits to willingness to torture and murder in the name of his god (or ANY ideology... I'm looking at you, Bush fans) is a sociopath. This is a dictionary definition, not an insult. A poster who consistently makes flawed scientific arguments is ignorant. This is a dictionary definition (and one that applies to anyone, in various areas, I am no exception... I admit that I am ignorant about many things), not an insult. All of these statements are both objectively true, and directed at behavior that should not be acceptable, and especially shouldn't be treated with approval. If this was a properly moderated forum, all of those posters would have had their posts edited or removed long before I got to insult them. But since I was participating in the debate, it would have been a massive abuse of my powers if I had done it myself. The next best thing, acting as an ordinary member, is to call them on their unacceptable behavior, not to pretend that their dishonest tactics are actually acceptable. And by the way, I'm glad you consider my insulting people the equivalent of racism, sexism, genderism, etc. I'm impressed by that level of hypocrisy, warning against insults while making a massive one of your own.

The fact that it's against the rules doesn't stop it from happening... and you know perfectly well that I'm not the only person who throws around a few insults occasionally. At least I'm honest about it, and don't hide behind some transparent image of "politeness" when I insult people. An d I'm perfectly fair in it, I don't go running to the moderators every time someone says something I don't like (and yes, I've been insulted on this forum, and I'm not horribly traumatized over it). So please, answer the question... are the current debates happening in this forum acceptable? This is a yes or no question, either they are, or they aren't, there is no middle ground. If they are, then there is no reason to keep religious debates banned. Even the absolute worst of those old threads was no worse than currently active threads, so even the worst-case scenario isn't all that bad. The only difference might be the use of "fundamentalist moron" and "filthy sinning atheist" instead of "trigger-happy bush fanboy" and "commie traitor". If they aren't, then lock all of the current debate threads, delete the debates forum, and ban all debates. If the level of conflict that would exist if religion was on the list of valid topics is too much, so is the level of conflict that exists right now. The members of this forum are clearly incapable of meeting your standards of debate, so why do we have a debate forum? And if you actually read the threads, you'll notice I did present my case without insults. I presented it politely and directly, telling people in full detail why they were wrong. I only start insulting people once they refuse to even read my arguments, and simply repeat the same already-disproven "argument" again and again until the thread is finally locked. I have no problem with different beliefs and viewpoints, and I will gladly argue them without a single insult. But I have no patience for stubborn ignorance, endless fallacies, and general refusal to follow any standard of rational discussion.

This is already true. Every single controversial topic you can imagine is acceptable, with the single exception of religion. People will naturally have religion debates, and would need a place for it. See how easy this is? It doesn't matter if people want to start debates, the moderators can just close the thread with a "no debates allowed" post. This works just fine in the case of religion, so why not apply it evenly to every other subject that generates the same flame wars? Dark0ne, what a shameful secret! I knew you Brittish people had that crossdressing thing, but going all the way? I don't know why this is so hard to understand. People (myself included) get "so damn serious" about politics and other subjects. I've used, almost word for word, the same insults that got religion debates banned in a debate on video game consoles. And yet the world isn't suddenly ending, the moderators aren't overwhelmed with work, and nobody feels the need for a ban on the subject. The only difference un-banning religious debates would make is the exact details of what subject is being argued about at the moment. And once again, if you don't care about the debates, don't read the thread. Nobody is forcing you to open a debate thread if you aren't interested in it. Just let the rest of us argue in peace. But you know, I think I'll take advantage of this ban while I can...

I am prepared to accept that I may be wrong, if evidence is presented. The problem is nobody ever does that (because the evidence doesn't exist), they just act like I'm expected to change my mind if they say it enough times. There's a huge burden of proof here... my beliefs (in general) are backed up by solid evidence, and near-unanimous agreement from the scientific community. And I personally have years of high-level classes in math, physics and engineering, as well as countless hours of reading on other areas of science and philosophy. And just to make it even more solid, I generally have the wisdom to avoid posting anything unless: 1) I am very sure it's factually correct (see above about peer-reviewed scientific theories), and I have the facts/statistics/etc to back it up. or 2) It's a subjective question of opinion, where my opinion is just as valid as the expert's. So when I say "I am right", it's just a shorter way of saying that for all relevant purposes I am very unlikely to be wrong. If you want to disagree with me on scientific topics, you'd better have some amazing counter-evidence. What you personally care about isn't relevant here. If you don't find it entertaining, don't read the forum, but that's not a reason to ban the subject for the rest of us. There is no fundamental difference between debates/discussions/whatever on religion and debates/discussions/whatever on any other subject. Let those who are interested participate, and those who aren't can just skip opening the thread. We have a very neatly organized forum system here, nobody's forcing you to click on thread titles you aren't interested in. Politics isn't as significant of an identity as Religion for most people. While yes, there is some overlap here, most political beliefs are based in socioeconomic status, not in how people are raised. If you change that status, the identity changes, political interests change, Religion remains the same. Religion is more than idle beliefs to be shaded with others, it is about faith. And once again you're wrong. There is a high correlation between religious belief and cultural/socioeconomic status, beyond mere "what I was raised as" (for example, an inverse correlation between strength of religious belief and level of education). And just like politics, religion often changes with changing life experiences (see, for example, the entire concept of the "born-again" christian). Unless you're saying the average person is too hopelessly stupid to form their own opinion as an adult, religion is just as much of a choice as politics. For many people, they are exactly the same. If you disagree, just look at the near-worshipful way a lot of conservatives talk about 'freedom', or the death-threats and outrage produced by flag burning (an attack on a purely political symbol). Yet these disagreements are entirely acceptable on this forum. If I decided to post a picture of a burning American flag, not only would it be allowed, but many people, admins included, would join in with the usual "lol, bush/us suck!" comments. On the other hand I would be banned instantly if I posted a picture of a burning bible. Why is there a difference? The two images would provoke the same anger from (often) the same people, so why is one ban-worthy and the other not? Besides the point... Jesus is Jesus. He's been a joke even before he came into the world. People mock him, not because of real political opinion or identity, but because it's so easy and culturally acceptable (ok, well that part doesn't really apply) to do so. And you know, from my perspective, that's a completely true sentence. Like it or not, just as there are people who are offended by criticism of their religion, there are people who are offended by criticism of their politics and/or respected leaders. In these debates (or discussions or whatever you want to call it), the exact same insults are exchanged. The rules say religious debates are banned. Veganism, homosexuality and race are completely acceptable by the current rules. Which is kind of my point... religion is only one of many controversial subjects that could be debated. There are only two options, assuming Dark0ne has any interest in an objective and fair set of rules, and not just "shut up Peregrine, you're wrong": 1) Remove the ban on religious debates, and allow it along with every other controversial and potentially troublesome subject. or 2) Remove the debates forum entirely, and lock any thread discussing anything more serious than "what's your favorite Oblivion NPC?".

I believe the main reason is because unlike the console flame wars are rather pointless as few people really identify as a nintendo purist, or such. Religion is part of how people identify themselves, just as you identify as being an athiest, with that comes anger and frustration when someone says something to challenge your own beliefs. You may not fall into this, but most of the world unfortunately does. The exact same thing can be said of politics. Many people identify themselves by their political party and beliefs. But not only are political debates allowed, insulting people over politics is allowed. Recently there was a thread titled "George Bush - Mock him here!", posted with full admin approval. A thread with no purpose other than insulting Bush, and by extension, the millions of people who respect him. Why should it be any different if I made a thread titled "Jesus - Mock him here!"? Because not only do I enjoy proving people wrong, but it's just silly that we have to avoid one of the fundamental driving forces in our culture, even when it's directly related to the issue. And the exact same thing is true of politics, why should we expect them to be able to converse in matters that even college students can't get straight? ==================================== I know perfectly well how formal debates work. A formal debate has a moderator that keeps people from using poor logic and simply re-stating the same argument while ignoring any counter-argument. In the case of forum debates, the only choice is self-moderating... my prefered method just happens to be lots of profanity directed at people who refuse to listen when I correct them on factual questions. Then remove the debate forum. If it's so hopeless, why do we even have a debate forum? There is no difference between a debate on religion and a debate on politics or any other subject. If it's completely hopeless to attempt one, it's completely hopeless to attempt anything more significant than "what kind of pie is best?". Textbook ad hominem argument. Come on Malchik, I thought you were smarter than that... the fact that I'm arrogant and have no patience for idiots has nothing to do with the fact that I'm also right. Which, by the way, is an entirely justified statement.... it's a fair bet I know more than 99% of this forum about science and philosophy, admins included.

This rule needs to be changed. There's absolutely no reason to ban religious debates and only religious debates. Your justification that they cause flame wars is just silly, this forum has seen flame wars on everything from politics to video game consoles. I've used, almost word for word, the exact same insults in debates on other subjects. And yet none of those subjects have been banned, or even considered for a banning. There's no reason to give religion a special immunity to criticism, if this forum can't handle debates on religion, it can't handle debates on anything. As counter-proof to your ban, my friends and I often discuss religion and related subjects. Our views cover a pretty broad range, including completely opposed and mutually exclusive beliefs. And yet your feared flame wars just don't happen, we're perfectly capable of arguing about the subject without anyone getting offended. In fact, I've even convinced at least one of them to completely reverse her beliefs from "devout and faithful christian" to "I can't find anything wrong with your atheist beliefs"... without any hurt feelings. And the book that did the convincing? The God Delusion, a book filled with at least as much hostility towards religion as anything I've ever written here (though I will concede, much better written). Of course I'm taking the optimistic option here. I hope you're mature enough not to put a ban like this in place just because you disagree with my opinions. So why don't you prove it? If it's just purely about the flame wars, either remove the ban, or just delete the whole debates forum.

Someone seems to have de-pinned this. Please put it back, hopeful modders aren't going to find it buried on the 10th page.

You might be wrong about everything else, but you get this point exactly right. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day, huh? For those of you who can't seem to understand why I demand payment for my skills, now you know. 95% of these projects fail, making all the time I might invest a complete waste. If you want countless hours of my time, without even a guarantee that I'll even see a finished mod, you get to pay cash in advance. I'll be saving a link to this thread, I suspect it'll be a useful lesson in the future.

Oh please, quit whining. Lets think about this for a second, and compare some entertainment options: Cost of dinner out with friends: $10-15 Time spent: 1, maybe 2 hours, one night. Cost of a movie ticket: $7 Time spent: 1-2 hours. Cost of average new game: $60 Time spent: lots of hours over a short time, questionable replay value. Cost of a month's MMORPG subscription: $15 Time spent: lots of hours, over an entire month, with high replay value. So, what conclusions can we draw here? MMORPGs provide a higher hours of entertainment per dollar ratio than any of the other forms of entertainment. Even other games fail to match that ratio, since if you buy a new game more than once every four months, you're spending more than an MMORPG would cost. And finally, $15 a month is a trivial amount to anyone who actually has a job, it's not like we're talking about $1000/month fees or something. So once again, stop whining. There are plenty of good reasons to hate MMORPGs (well, except EVE), but the cost is not one of them. And as for the idea of LAN multiplayer, a wise man once said (well, God Himself, and the post right before yours):

Ok, three things to make clear: 1) You are not allowed to post in this thread until you read http://forum.gamingsource.net/index.php?sh...c=18923&hl= . This explains why you are all completely wrong in assuming that "MMORPG" and "WoW" are the same thing. There is plenty of room for the open-ended spirit of Morrowind (lets forget Oblivion ever happened) in an MMORPG, if designed properly. Just look at EVE-Online and the upcoming Darkfall (which will probably be the last fantasy game I ever buy). 2) Anyone talking about engine issues as a reason not to make an MMORPG is an idiot. Making multiplayer of ANY kind would be impossible without a complete re-write of the engine. We're talking about such a dramatic difference that Bethesda would be better of scrapping the whole thing and starting over from the beginning. Things like pausing the game for menus/dialogue, one-time objects/quests, even the entire client-side design of Oblivion, would be fatal problems in ANY multiplayer engine. So all forms of multiplayer are equally easy to create. 3) Anyone talking about co-op multiplayer is also an idiot. It won't work, get over it. Just ask yourself how many hours you've spent playing Oblivion. Now ask yourself what the odds of getting even ONE other person to schedule their gaming time so you're both always together, spend all their time on a character that takes the same quest paths, etc. You might be able to join up for a single quest or a quick duel, but forget actually playing through the storyline together.

Yes, I mean for debates elsewhere. I'm well aware of the fact that religious debates are banned here, I'm the one who got them banned (whiny people didn't like it when I put up long lists of why their precious beliefs are wrong). Just search for a thread called "morality of god", or any of the evolution debates, they're fun reading.

Crossed what line? I clearly said those "insults" were not meant seriously. It's not my fault you skipped over that part. And speaking as someone who has had to deal with dishonest editing, it wasn't funny. Especially when you don't include any "lol, just kidding" or whatever. Even worse, you include the :rolleyes: which generally means "you moron, how can you say something this stupid?". So to anyone not invited into your private thoughts, your post looks exactly like something dishonest people really do write. You should understand this, especially since judging intent over the internet (and possibly through language barriers) is very difficult. If it's a joke, be very clear about it. And especially don't mis-use the eye-roll or similar icons, since those are often the only way of judging intent (the equivalent of a giant "I'm dead serious" sign on your post). ------------------------------ edit: You know, it's 4:30 am here, so I might have assumed too much dishonesty on your part. I don't like you, so I may have been a bit biased in assuming the worst as soon as you seemed to fit the troll pattern. If Povuholo shows up and says he wasn't offended, I won't complain if one of the moderators feels like burying this little hijack. In fact, I would appreciate it... I'd do it myself, but that would kind of contradict the whole point I was trying to make, wouldn't it? But you should consider the mistake as proof that judging intent over the internet can be hard and often inaccurate. Keep that in mind next time you use the "how can you be stupid enough to say that???" icon maybe? I do not, however, apologize for the "insults". If the example bothered you, I really don't care. Maybe you should keep that in mind next time you post something like "lol, you're too stupid to get my joke". People tend to get offended and angry at you when you do stuff like that.