| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (88)

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 3:36PM Borick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@dudemanjac Which is why I would never pay an additional fee for a 'filtered' (i.e. censored by prior restraint) community.

I may not like the 'nonsense' that is spouted, but I appreciate the Hell out of the system that allows us the liberty to act according to our natures.

Joining a filtered community is just as anti-social as the ranting thugs in my opinion. Disabling chat filters is the second thing I do after creating my first character in any MMO.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 3:44PM dudemanjac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Borick
It's not anti-social to want to play on a server with ppl who are actually rping. It's also not anti-social to not want to have to deal with ignorant ppl shouting homophobic and childish remarks.
Reply

Posted: Mar 30th 2012 10:01AM nostologic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't know if this was backhanded or serious. Yes - I do agree that the crusty old days from a community standpoint were beyond amazing. I'd say I'd enjoy a game with wow's actual gameplay/content - if the community was as amazing as my server in Everquest 1, Anarchy Online, Dark Age of Camelot etc etc.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 3:51PM Borick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It is, however, anti-social to pay a premium to keep out the undesirables.

I'm not saying that YOU should not have the choice to do so. I'm not saying that game companies do not have the right to create such a server, because they do and I respect that right.

But the question was, would I pay to play on such a server, and I gave my answer and my opinion as to why.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 3:55PM dudemanjac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Borick
Except that I'll be social with the ppl who are not undesirables, therefor not anti-social. Censorship would be if these ppl were told they could not play just because they are idiots. This is about not playing with idiots. Let them play together.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 4:02PM Borick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@dudemanjac

"Except that I'll be social with the ppl who are not undesirables, therefor not anti-social."

Which is an anti-social response to anti-social behavior, compounding the problem.

Ugh. Classists chap my ass.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 4:20PM dudemanjac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Borick
You might not be as smart or enlightened as you think you are. In fact I'm sure you're one of the ppl I'll be paying to get away from.

Anti social means I don't want to deal with anyone. I suppose moving to a nice neighbor hood would make me anti-social as well. Maybe I should take that alarm off my door so anyone can come in. Anything in the name of being social. I don't let every person I meet onto my social networking page. I'm clearly a hermit.

Not wanting to deal with idiots in a game I'm paying money to enjoy does not make me classist. It makes me a smart consumer. Now not wanting to play in a game with ppl who are only one race, live in one part of the country and only make x amount of money would make me classist.

Get an education, kid.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 5:17PM EilertAlemat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@dudemanjac Exactly. No one let pigs play in his living room.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 7:13PM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@EilertAlemat

For wealthy pet pig owners, they probably couldn't disagree with you more.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 7:39PM dudemanjac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Utakata How elitist are you? Can't us poor pig owners have our beloved swines at the dinner table?
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 10:50PM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@dudemanjac

It's always unhealthy feeding trolls, no matter what walks of life one has comes from.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 11:19PM dudemanjac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Utakata No one would argue that. Though sometimes I do for my own personal amusement.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 3:47PM Celtar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd love to see big developers actually enforce TOS say on RP servers or limit the RP servers and then enforce those policies. Do what Simutronics does with Gemstone IV and Dragonrealms. The sense of community and enforcement of company TOS is what is missing in the big mmo-rpgs.

This of course would require an active Host and CE GM staff to pull off which would require more money. Since I was willing to pay hourly charges to play those Simutronics games once upon a time and even the flat monthly rate which is higher then those charged for the bigger mmo-rpgs. I'd be more then happy to do so again to gain this.

Also the increased price would keep away the worst of the snipes, they tend to bitch about paying the measly 9.95 to 15.95 for 24/7/365 access to mmo-rpgs now. Imagine how much they would bitch or not pay if it was 39.95 or 49.95 that the Premium and Platinium Simutronics accounts are charged.

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 3:48PM Celtar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Celtar

Based on some of the remarks I've seen posted on this thread, I think my point is quite valid. (Points to to Boricks replies)
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 3:57PM Borick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Celtar I was a minor part of The Rathe Travel Agency back in the EQ days. We were a self-policing server that required less GM intervention than any other server in the game. Our system was voluntary and self-enforced and it worked, providing the players on our server with fair shots and content while blacklisting and outcasting those who didn't play nice.

Sony came along and tried to copy what we were doing. They made a premium server and it flopped. Because the players were paying a premium they had an expectation that social rules would be enforced by Sony instead of cooperatively by the players.

I don't think you can have what you think you want by charging a premium for the service, and having some vested authority do so isn't conducive to social behavior.
Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 5:36PM Celtar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Borick

Ah but you can Borick, we did it in the 1990s and it worked and it still works over in Simutronics games. It does work. It just requires man power, which costs money. Simutronics system for how the Host and GM were paid made for a low cost way to do it.

Self policing is the report function which alerts staff to an issue for them to check out. That is the best version of self policing, they did try self policing in Simutronics games with a system called the "Sheriff" system, players abused it.

Reply

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 4:51PM EilertAlemat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Most of these idiots spend more time starting at the little chat box instead of PLAYING THE GAME. Sad but true."

Indeed. No one can allow himself this much chatting and enjoy game simultaneously.

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 5:00PM madcartoonist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Personally probably not unless it was cheap. But I do like the concept and if there is profit to be made from it then by all means.

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 5:04PM Esturk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No. Anyone that would pay for this is an idiot.

Posted: Mar 29th 2012 5:43PM dudemanjac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Esturk
And why would they be an idiot. Hold on to your seats, boys and girls.
Reply

Featured Stories

MMO Week in Review: QueueAge

Posted on Sep 21st 2014 8:00PM

StarCraft II: An MMO player's perspective

Posted on Sep 21st 2014 4:00PM

One Shots: The sacred bosom dance

Posted on Sep 21st 2014 10:00AM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW