In this post I will take a closer look at betrayal and when it works. I apologize in advance for the length of it.
The prisoners dilemma is a good way to look at a lot of game situations when determining what strategy you should use, however in games like mmo's (and life) there are many factors that the prisoners dilemma simply does not cover or allow for, so it is really just a simple framework for understanding these issues.
For example, it doesn't in any way cover what I will call 'varying rewards'. Which I think is the basis of a lot of betrayal and scamming in games (and life). In an iterated prisoners dilemma, the payout terms are exactly the same on every turn, this is obviously not true in real life/more advanced situations. In many situations a player will cooperate until they see a 'payoff', and then will betray at that point, obviously trying to maximise their gains. Usually this effectively ends the game going on between that player and the player he betrayed. Which is another thing the basic concept does not cover, early termination of the game/interaction by one of the players.
The best example I can think of are the famous Eve Online scams
http://www.wirm.net/nightfreeze/part1.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Eve-Online-Economy-Suffers-700-billion-ISK-Scam-33737.shtml
These are what I consider fairly classic examples of iterated prisoners dilemma situations bought to an abrupt end by a betrayal of one of the players. Arguments can be made on whether these actions are right or wrong, but these players 'won' their interactions. In both cases they were on the level (cooperating) until they saw an opportunity to make a large profit through betrayal.
Here is a (rather long) thread from the darkfall forums called 'Scamming Stories'.
http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=104818
And this is an except from that post, I have edited it slightly to make it shorter
I think I'll begin, of all places, at the beginning.
Lineage 2 was my very first MMO, so I got my feet wet late, although I had been a fan of RPG games since Dragon Warrior back on the NES in '89. I remember being blown away while playing in the open beta. "Whoa...its...an RPG with a persistant world and thousands of other people! The possibilities are endless!" Of course, I was a complete MMO noob and found out a couple months later that the possibilties really weren't all that endless, and in fact at the time there wasn't a whole lot to do in L2 except slowly, SLOWLY, grind levels.
I had been doing some trade on the side and had a decent bit of adena (L2 money), and I was fascinated by the PvP possibilities, so I decided to try to host a little PvP tournament of my own. There wasn't much interest, but I managed to get a handful of people together and had a little event and gave out some small prizes. The next day, I decided to try to get a bigger event going, but we had had problems with people "signing up" and then not showing, messing up the fight Roster, so I decided to charge a sign up fee. As chance would have it, alot of people happened to be around the human starting area at the time, as there had just been an in-game event run by the devs, so there was alot of interest in my little PvP tournament.
When I said there was a signup fee, of course there were people who thought I was just going to run off with the money, especially since I was on a level 1 alt at the time, but the people who had participated the day before spoke up and let everyone know I was legit. In the end, I had about 40 people sign up, and collected about 250k adena in sign-ups, which was quite a bit of cash at the time. I started the event, and immediately it degenerated into bickering over the rules and chaos ensued, as 40 people tried to lead an event they weren't even in charge of. Everyone was demanding their sign ups back, when that first little evil thought came into my head.... "I have about a week's worth of solo grinding money here... And, these people are being idiots... And...and...I'm on an alt and no one knows its connected to my main, reputable and respected character!"
And with the simple clicking of the logout button, that's how a career scammer was born.
This player executes a betrayal strategy without even intending to at the time, it evolves naturally from his actions and reactions to events. His first small tournament, builds trust with a few players, who vouch for him the next day (second iteration), at that point more people show interest, he winds up holding enough money that it occurs to him that (duh) he could make off with it, so he does.
The above paragraph is pretty much the main point I would like to make with this article, that many players who view themselves as 'good' will actually betray under the right circumstances, if you read the scamming stories listed here and view them with disdain thinking "I would never do something that low" you might want to reconsider that as there is a fairly good chance that you actually could sink to 'something that low' under the right circumstances. Of course you may be legitimately virtuous too but don't take it for granted :)
The last part of the story is also telling, he was on an alt and knew that the betrayal would have no repercussions on his main character. Most (but not all) game betrayals that I have seen follow this pattern, it is much much easier to be a ganker/scammer/noob killer/etc on an alt of some form, that is either a 'throwaway' character or secretly supported by a 'main'.
Darkfall is a game that only allows one character per server, which makes things a bit more interesting as its a little harder to have a throwaway or alt character. It isn't impossible though (2 boxing).
This post shows the first 'scam' in Darkfall, the basic idea being to setup a trade with someone, and then once it has started to proceed to gank him with several naked characters.
http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=165759
Here is the OP (again slightly edited)
I was buying timber in dwarf land and a seller messages me saying he has bulk 1k at 3g each. We come to an agreement for 1k gold, 2 mounts, 120 Iron Ingots. I head out and ride to Idawoll. Arriving at vault, everything is normal, people macroing magic, going about their business, etc. It's not even crowded. The seller comes up to me and opens trade. In literally one second after trade is opened, I start getting hit. I reactively close trade and turn around, unsheathing my sword and shield and mashing Parry. Hitting me are about 8 people, all naked, all with starter weapons. I die in approximately 5 seconds and am instantly ganked. I was boxed in from all directions and the bank itself was blocked from banking anything, leaving me from literally having a chance to do anything at all other than to die.
Total lost:
1k Gold
2x Mounts
120 Ingots
Scale Suit, arrows, r40 weapons, etc. (stuff i was wearing)
The name of the person who orchestrated this is GORMAGON HATE. Please remember this name and see to it that his rep is ruined forever on this server and that no one has business with him. The name of the guild he was"Les Vaindards"
This is an example of a single run of the prisoners dilemma (at least, gormagon hopes it is), which if you've done the required reading. you'll know that betrayal is always the best option for a single iteration. Whether this will actually be a single iteration game is yet to be seen.
Notice that the name of the character and guild are named (and they show up later in the thread to flaunt a little), I will be interested to know their eventual fate. They are getting great payoffs right now, but I hope to see how things unfold for them in the long run.
Right now the risk vs reward factor is heavily skewed in their favor, they risk literally nothing (they are all naked) and reap massive rewards. But are all of these characters throwaways? will gormagon quit after he's had his fun (very possible) or go on to try to have a 'darkfall life'? what will happen if he does? how will other clans view Les Vaindards? (my guess is they will have problems if they ever try to own a city). Since only gormagon is named their best strategy may be to simply change the name of their guild when they are done with their current prank and ready to move on to bigger things.
In this example the 'scammers' are also actively betraying from the start of their interactions, there is no period of building trust, a lot of 'trust' scams are unintentional at first (the player is cooperating until he sees an opportunity, and may not even be aware at first that he's going to eventually betray), where on the other hand this scam is planned in advance, which is a hallmark of a throwaway character scam. gormagon has revealed himself to be untrustworthy in the first few weeks of the game, which probably isn't healthy for his characters future (though I may be wrong, apathy lets people get away with a lot of stuff too).
One last thing I haven't touched so far, if it hasn't come through so far in these stories, is that betrayal is FUN, (it's been a very long time since I participated in any activities like noob killing or scamming, I usually use 'tit for tat' as my basis now, but I can attest that my memories of scamming, getting scammed, and item looting people are some of my fondest).
I'm not sure why it is fun, but I think that it has to do with being able to try strategies that you would not normally employ in your real life (because of the obvious consequences), and that executing those strategies in a game environment allows people to explore their 'evil' side with less repercussions.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Required Reading
What I intend for this blog, is to lay out my thoughts on game theory and how it applies to darkfall, go over the strengths of different strategies to use, and once I've actually got the game use this as a journal of sorts to keep track of what happens in game and how that lines up with what I wrote beforehand. Hopefully I can eventually come to a useful conclusion or two.
In order to understand where I am coming from, it would be helpful if you know a little bit about game theory. So at the bottom of the post are some links that I would like to call 'required reading'.
Assuming that you are somewhat familiar, I would like to highlight what I think is most relevant. In the prisoners dilemma game, the 'Tit for Tat' strategy has been shown to be a stable and robust strategy. It is a stunningly simple strategy, all it does is cooperate on the first turn, then copy its opponents moves after that. despite being simple it has the 4 factors considered necessary for success. Here is an excerpt from wikipedia's page on the prisoners dilemma.
The best deterministic strategy was found to be "Tit for Tat," which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into the tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his opponent did on the previous move. Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "Tit for Tat with forgiveness." When the opponent defects, on the next move, the player sometimes cooperates anyway, with a small probability (around 1%-5%). This allows for occasional recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of defections. The exact probability depends on the line-up of opponents.
By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.
Nice
The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely utilitarian reasons first.
Retaliating
However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.
Forgiving
Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.
Non-envious
The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e., a 'nice' strategy can never score more than the opponent).
Therefore, Axelrod reached the oxymoron-sounding conclusion that selfish individuals for their own selfish good will tend to be nice and forgiving and non-envious.
This is wikipedia's page on game theory, I've read it but I don't recommend it as a place to start, use the other links first then maybe check this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
This page is more important, it is the page explaining the prisoners dilemma game, a lot of what I will be talking about revolves around prisoners dilemma situations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
This article is absolutely required, especially if you actually play games (plus you should enjoy it, it's a fantastic article). 'Playing to Win' by Sirlin, I have done what he describes in this article myself many times (put artificial limitations on myself) and I will outline one or two in a future post. Even now I still do it sometimes but at least now I am aware of it. Read this and stop being a scrub!
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
(also read parts 2 and 3)
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-2-mailbag.html
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-3-not-playing-to-win.html
Here is Amazons page for the book "The Evolution of Cooperation" By Robert Axelrod, it was my introduction to this topic and I heartily recommend it.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Cooperation-Revised-Robert-Axelrod/dp/0465005640/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237754370&sr=8-1
Here is Amazons page for the book "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" By Matt Ridley. I wouldn't call this one 'required' but it's a fascinating read and does apply as his argument is basically that sex itself is a game that men and women compete in, and that the different strategies used by each sex optimize their chances of having offspring.
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237788142&sr=8-1
In order to understand where I am coming from, it would be helpful if you know a little bit about game theory. So at the bottom of the post are some links that I would like to call 'required reading'.
Assuming that you are somewhat familiar, I would like to highlight what I think is most relevant. In the prisoners dilemma game, the 'Tit for Tat' strategy has been shown to be a stable and robust strategy. It is a stunningly simple strategy, all it does is cooperate on the first turn, then copy its opponents moves after that. despite being simple it has the 4 factors considered necessary for success. Here is an excerpt from wikipedia's page on the prisoners dilemma.
The best deterministic strategy was found to be "Tit for Tat," which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into the tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his opponent did on the previous move. Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "Tit for Tat with forgiveness." When the opponent defects, on the next move, the player sometimes cooperates anyway, with a small probability (around 1%-5%). This allows for occasional recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of defections. The exact probability depends on the line-up of opponents.
By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.
Nice
The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely utilitarian reasons first.
Retaliating
However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.
Forgiving
Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.
Non-envious
The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e., a 'nice' strategy can never score more than the opponent).
Therefore, Axelrod reached the oxymoron-sounding conclusion that selfish individuals for their own selfish good will tend to be nice and forgiving and non-envious.
This is wikipedia's page on game theory, I've read it but I don't recommend it as a place to start, use the other links first then maybe check this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
This page is more important, it is the page explaining the prisoners dilemma game, a lot of what I will be talking about revolves around prisoners dilemma situations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
This article is absolutely required, especially if you actually play games (plus you should enjoy it, it's a fantastic article). 'Playing to Win' by Sirlin, I have done what he describes in this article myself many times (put artificial limitations on myself) and I will outline one or two in a future post. Even now I still do it sometimes but at least now I am aware of it. Read this and stop being a scrub!
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
(also read parts 2 and 3)
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-2-mailbag.html
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-3-not-playing-to-win.html
Here is Amazons page for the book "The Evolution of Cooperation" By Robert Axelrod, it was my introduction to this topic and I heartily recommend it.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Cooperation-Revised-Robert-Axelrod/dp/0465005640/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237754370&sr=8-1
Here is Amazons page for the book "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" By Matt Ridley. I wouldn't call this one 'required' but it's a fascinating read and does apply as his argument is basically that sex itself is a game that men and women compete in, and that the different strategies used by each sex optimize their chances of having offspring.
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237788142&sr=8-1
In Defense of Item Loot
This was originally written as a post on the Darkfall forums, someone replied that no-one cares and to go create my own shitty blog instead, I realized thats actually not a bad idea since I have more to say on this subject, so here is my first post, please realize that I wrote it intended for a message board and not a blog.
I'm already seeing threads popping up in the general discussion forum asking for no item loot and/or single item loot, backpack only, etc etc etc. Basically the exact same conversations I saw years ago with EQ. So I am writing this as a rebuttal to those arguments.
The first point, is that this game was designed for item loot, if you do not enjoy item loot, you can go to nearly any other mmo for a playstyle that better suits you. This is what people basically mean (imo) when they say 'go back to wow'. They are really saying 'this is the ONLY game in town with the ruleset I want, don't ruin it'.
Secondly, item loot raises the stakes for the players, for people that like high stakes this is very important.
Allow me to make an analogy.
Poker is a good example of what I mean, real money poker is very much like item loot pvp, you don't 'kill' the other player, but you certainly do do your best to gank him and take his stuff (money), and in fact poker is pvp in its literal sense (player versus player).
This is not to say that playing poker for real money is the only way to play, especially for beginners and people that don't like risk, a beginner to the game will usually play with friends for very low stakes, or against a computer, eventually if they enjoy it they may play at a freeplay site like pogo.com. If they feel they are good at the game AND enjoy the thrill of playing for real money they may try playing at a casino or at a real money site.
comparing the different levels of play:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Against a Computer: Equivalent to playing a single player game, no risk, no reward, the best thing it has to offer is practice
Against People. No Stakes: here we have the equivalent of the wow player, no risk, possibly some small amount of reward (pogo etc you can win 'points' but if you lose you just get more chips to play with for free). You have the advantage of playing against a human opponent. much like wow pvp'ers who want the challenge of a human opponent, but not the risk of losing your stuff.
Against People. With Stakes: this is the hardcore category, you are playing against real people like the previous level, but now you can actually win or lose money. for many people that is the thrill of the game. For others, the mere prospect is horrifying, neither are right or wrong, and both should be able to play the version they prefer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the above ways of playing are totally viable, some are more 'carebear' than others but that is what some people like. That is fine, however coming to this game and asking for no item loot, is like a pogo player going to a casino and asking everyone to stop playing for money. The most likely response would be 'go back to pogo, mule' (sound familiar? swap pogo for wow and mule for carebear and there you go).
I have found that real money poker players, generally have a very good 'pvp' outlook. you wipe out their whole stack and the most likely thing you are to hear is 'nh' (nice hand). Some people of course bitch when they lose (especially to a bad beat) but this is the minority.
Tactics also change as you go up in levels, versus a comp you are going to mainly just find out what the comp tends to do, then exploit that as much as you can. versus players with no stakes games tend to be very heavy betting (all in on first good hand, lots of raising, etc). even at the low stakes tournament level you will see a lot of play that mirrors that tactic (because the tournament setup allows for this to be viable). when just sitting at a table playing for real money, people are much more cautious. The gameplay literaly is at a higher level because of the risk and reward involved.
When I played EQ and item loot went away, I saw many of the same arguments being made then as are being made now. Including 'you people are all griefers and gankers and will drive each other off in a couple months' and 'there's no market for what you want' etc etc.This is plainly false, the interest shown in this game proves that. There is a market for a full item loot pvp game (it's why I'm here) and if ganking drove people away real money poker would not be successful.
If this game succeeds it will be mostly because of item loot pvp. If it fails it's going to be mostly some other reason (poor support, patching, rebalancing, whatever). People LIKE item loot pvp, not all and maybe not you, but there is a market for it, the interest in this game has amply demonstrated that regardless of whether it actually succeeds or fails.
I am here because I like the thrill associated with the high level of risk and reward this system offers, without that I could get everything this game offers either from other mmo's or from playing an fps.
Speaking of FPS's, that is another example of the warcraft level of play, you play against other human opponents (more fun than playing against a computer) but you play for no stakes.
Being a person that plays poker for money, the idea of going to a site like pogo and playing is completely laughable to me. 'boring' would be my one word description. I feel the same way about pretty much all mmo's, 'boring' encompasses 90% of the mmo experiences I've had, the best memories I have from mmo's involve some type of risk/reward. Getting scammed in the realm, item loot pvp in EQ, 'epic quest pvp' (after item loot was gone) in EQ came close since again there were stakes involved. having the fire elemental part of our cleric epic stolen from us and then killing the lights that did it and camping them for so long their bodies were literaly in danger of expiring, then fighting over solusek for months to prevent those lights from getting a cleric epic. good times.
My 2 years in wow? nothing sticks out. Again you may not be the type of player that enjoys risk, but if that is true then this simply is not the game for you, you're trying to play pogo style in a casino. 'go back to wow' may be the short and rude version but there is a reason people say it. The common rebuttal to 'go back to wow' is that you will just drive people away with that attitude, but the truth is that players who do not like risk should go play another game, this one is not for them in the same way that a casino is not for someone that hates gambling (but enjoys playing cards).
I'm already seeing threads popping up in the general discussion forum asking for no item loot and/or single item loot, backpack only, etc etc etc. Basically the exact same conversations I saw years ago with EQ. So I am writing this as a rebuttal to those arguments.
The first point, is that this game was designed for item loot, if you do not enjoy item loot, you can go to nearly any other mmo for a playstyle that better suits you. This is what people basically mean (imo) when they say 'go back to wow'. They are really saying 'this is the ONLY game in town with the ruleset I want, don't ruin it'.
Secondly, item loot raises the stakes for the players, for people that like high stakes this is very important.
Allow me to make an analogy.
Poker is a good example of what I mean, real money poker is very much like item loot pvp, you don't 'kill' the other player, but you certainly do do your best to gank him and take his stuff (money), and in fact poker is pvp in its literal sense (player versus player).
This is not to say that playing poker for real money is the only way to play, especially for beginners and people that don't like risk, a beginner to the game will usually play with friends for very low stakes, or against a computer, eventually if they enjoy it they may play at a freeplay site like pogo.com. If they feel they are good at the game AND enjoy the thrill of playing for real money they may try playing at a casino or at a real money site.
comparing the different levels of play:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Against a Computer: Equivalent to playing a single player game, no risk, no reward, the best thing it has to offer is practice
Against People. No Stakes: here we have the equivalent of the wow player, no risk, possibly some small amount of reward (pogo etc you can win 'points' but if you lose you just get more chips to play with for free). You have the advantage of playing against a human opponent. much like wow pvp'ers who want the challenge of a human opponent, but not the risk of losing your stuff.
Against People. With Stakes: this is the hardcore category, you are playing against real people like the previous level, but now you can actually win or lose money. for many people that is the thrill of the game. For others, the mere prospect is horrifying, neither are right or wrong, and both should be able to play the version they prefer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the above ways of playing are totally viable, some are more 'carebear' than others but that is what some people like. That is fine, however coming to this game and asking for no item loot, is like a pogo player going to a casino and asking everyone to stop playing for money. The most likely response would be 'go back to pogo, mule' (sound familiar? swap pogo for wow and mule for carebear and there you go).
I have found that real money poker players, generally have a very good 'pvp' outlook. you wipe out their whole stack and the most likely thing you are to hear is 'nh' (nice hand). Some people of course bitch when they lose (especially to a bad beat) but this is the minority.
Tactics also change as you go up in levels, versus a comp you are going to mainly just find out what the comp tends to do, then exploit that as much as you can. versus players with no stakes games tend to be very heavy betting (all in on first good hand, lots of raising, etc). even at the low stakes tournament level you will see a lot of play that mirrors that tactic (because the tournament setup allows for this to be viable). when just sitting at a table playing for real money, people are much more cautious. The gameplay literaly is at a higher level because of the risk and reward involved.
When I played EQ and item loot went away, I saw many of the same arguments being made then as are being made now. Including 'you people are all griefers and gankers and will drive each other off in a couple months' and 'there's no market for what you want' etc etc.This is plainly false, the interest shown in this game proves that. There is a market for a full item loot pvp game (it's why I'm here) and if ganking drove people away real money poker would not be successful.
If this game succeeds it will be mostly because of item loot pvp. If it fails it's going to be mostly some other reason (poor support, patching, rebalancing, whatever). People LIKE item loot pvp, not all and maybe not you, but there is a market for it, the interest in this game has amply demonstrated that regardless of whether it actually succeeds or fails.
I am here because I like the thrill associated with the high level of risk and reward this system offers, without that I could get everything this game offers either from other mmo's or from playing an fps.
Speaking of FPS's, that is another example of the warcraft level of play, you play against other human opponents (more fun than playing against a computer) but you play for no stakes.
Being a person that plays poker for money, the idea of going to a site like pogo and playing is completely laughable to me. 'boring' would be my one word description. I feel the same way about pretty much all mmo's, 'boring' encompasses 90% of the mmo experiences I've had, the best memories I have from mmo's involve some type of risk/reward. Getting scammed in the realm, item loot pvp in EQ, 'epic quest pvp' (after item loot was gone) in EQ came close since again there were stakes involved. having the fire elemental part of our cleric epic stolen from us and then killing the lights that did it and camping them for so long their bodies were literaly in danger of expiring, then fighting over solusek for months to prevent those lights from getting a cleric epic. good times.
My 2 years in wow? nothing sticks out. Again you may not be the type of player that enjoys risk, but if that is true then this simply is not the game for you, you're trying to play pogo style in a casino. 'go back to wow' may be the short and rude version but there is a reason people say it. The common rebuttal to 'go back to wow' is that you will just drive people away with that attitude, but the truth is that players who do not like risk should go play another game, this one is not for them in the same way that a casino is not for someone that hates gambling (but enjoys playing cards).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)