The Eve model is exactly what this game and a lot of pvp are aiming for now. They use different maps with different rule set they connect together in a single world. Thats what Aion made, GW2 will do... Thats what the continent are for in this game isn't it? And they stick a huge world so that you can have enough space to find or tranquility or a lot of people...
The oceans are meant to be kinds of portals isn't it? It would be even better if you needed to "climb" the montain and all those hard to pass terrains; i don't know going through a swamp should need 2 or 3 time the same time to go on a road. If they don't do that, the system will just fail, just as it failed totally in Darkfall. You need natural barrier to make your map effective, its not a hard barrier, but soft one you could pass through with some extra effort. They just need to put a stamina draining feature like it is in any game with such feature and thats it really.
If they do that you will really be able to find some hard to reach, and tranquil spot behind montain chain or whatever, and heavy density population spot at main cross raods. If they don't you'll just end up with shallow feature that have zero impact in game play; and you will find as much pking in the bottom of the continent as on the border.
I agree to some extent. Some restrictions should be made to keep those safe who don't wish to partake. Even though some might call this "carebear" play, the majority of mmo players are in nature, carebears. Those so called "bad asses" who post on the forums every 5 minutes about their pvp escapades ganking helpless players who are minding their own businesses need to understand that by nature, you're destroying the game you love.
No restrictions needed. It is quite simple. Pve fans just join pve servers. Pvp fans join pvp servers
if you cant handle "no death penalty" pvp what can i say for you plus there are heavy penalties for pking on the pve continents like "jail" etc
not a carebear argument..right
Actually, the OP wasnt a carebear argument, it was making the point that only offering open world PvP with no options will limit this game's market in the west. You have failed to understand. Ofc, the open world crowd PvP have moved the thread in the carebear vs PK direction, like they always do in their own 'charming' way, but thats hardly my fault.
and you are wrong.
The only soft control on the controlled continents is for killing your own team, other factions can gankfest with impunity, 24/7. This has been made clear in this thread 1000 times already, but you guys don't seem to read what people have said before you before jumping in with your version of the 'facts'.
I don't think you understand the ruleset in place as is, and this isnt about what I 'can handle' (I already said i would be playing whatever, go back and read the OP).
I agree to some extent. Some restrictions should be made to keep those safe who don't wish to partake. Even though some might call this "carebear" play, the majority of mmo players are in nature, carebears. Those so called "bad asses" who post on the forums every 5 minutes about their pvp escapades ganking helpless players who are minding their own businesses need to understand that by nature, you're destroying the game you love.
No restrictions needed. It is quite simple. Pve fans just join pve servers. Pvp fans join pvp servers
Guys, please refrain from attacking each other and discuss the actual topic at hand. This thread has been heading in that direction, and it will be locked if discussion doesn't get back on track. Thanks.
Actually, to get back on topic, I dont think the "thing that could kill it's western appeal" has anything to do with PVP at all.
Knowing the origins of this game, I worry more about them copying the "eastern style" mmo too much and making this game too grindy and too gold farmer friendly, almost promoting the practice of gold farming.
I also worry about the P2W(pay to win) notion popular in eastern style games. I am not saying Archage wont have a monthly fee, I dont really know, but the itemshop premise has made it way into p2p games nowadays too. In games like AoC you have items you can effectively buy which give you an advantage. For example,you could buy a mount with irl $ which was eqivalent or better then mounts that took months to aquire in game. The fact is rewarding cash purchases with items in game is a growing trend that is also getting a bit destructive to the health of these games. As the rewrads get better and better, the line gets crossed as to which items actually help toons too much get too far ahead of the rest.
I feel for it to be more attractive it would need:
1) a reasonable karma system, something to punish PK'ers when they die and reward others for killing them.
2) keep skill > gear. Upgrades are fine, no one should be running around feeling idbeholdv cuz their gear outclasses everyone by a large margin.
3) Multiple factions if your going to have them, what I mean is more than two. Two always ends up lopsided, at least with three or more different factions can team up if the scales start moving to unfavorabely.
Hardest thing to get past is creating a hardcore pvp environment in which players can all enjoy the game on some level. Every hardcore ganker pvp nerds dream is to just run around slaughtering people and getting rich and notorious doing so. This is a hard fantasy to live when your on a game with nothing but clones of you running around trying to do the same thing.
Splitting the content into pve places and pvp would also have to be balanced for it to work, for example in UO, after Trammel came out, the old world was pretty much full of... murders and thieves. All the mines, and forrests had been abandoned as well as a lot of the strong world pvp environment which was simply gone or at least different. There would have to be incentive for people to go into the PVP zones or else they will remain mostly empty because everyone knows thats where all the hardcore ganker pvp nerds are. =D
I will never understand why a game can't have a server that supports both PvE and PvP. Simply put if a game has at least two servers then it can easily cater to both styles and thus increase their player base. I'll also never understand why people get upset when someone says they want a PvE server. This is basic some people do not want to play a game where they will HAVE to PvP. Some people simply want to enjoy all the other aspects of the game without having to worry if someone is going to camp their corpse for 2 hours at a time. In all the games I've played I have lvled toons on both PvP and PvE servers if they have been available and one thing I can say is that the general maturity level on PvE servers tends to be a bit higher. Yea you will have douche bags on any server you play on but there seems to be remarkably less douche bags on PvE servers when games have both types. They more tend to hang out in the PvP realms where they can lord their epeen over other players.
I will never understand why a game can't have a server that supports both PvE and PvP. Simply put if a game has at least two servers then it can easily cater to both styles and thus increase their player base. I'll also never understand why people get upset when someone says they want a PvE server. This is basic some people do not want to play a game where they will HAVE to PvP. Some people simply want to enjoy all the other aspects of the game without having to worry if someone is going to camp their corpse for 2 hours at a time. In all the games I've played I have lvled toons on both PvP and PvE servers if they have been available and one thing I can say is that the general maturity level on PvE servers tends to be a bit higher. Yea you will have douche bags on any server you play on but there seems to be remarkably less douche bags on PvE servers when games have both types. They more tend to hang out in the PvP realms where they can lord their epeen over other players.
Because most sandbox games DO NOT have more than 1 server, best case the have 1 server for US and 1 for EU.
I will never understand why a game can't have a server that supports both PvE and PvP. Simply put if a game has at least two servers then it can easily cater to both styles and thus increase their player base. I'll also never understand why people get upset when someone says they want a PvE server. This is basic some people do not want to play a game where they will HAVE to PvP. Some people simply want to enjoy all the other aspects of the game without having to worry if someone is going to camp their corpse for 2 hours at a time. In all the games I've played I have lvled toons on both PvP and PvE servers if they have been available and one thing I can say is that the general maturity level on PvE servers tends to be a bit higher. Yea you will have douche bags on any server you play on but there seems to be remarkably less douche bags on PvE servers when games have both types. They more tend to hang out in the PvP realms where they can lord their epeen over other players.
Because most sandbox games DO NOT have more than 1 server, best case the have 1 server for US and 1 for EU.
I imagine there will be many servers for AA, the amount dependent on forcasted sub numbers upon release just like most MMOs. One server might work for EVE or games with lower overall pops but not for a game like AA.
She jus cauna do et captain!
Having two types of servers would be great as long as one does not change the other. That's when you start to lose control and spend a lot of resources on tweeking two games instead of one. Change PvP flagging on PvE servers and that's it IMO.
I don't like open world PVP in most games today due to the simple fact it's pointless, you cant loot the dead, you don't lose anything by dying, no real objectives to take that acual have an impact on the world, all it do is ruins the game due to so many greifers, I bet geafing would cut in half if these these so called hardcore pvpers acual lose euqipments when they die.
I loved being red in Ultima Online the PVP there was really great beacuse you lose all your stuff if you died and you could be really wealthy by stroke of luck killing a player who havent manage to get to the bank yet.
Western PVP is a joke and it's really laughable to see these epeen wannabe hardcore pvpers boast how great they are how skilled they are and greif other players knowing that they will not lose any xp,money or euqipment.
RIFT have a classic western carebear PVP mentality and many other MMOs do aswell.
Mass appeal is something that can be created through innovation. It would be a shame if the developers sway away from their intended game design to try and cater to the largest audience.
I want translated Archeage, nothing more, nothing less.
Mass appeal is something that can be created through innovation. It would be a shame if the developers sway away from their intended game design to try and cater to the largest audience.
I want translated Archeage, nothing more, nothing less.
Well, for a start, alternate server sets are not shying away from anything.The original game still stands.
It is just that on some servers the PvP is switched off on the controlled continents. Thats it, thats all.
Your game remians untouched.
Gaining a larger audience is nothing to be scared of, especially at the cost of adding an extra server with such a simple change, and something I would imagine XL and their publisher would quite like.
Honestly, if you truly want AA as open world PvP gankfest then you would be best to support alternate server sets beause if you force the optional PvP folks in the West to play in your space they WILL outnumber you and when they start to whinge and cancel your game WILL change.
Protect the type of game you want by supporting giving others a space to play the way they want. It's common sense.
Mass appeal is something that can be created through innovation. It would be a shame if the developers sway away from their intended game design to try and cater to the largest audience.
I want translated Archeage, nothing more, nothing less.
Well, for a start, alternate server sets are not shying away from anything.The original game still stands.
It is just that on some servers the PvP is switched off on the controlled continents. Thats it, thats all.
Your game remians untouched.
Gaining a larger audience is nothing to be scared of, especially at the cost of adding an extra server with such a simple change, and something I would imagine XL and their publisher would quite like.
Honestly, if you truly want AA as open world PvP gankfest then you would be best to support alternate server sets beause if you force the optional PvP folks in the West to play in your space they WILL outnumber you and when they start to whinge and cancel your game WILL change.
Protect the type of game you want by supporting giving others a space to play the way they want. It's common sense.
What will happen with separate server types is the PvE'ers will run out of content very quickly and start crying. This could in turn cause the developers to start catering to the PvE crowd with PvP as an afterthought. Sound familiar?
Honestly there is plenty of games out right now that cater to everyone. Why can't people accept a game for what it is? Maybe if you don't like to PvP then Archeage may not be for you? Much of the content in Archeage is based around PvP, and PvP related content is going to be a major contributer to the overall time sink of the game.
This is 100% true. PvP is a good thing to have but full on PK'ing is a huge turnoff to the western market. Look at Asherons Call, it had servers that were White unless you flagged and 1 red server. Same is true of DAoC, a game built on the ground up as a PvP based game, Mordred wasa failure and never reached the population of the RvR servers.
Again, proof?
AC1's darktide is now their most popular server.
Mordred was opened well after DAOC's release, which would account for lower subs. Besides, it was clearly designed for FvFvF.
Vanguard's team servers were merged into their FFA servers due to lack of subs on their TEAM servers.
do you really believe this? people don't like being ganked every 5 minutes while leveling. Thats why WOW has10 million subs, and Darkfall has a few thouseand.
Eve has optional pvp, thats why its doing well.
when UO came out it was the only game out there , so people had no choice.
Now that people have a choice nobody plays open PVP servers.
{mod edit}
If UO came out today instead of back then, it wouldn't have been but a small blip on the radar.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Mass appeal is something that can be created through innovation. It would be a shame if the developers sway away from their intended game design to try and cater to the largest audience.
I want translated Archeage, nothing more, nothing less.
Well, for a start, alternate server sets are not shying away from anything.The original game still stands.
It is just that on some servers the PvP is switched off on the controlled continents. Thats it, thats all.
Your game remians untouched.
Gaining a larger audience is nothing to be scared of, especially at the cost of adding an extra server with such a simple change, and something I would imagine XL and their publisher would quite like.
Honestly, if you truly want AA as open world PvP gankfest then you would be best to support alternate server sets beause if you force the optional PvP folks in the West to play in your space they WILL outnumber you and when they start to whinge and cancel your game WILL change.
Protect the type of game you want by supporting giving others a space to play the way they want. It's common sense.
What will happen with separate server types is the PvE'ers will run out of content very quickly and start crying. This could in turn cause the developers to start catering to the PvE crowd with PvP as an afterthought. Sound familiar?
That dosent change what I said though does it?
Casual players that prefer optional PvP WILL play this game, simply because what it offers is so strong, and when they are perma ganked while growing their grapes in their gardens they WILL cry blue murder and give it as a reason for quitting.
As for your fear that the content will run out for the optional PvPers, well I don't get what part of optional you are not getting... it dosent mean 'none'. Optional PvPers still spend a ton of time PvPing.
The optional PvPer still loves PvPing, but they jjust want to do it when they want to do it, and not just to be gank farmed by some asswipe that is using the game as some kind of therapy for his low self esteem issues when they just want to chill and work on their house or whatever.
There is no reason the density of the content will be dramatically lighter for the optional PvEer, considering PvP on the 3rd continent will be very much alive with all the same systems in place. Unless your suggesting that ganking players on the two controlled continents from other factions will be a massive source of XP..?
(if thats the case you are actually suggesting that the system will be set up to promote ganking which, like Aion, will definitely kill the game's appeal to most and would back up the claim in the OP)
Look, the short answer is that you can have the server/ game you want by supporting alternate rulessets, or you can have the bluebies on your server with you. One way you get the game you want, the other you will quickly get the game they want. Your choice.
Honestly there is plenty of games out right now that cater to everyone. Why can't people accept a game for what it is? Maybe if you don't like to PvP then Archeage may not be for you? Much of the content in Archeage is based around PvP, and PvP related content is going to be a major contributer to the overall time sink of the game.
and there are plenty that cater for the hardcore ganker. Why do you act like there isnt?
The question is are there GOOD games out there, offering what this one offers? The answer is obviously that I and others feel no there isnt, just as you obviously feel the current open world gankfest PvP games are not good enough.
Also, why should we accept anything, just because it suits you? Even XL have acknowledged the need for alternate servers and have made clear their intention of providing them. Or are you saying that you want them to change their intentions to suit your personal needs?
Look, we all want what AA has to offer, there is no reason to limit it to one small demographic when with minimal investment it could be huge.
As I said previously, I just want to play the game the developers want us to play.
I think catering to babies that want things a certain way damages the integrity of the game. Sure you can say "this one thing" but it's never the case. Eventually there will be so much QQ that the game wouldn't even be the same after a year.
Just because people want to farm grapes in peace doesn't mean the devs should dedicate a server that allows you to do so.
As I said previously, I just want to play the game the developers want us to play.
I think catering to babies that want things a certain way damages the integrity of the game. Sure you can say "this one thing" but it's never the case. Eventually there will be so much QQ that the game wouldn't even be the same after a year.
Just because people want to farm grapes in peace doesn't mean the devs should dedicate a server that allows you to do so.
They should if they want the peaceful grape farmers' sub money.
If they don't want that money, they can go ahead and cater to the crowd that whines when there are players in the game they can't gank.
It's also about what potential players should know to do by now. For those who don't like the forms of pvp proposed, there is only one option, and that is to not play until a server is provided with a form of pvp they do like.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
If they don't want that money, they can go ahead and cater to the crowd that whines when there are players in the game they can't gank.
Is this the real fear? That the gankers won't have socialisers/ crafters/ PvEers/ optional PvPers to gankfest and might actually have to fight each other?
It's also about what potential players should know to do by now. For those who don't like the forms of pvp proposed, there is only one option, and that is to not play until a server is provided with a form of pvp they do like.
To each their own, I suppose. The freedom to do as you please (such as ganking a grape farmer) creates a conflict between players and their clans. That is valuable content to me. I wouldn't ever gank someone for no reason but at least the option is open, and if I develope some beef with a player or clan, being able to go kill these players is a must.
If some idiot wants to gank me for no reason then he will have to suffer the consequences. Assuming their is death penalties in this game. So not a big deal.
It would appear as if you haven't played a game with some sort of karma system and death penalties, because for the most part people don't just go around ganking each other for no reason when there are consequences for doing so.
I don't think calling people who like optional PvP in their games 'babies' is the way forward so I snipped you and didnt bother reading the rest.
I wasn't singling out people who want optional PvP. I was refering to people who can't accept a game for what it is and need to cry to the devs to change it to their liking.
It's not really open pvp I would say it's the loss of items xp or whatever that is a huge turnoff for the vast bulk of current mmo players.
Most wow servers are pvp where you can be killed virtually everywhere in the open world and as you know is the most succesfull mmo to date, but dying to a player has no detrimental effect not even durability loss like when you die from pve just a quick walk back to your corpse. And killing other players also has negligble rewards so it happens relatively rarely only really when fighting over a mining node or a daily quest mob for example.
Problem with that is that it adds no realism. Current MMO players need a little taste of realism. If you're going to go wandering off into the woods and can't hold your own - or bring a squad, you better be ready to pay in some way for your indecision.
Comments
The Eve model is exactly what this game and a lot of pvp are aiming for now. They use different maps with different rule set they connect together in a single world. Thats what Aion made, GW2 will do... Thats what the continent are for in this game isn't it? And they stick a huge world so that you can have enough space to find or tranquility or a lot of people...
The oceans are meant to be kinds of portals isn't it? It would be even better if you needed to "climb" the montain and all those hard to pass terrains; i don't know going through a swamp should need 2 or 3 time the same time to go on a road. If they don't do that, the system will just fail, just as it failed totally in Darkfall. You need natural barrier to make your map effective, its not a hard barrier, but soft one you could pass through with some extra effort. They just need to put a stamina draining feature like it is in any game with such feature and thats it really.
If they do that you will really be able to find some hard to reach, and tranquil spot behind montain chain or whatever, and heavy density population spot at main cross raods. If they don't you'll just end up with shallow feature that have zero impact in game play; and you will find as much pking in the bottom of the continent as on the border.
if you cant handle "no death penalty" pvp what can i say for you
plus there are heavy penalties for pking on the pve continents like "jail" etc
not a carebear argument..right
No restrictions needed. It is quite simple. Pve fans just join pve servers. Pvp fans join pvp servers
Actually, the OP wasnt a carebear argument, it was making the point that only offering open world PvP with no options will limit this game's market in the west. You have failed to understand. Ofc, the open world crowd PvP have moved the thread in the carebear vs PK direction, like they always do in their own 'charming' way, but thats hardly my fault.
and you are wrong.
The only soft control on the controlled continents is for killing your own team, other factions can gankfest with impunity, 24/7. This has been made clear in this thread 1000 times already, but you guys don't seem to read what people have said before you before jumping in with your version of the 'facts'.
I don't think you understand the ruleset in place as is, and this isnt about what I 'can handle' (I already said i would be playing whatever, go back and read the OP).
It really is that simple.
Guys, please refrain from attacking each other and discuss the actual topic at hand. This thread has been heading in that direction, and it will be locked if discussion doesn't get back on track. Thanks.
To give feedback on moderation, contact [email protected]
Actually, to get back on topic, I dont think the "thing that could kill it's western appeal" has anything to do with PVP at all.
Knowing the origins of this game, I worry more about them copying the "eastern style" mmo too much and making this game too grindy and too gold farmer friendly, almost promoting the practice of gold farming.
I also worry about the P2W(pay to win) notion popular in eastern style games. I am not saying Archage wont have a monthly fee, I dont really know, but the itemshop premise has made it way into p2p games nowadays too. In games like AoC you have items you can effectively buy which give you an advantage. For example,you could buy a mount with irl $ which was eqivalent or better then mounts that took months to aquire in game. The fact is rewarding cash purchases with items in game is a growing trend that is also getting a bit destructive to the health of these games. As the rewrads get better and better, the line gets crossed as to which items actually help toons too much get too far ahead of the rest.
I feel for it to be more attractive it would need:
1) a reasonable karma system, something to punish PK'ers when they die and reward others for killing them.
2) keep skill > gear. Upgrades are fine, no one should be running around feeling idbeholdv cuz their gear outclasses everyone by a large margin.
3) Multiple factions if your going to have them, what I mean is more than two. Two always ends up lopsided, at least with three or more different factions can team up if the scales start moving to unfavorabely.
Hardest thing to get past is creating a hardcore pvp environment in which players can all enjoy the game on some level. Every hardcore ganker pvp nerds dream is to just run around slaughtering people and getting rich and notorious doing so. This is a hard fantasy to live when your on a game with nothing but clones of you running around trying to do the same thing.
Splitting the content into pve places and pvp would also have to be balanced for it to work, for example in UO, after Trammel came out, the old world was pretty much full of... murders and thieves. All the mines, and forrests had been abandoned as well as a lot of the strong world pvp environment which was simply gone or at least different. There would have to be incentive for people to go into the PVP zones or else they will remain mostly empty because everyone knows thats where all the hardcore ganker pvp nerds are. =D
I will never understand why a game can't have a server that supports both PvE and PvP. Simply put if a game has at least two servers then it can easily cater to both styles and thus increase their player base. I'll also never understand why people get upset when someone says they want a PvE server. This is basic some people do not want to play a game where they will HAVE to PvP. Some people simply want to enjoy all the other aspects of the game without having to worry if someone is going to camp their corpse for 2 hours at a time. In all the games I've played I have lvled toons on both PvP and PvE servers if they have been available and one thing I can say is that the general maturity level on PvE servers tends to be a bit higher. Yea you will have douche bags on any server you play on but there seems to be remarkably less douche bags on PvE servers when games have both types. They more tend to hang out in the PvP realms where they can lord their epeen over other players.
Because most sandbox games DO NOT have more than 1 server, best case the have 1 server for US and 1 for EU.
I imagine there will be many servers for AA, the amount dependent on forcasted sub numbers upon release just like most MMOs. One server might work for EVE or games with lower overall pops but not for a game like AA.
She jus cauna do et captain!
Having two types of servers would be great as long as one does not change the other. That's when you start to lose control and spend a lot of resources on tweeking two games instead of one. Change PvP flagging on PvE servers and that's it IMO.
Just not worth my time anymore.
I don't like open world PVP in most games today due to the simple fact it's pointless, you cant loot the dead, you don't lose anything by dying, no real objectives to take that acual have an impact on the world, all it do is ruins the game due to so many greifers, I bet geafing would cut in half if these these so called hardcore pvpers acual lose euqipments when they die.
I loved being red in Ultima Online the PVP there was really great beacuse you lose all your stuff if you died and you could be really wealthy by stroke of luck killing a player who havent manage to get to the bank yet.
Western PVP is a joke and it's really laughable to see these epeen wannabe hardcore pvpers boast how great they are how skilled they are and greif other players knowing that they will not lose any xp,money or euqipment.
RIFT have a classic western carebear PVP mentality and many other MMOs do aswell.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
Mass appeal is something that can be created through innovation. It would be a shame if the developers sway away from their intended game design to try and cater to the largest audience.
I want translated Archeage, nothing more, nothing less.
Well, for a start, alternate server sets are not shying away from anything.The original game still stands.
It is just that on some servers the PvP is switched off on the controlled continents. Thats it, thats all.
Your game remians untouched.
Gaining a larger audience is nothing to be scared of, especially at the cost of adding an extra server with such a simple change, and something I would imagine XL and their publisher would quite like.
Honestly, if you truly want AA as open world PvP gankfest then you would be best to support alternate server sets beause if you force the optional PvP folks in the West to play in your space they WILL outnumber you and when they start to whinge and cancel your game WILL change.
Protect the type of game you want by supporting giving others a space to play the way they want. It's common sense.
What will happen with separate server types is the PvE'ers will run out of content very quickly and start crying. This could in turn cause the developers to start catering to the PvE crowd with PvP as an afterthought. Sound familiar?
Honestly there is plenty of games out right now that cater to everyone. Why can't people accept a game for what it is? Maybe if you don't like to PvP then Archeage may not be for you? Much of the content in Archeage is based around PvP, and PvP related content is going to be a major contributer to the overall time sink of the game.
If UO came out today instead of back then, it wouldn't have been but a small blip on the radar.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
As I said previously, I just want to play the game the developers want us to play.
I think catering to babies that want things a certain way damages the integrity of the game. Sure you can say "this one thing" but it's never the case. Eventually there will be so much QQ that the game wouldn't even be the same after a year.
Just because people want to farm grapes in peace doesn't mean the devs should dedicate a server that allows you to do so.
They should if they want the peaceful grape farmers' sub money.
If they don't want that money, they can go ahead and cater to the crowd that whines when there are players in the game they can't gank.
It's also about what potential players should know to do by now. For those who don't like the forms of pvp proposed, there is only one option, and that is to not play until a server is provided with a form of pvp they do like.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Well, seeing as the developers want us to play on alternate rule set servers according to different play needs, I guess we actually agree.
I don't think calling people who like optional PvP in their games 'babies' is the way forward so I snipped you and didnt bother reading the rest.
To each their own, I suppose. The freedom to do as you please (such as ganking a grape farmer) creates a conflict between players and their clans. That is valuable content to me. I wouldn't ever gank someone for no reason but at least the option is open, and if I develope some beef with a player or clan, being able to go kill these players is a must.
If some idiot wants to gank me for no reason then he will have to suffer the consequences. Assuming their is death penalties in this game. So not a big deal.
It would appear as if you haven't played a game with some sort of karma system and death penalties, because for the most part people don't just go around ganking each other for no reason when there are consequences for doing so.
I wasn't singling out people who want optional PvP. I was refering to people who can't accept a game for what it is and need to cry to the devs to change it to their liking.
It's not really open pvp I would say it's the loss of items xp or whatever that is a huge turnoff for the vast bulk of current mmo players.
Most wow servers are pvp where you can be killed virtually everywhere in the open world and as you know is the most succesfull mmo to date, but dying to a player has no detrimental effect not even durability loss like when you die from pve just a quick walk back to your corpse. And killing other players also has negligble rewards so it happens relatively rarely only really when fighting over a mining node or a daily quest mob for example.
Problem with that is that it adds no realism. Current MMO players need a little taste of realism. If you're going to go wandering off into the woods and can't hold your own - or bring a squad, you better be ready to pay in some way for your indecision.