I know FFA PvP servers are the VAST minority but i think theres a good 10,000+ people who would love to have a Rallos Zek / Mordred type server.
NOPE because the Developers at Anet will not bastardize their game and vision just to pul lin a few more box sales.
Really? Because they've already done that with instancing and instant teleportation.
How would an optional server "bastardize" the game? Almost every MMO has a FFA PVP server.
Because GW2 is simply not built for it. So while it wouldn't 'bastardise' the game initially, certain mechanics wouldn't work or wouldn't be dersirable in a FFA PvP setting (instant teleportation for example). Pretty soon you (and no doubt others) would be back on the forums asking for changes (like a teleport timer) to better accomodate the FFA PvP ruleset and before we know it we're all playing a 'bastardised' version of what GW2 would have been without FFA PvP servers.
Like others have said, if FFA PvP is all you want (and by your own admission "Almost every MMO has a FFA PVP server"), there are plenty of other MMOs out there for you already.
Ah, poor gankers and griefers feel left out. WvW must not be any fun because people there will actually be a challenge, no poor noobs there preoccupied with a mob? Sorry but FFA would never work with DE systems till they see how it works over a long period of time. Till then the prepubecent-sociopaths will just have to go back to pulling the wings off of butterflies outside for a while.
Wow, you're just as bad-if not worse than the people you're describing.
I know FFA PvP servers are the VAST minority but i think theres a good 10,000+ people who would love to have a Rallos Zek / Mordred type server.
NOPE because the Developers at Anet will not bastardize their game and vision just to pul lin a few more box sales.
Really? Because they've already done that with instancing and instant teleportation.
How would an optional server "bastardize" the game? Almost every MMO has a FFA PVP server.
Because GW2 is simply not built for it. So while it wouldn't 'bastardise' the game initially, certain mechanics wouldn't work or wouldn't be dersirable in a FFA PvP setting (instant teleportation for example). Pretty soon you (and no doubt others) would be back on the forums asking for changes (like a teleport timer) to better accomodate the FFA PvP ruleset and before we know it we're all be playing a 'bastardised' version of what GW2 would have been without FFA PvP servers.
Like others have said, if FFA PvP is all you want (and by your own admission "Almost every MMO has a FFA PVP server"), there are plenty of other MMOs out there for you already.
I see. So its the "I don't like your play style so it should not be accomodated!" argument. Almost none of the games that have FFA PVP are built for it, yet people still play those MMOs and enjoy those servers.
The PvP folks are supposed to be the "evil unfriendly" ones but all I see in this thread are a bunch of selfish closed minded elitists. You don't even want a server for the "filth" to slum in, you want them away from your pristine MMO entirely. It baffles me. Most of my post is not directed at you, by the way. You stated your case in a very civil and clear way.
If all Arenanet had to do was lock out the instant teleportation, I don't see why a PvP server wouldn't work as it has in countless other games. DAoC had instant teleportation by the end and the result was that people would pick 2-3 towns to constantly fight in.
Of course it's possible. And of course there are people who'd like to see it. But it won't happen, at least not for a good while. Anet has said what they are focusing on, and FFA in the midst of their events is not it.
"There are two great powers, and they've been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit."
John Parry, to his son Will; "The Subtle Knife," by Phillip Pullman
Instant Teleportation and Instancing was a feature of GW1 so it is not inclusive to being some anti-MMO concept that only becaame a feature in GW2.
As for your 2nd question, how would it bastardize the game.......Simple google searches will show that the concept for GW2 and it is engrained in their foundational and genre re-defining manefesto at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he3jqbDq5hA Anet wants to build a game for the community, of the community and by the community whereby at no point whatsoever in the course of a gamers adventures will he/she despise to see another player. I am sorry if you think otherwise but your inability to actually understand the core concepts of what will make GW2 truely innovative and "fun" for the majority is not my fault. Besides as has been stated elsewhere, this might not be the game for you, check out some of the other FFA type MMO's that are already out and or are soon to be released.
Looks like we've got a fanboy our on hands. I was about to respond, and point out how your precious vision of the game won't be impacted by a PvP server... and then support that, but... you're head is clearly in the clouds.
And as for your first point, since GW1 wasn't an MMO, I'd say features like instancing and teleporation are inclusive in being anti-MMO. In fact, instancing is about as anti MMO as you can get.
unnecessarily mean, moreso to a first poster (if you were correct). don't ad hominin if you want to be considered worthwhile, jackass.
instanceing is as anti-mmo as having server shards; in fact it is having server shards. in some cases it sucks but in others having zones which unload is quite nice, like when you unload the people screwing around in major cities which you aren't in.
I see. So its the "I don't like your play style so it should not be accomodated!" argument. Almost none of the games that have FFA PVP are built for it, yet people still play those MMOs and enjoy those servers.
It's the "The developer doesn't want it and there are plenty of other games which have it" argument. Play WvWvW or don't play at all is my advice.
Why does every MMO today need some form of FFA Anarchist sandbox mode? See how well it went in AoC. Guild politics, yeah I'm all for that but you have to agree it's quite a complex system to get right.
Something for Bioware to spend 200 million instead of wasting it on dialogue? Bwahaha.
I see. So its the "I don't like your play style so it should not be accomodated!" argument. Almost none of the games that have FFA PVP are built for it, yet people still play those MMOs and enjoy those servers.
It's the "The developer doesn't want it and there are plenty of other games which have it" argument. Play WvWvW or don't play at all is my advice.
I myself don't want to play on a FFA PVP server. But others do, and there's no reason why they shouldn't just because some of the crazies on these forums are afraid of the idea of PvP.
Show me where the developers say they don't want it. So far all I'm reading are posters who don't want it, even though it has no impact on them.
As for why "every MMO today needs FFA sandbox mode" almost every MMO since the dawn of the genre have had FFA servers.
I see. So its the "I don't like your play style so it should not be accomodated!" argument. Almost none of the games that have FFA PVP are built for it, yet people still play those MMOs and enjoy those servers.
It's the "The developer doesn't want it and there are plenty of other games which have it" argument. Play WvWvW or don't play at all is my advice.
I myself don't want to play on a FFA PVP server. But others do, and there's no reason why they shouldn't just because some of the crazies on these forums are afraid of the idea of PvP.
Show me where the developers say they don't want it. So far all I'm reading are posters who don't want it, even though it has no impact on them.
As for why "every MMO today needs FFA sandbox mode" almost every MMO since the dawn of the genre have had FFA servers.
Show me the FFA servers in WoW and SWTOR then, oh wait, they don't have them because they have factions.
Anet has stated time and time again that they want PvE to be cooperative and PvP to be consensual.
I see. So its the "I don't like your play style so it should not be accomodated!" argument. Almost none of the games that have FFA PVP are built for it, yet people still play those MMOs and enjoy those servers.
It's the "The developer doesn't want it and there are plenty of other games which have it" argument. Play WvWvW or don't play at all is my advice.
I myself don't want to play on a FFA PVP server. But others do, and there's no reason why they shouldn't just because some of the crazies on these forums are afraid of the idea of PvP.
Show me where the developers say they don't want it. So far all I'm reading are posters who don't want it, even though it has no impact on them.
As for why "every MMO today needs FFA sandbox mode" almost every MMO since the dawn of the genre have had FFA servers.
Show me the FFA servers in WoW and SWTOR then, oh wait, they don't have them because they have factions.
Anet has stated time and time again that they want PvE to be cooperative and PvP to be consensual.
Yes, on normal servers. It was the same way in DAoC. And in AC. And in EQ. And in WoW. And Vanguard.
But all those games had special servers set aside for FFA PVP.
How would an optional server "bastardize" the game? Almost every MMO has a FFA PVP server.
A lot of you "civlized" PvE folks are acting like total snobs. "No it's NOT possible because I don't like it!"
read before you respond. your question was answered before you posted.
it has to do with marketing, and mechanics.
short version:
marketing; it would alienate target market and create brand confusion.
mechanics; in order to make it possible, a ton of code would have to be rewritten and added. what you are proposing isn't a horrible idea, if properly developed. but can they afford to do it?
in order to get that pollitical dynamic to work coherently rather than having everyone with one bias towards quest givers, there would have to be more of a spectrum of the quest givers, and the abbility to quest with the various dynamic event groups (like the cenataurs which are invading the villiage). if the game is in beta it is close to release, and there isn't time to double or tripple the size of the game. that is what killed duke neukem.
you would have to develop exponential levels of content, and flavor text with far more context awareness. you want duplicity, but all questing/progression in PvE world is based on helping one side (including personal stories). it also means that griefing lowbies by killing quest givers is impossible. the lack keeps the game from breaking. by offering incentive to allow and reward people for doing whatever they want, you destroy the sense of communal accomplishment, it goes beyond dynamic content, which goes up and down a slider, and turns into FFA gameplay; the opposite of dynamic (but still railed) content. it isn't possible, because for allot of the game, it isn't possible. in the Wv2 (world vs two worlds) there are apparently allot of FFA events including FFA questing but that isn't dynamic events, it is a diferent type of thing. if you want you can go and solely play Wv2 events for all your leveling (after getting level 2) and experiance and it is exactly what you mean (though not what you ask for). and then if you want to work with others on PvE for some reason, you can leave the PvP server which is Wv2, and do the main part of the game. switching 'servers' (technically zones) and engaging with other people who want that type of gameplay can still be done, you just can't bully random PvErs or first timers who suck at the game and who refuse to PvP.
there is character migration from PvP to PvE so you can do any assortment or combination of content with one toon, and the content is oriented towards the relevant playstyle. why you would want PvE questing as a PvPer rather than PvP questing really doesn't make sense. creating a PvP server is as strange a claim as trying to make the PvP partition of a server PvE... it loses the enthrall, and the point of the zone. care bears get PvE and the abbility to listen to quests, without any of the game visible. PvPers get player kill quests...
how would people killing you while you watch a cinematic, make the game better in your opinion?
Think abou it. In order to implement something like this so close to release, or even soon after release, they'd have to dedicate serious amounts of development resources to it.
How do you figure? It's just a PvP toggle. All they'd have to do is turn PvP on instead of off. Done.
This guy isn't asking for a totally different game, just a FFA PvP server.
Granted, FFA PvP servers, in my general experience, are terrible in level based MMOs like WOW and EQ, but a LOT of people like them. I prefer FFA PVP when the entire game is designed around it.
As soon as MO or Darkfall offers a PvE only server then maybe I might agree with your assessment.
Darkfall is a game that's entirely built around PvP. Remove that, and it simply does not work.
However, GW2, absolutely nothing would "break" if a PvP toggle was turned on. Nothing broke in AC1, or EQ, or DAoC, or any of the other games that had FFA PvP servers. It's simply an option for those that like that type of gameplay. How is this hard for people to understand?
And GW2 is a game thats entirely bult around social interaction in a dynamic open world environment where community and espirt de corps in a PvE social interactive world is the reason for the game and a core philosophy of the Anet manefesto. Remove that and it simply does not work.
If you say is true then having a PvE only server in Mortal Online or Darkfall seperate and aside from the FFA PvP servers would do no more harm then anything else, in fact it might actually bring in more subscribers. As for AC1 and EQ those games were designed from the ground up to NOT foster a sense of community building, thats not to say they didnt but it wasnt the PRIMARY focus of the devs, whereas GW2 is designed to be a PRIMARILY socially cultivating experience. When a game has the core foundation as the pinnacle of social interaction then it makes fighting in WvW all the more worthwhile.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
How would an optional server "bastardize" the game? Almost every MMO has a FFA PVP server.
A lot of you "civlized" PvE folks are acting like total snobs. "No it's NOT possible because I don't like it!"
read before you respond. your question was answered before you posted.
it has to do with marketing, and mechanics.
short version:
marketing; it would alienate target market and create brand confusion.
mechanics; in order to make it possible, a ton of code would have to be rewritten and added. what you are proposing isn't a horrible idea, if properly developed. but can they afford to do it?
Conjecture : They wouldn't have to market the PvP server so I don't see how it'd hurt the "brand". It could only bring in more people.
and to the second, wrong.
PvP is a boolean value. On, or off. No rewritten code.
Now, if they wanted to go full bore and make a really good FFA PVP server by reworking all the mechanics, THAT'D take a lot. But that's not what the OP is asking for. The OP is only asking for a server like Mordred. Know what the only difference between Mordred and normal servers was? After level 20, anyone could attack you. And that's it. No other differences.
I know FFA PvP servers are the VAST minority but i think theres a good 10,000+ people who would love to have a Rallos Zek / Mordred type server.
NOPE because the Developers at Anet will not bastardize their game and vision just to pul lin a few more box sales.
Really? Because they've already done that with instancing and instant teleportation.
How would an optional server "bastardize" the game? Almost every MMO has a FFA PVP server.
Because GW2 is simply not built for it. So while it wouldn't 'bastardise' the game initially, certain mechanics wouldn't work or wouldn't be dersirable in a FFA PvP setting (instant teleportation for example). Pretty soon you (and no doubt others) would be back on the forums asking for changes (like a teleport timer) to better accomodate the FFA PvP ruleset and before we know it we're all be playing a 'bastardised' version of what GW2 would have been without FFA PvP servers.
Like others have said, if FFA PvP is all you want (and by your own admission "Almost every MMO has a FFA PVP server"), there are plenty of other MMOs out there for you already.
I see. So its the "I don't like your play style so it should not be accomodated!" argument. Almost none of the games that have FFA PVP are built for it, yet people still play those MMOs and enjoy those servers.
The PvP folks are supposed to be the "evil unfriendly" ones but all I see in this thread are a bunch of selfish closed minded elitists. You don't even want a server for the "filth" to slum in, you want them away from your pristine MMO entirely. It baffles me. Most of my post is not directed at you, by the way. You stated your case in a very civil and clear way.
If all Arenanet had to do was lock out the instant teleportation, I don't see why a PvP server wouldn't work as it has in countless other games. DAoC had instant teleportation by the end and the result was that people would pick 2-3 towns to constantly fight in.
The reason I made the point about GW2 not being 'built for FFA PvP' is that I've seen it countless times in other MMOs (most notably WoW, but also Aion and others) where rules are changed, introduced or removed, skills are 'balanced' and items are adjusted all in the name of a certain playstyle (both PvP and PvE), and it is always to the detriment of the other.
Now granted GW2 would probably fare better than most as it is already heavily designed for PVP, but only in certain areas. Instant teleportation was just ome example, but world geography (choke points, town defences, layout (introduction) of safe areas, position of various key locations etc.) would be another; basically the PvE world has not been built with PvP in mind. To change something like that this late in development, or even at all, will be deterimental to the PvE experience that GW2 has been marketed as having.
Think abou it. In order to implement something like this so close to release, or even soon after release, they'd have to dedicate serious amounts of development resources to it.
How do you figure? It's just a PvP toggle. All they'd have to do is turn PvP on instead of off. Done.
This guy isn't asking for a totally different game, just a FFA PvP server.
Granted, FFA PvP servers, in my general experience, are terrible in level based MMOs like WOW and EQ, but a LOT of people like them. I prefer FFA PVP when the entire game is designed around it.
As soon as MO or Darkfall offers a PvE only server then maybe I might agree with your assessment.
Darkfall is a game that's entirely built around PvP. Remove that, and it simply does not work.
However, GW2, absolutely nothing would "break" if a PvP toggle was turned on. Nothing broke in AC1, or EQ, or DAoC, or any of the other games that had FFA PvP servers. It's simply an option for those that like that type of gameplay. How is this hard for people to understand?
And GW2 is a game thats entirely bult around social interaction in a dynamic open world environment where community and espirt de corps in a PvE social interactive world is the reason for the game and a core philosophy of the Anet manefesto. Remove that and it simply does not work.
....Oookay... but we're not removing that. Adding PvP does not elimate social interaction or the PvE aspect of the game. It builds on top of it. How is this hard to understand? You DON'T REMOVE ANYTHING.
I see. So its the "I don't like your play style so it should not be accomodated!" argument. Almost none of the games that have FFA PVP are built for it, yet people still play those MMOs and enjoy those servers.
It's the "The developer doesn't want it and there are plenty of other games which have it" argument. Play WvWvW or don't play at all is my advice.
I myself don't want to play on a FFA PVP server. But others do, and there's no reason why they shouldn't just because some of the crazies on these forums are afraid of the idea of PvP.
Show me where the developers say they don't want it. So far all I'm reading are posters who don't want it, even though it has no impact on them.
As for why "every MMO today needs FFA sandbox mode" almost every MMO since the dawn of the genre have had FFA servers.
Theres no reason because the game is designed from the ground floor to be a socially interactive MMO that promotes cooperation in the PvE setting fostering a sense of community pride twhereby that pride and willingness to help your fellow gamer on your world translates into the ultimate test of community building while in the WvW world. I for the life of me do not understand how anyone can argue against soemthing like this.
Watch the Anet GW2 Manefesto, the community hosted events, the word of mouth at all the cons, the game theory design conferences at GDC and elsewhere and you would be extremely naive to think that the developers want it.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
I see. So its the "I don't like your play style so it should not be accomodated!" argument. Almost none of the games that have FFA PVP are built for it, yet people still play those MMOs and enjoy those servers.
It's the "The developer doesn't want it and there are plenty of other games which have it" argument. Play WvWvW or don't play at all is my advice.
I myself don't want to play on a FFA PVP server. But others do, and there's no reason why they shouldn't just because some of the crazies on these forums are afraid of the idea of PvP.
Show me where the developers say they don't want it. So far all I'm reading are posters who don't want it, even though it has no impact on them.
As for why "every MMO today needs FFA sandbox mode" almost every MMO since the dawn of the genre have had FFA servers.
Theres no reason because the game is designed from the ground floor to be a socially interactive MMO that promotes cooperation in the PvE setting fostering a sense of community pride twhereby that pride and willingness to help your fellow gamer
[mod edit[
I don't think you get what Mordred is.
I don't think you get how FFA PVP works.
There seem to be about 3 people in this ENTIRE thread that understands what the OP is asking. He's not asking for a recoding of the whole game. He's NOT asking for PvPers and "evil ggank0rs" to invade your world. He asked for a Mordred. Perhaps you all should have googled what that meant first before responding with "THAT'S NOT TRUE, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!".
Mordred means, everything stays the same, except FFA PVP is turned on. That's it.
It wouldn't cost Anet time. It would not cost money beyond the server cost. It WOULD appeal to a large subset of gamers.
There's no reason a FFA PVP server would clash with the "manifesto". There's no reason it would confuse people. It'd simply be an option tacked onto the game giving even more options to even more players. It would not hurt you or your game experience yet you are CRUSADING against the very idea of it.
Think abou it. In order to implement something like this so close to release, or even soon after release, they'd have to dedicate serious amounts of development resources to it.
How do you figure? It's just a PvP toggle. All they'd have to do is turn PvP on instead of off. Done.
This guy isn't asking for a totally different game, just a FFA PvP server.
Granted, FFA PvP servers, in my general experience, are terrible in level based MMOs like WOW and EQ, but a LOT of people like them. I prefer FFA PVP when the entire game is designed around it.
As soon as MO or Darkfall offers a PvE only server then maybe I might agree with your assessment.
Darkfall is a game that's entirely built around PvP. Remove that, and it simply does not work.
However, GW2, absolutely nothing would "break" if a PvP toggle was turned on. Nothing broke in AC1, or EQ, or DAoC, or any of the other games that had FFA PvP servers. It's simply an option for those that like that type of gameplay. How is this hard for people to understand?
And GW2 is a game thats entirely bult around social interaction in a dynamic open world environment where community and espirt de corps in a PvE social interactive world is the reason for the game and a core philosophy of the Anet manefesto. Remove that and it simply does not work.
....Oookay... but we're not removing that. Adding PvP does not elimate social interaction or the PvE aspect of the game. It builds on top of it. How is this hard to understand? You DON'T REMOVE ANYTHING.
BUT you see if you add in what you or the OP wants then you remove the core foundational principle of what the game is trying to accomplish. It builds nothing, it takes away because the game is NOT designed to be able to fight other players unless its in the WvW world. How is this hard to understand> You REMOVE EVERYTHING the game stands for if you are allowed to attack anyone wherever you want.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Think abou it. In order to implement something like this so close to release, or even soon after release, they'd have to dedicate serious amounts of development resources to it.
How do you figure? It's just a PvP toggle. All they'd have to do is turn PvP on instead of off. Done.
This guy isn't asking for a totally different game, just a FFA PvP server.
Granted, FFA PvP servers, in my general experience, are terrible in level based MMOs like WOW and EQ, but a LOT of people like them. I prefer FFA PVP when the entire game is designed around it.
As soon as MO or Darkfall offers a PvE only server then maybe I might agree with your assessment.
Darkfall is a game that's entirely built around PvP. Remove that, and it simply does not work.
However, GW2, absolutely nothing would "break" if a PvP toggle was turned on. Nothing broke in AC1, or EQ, or DAoC, or any of the other games that had FFA PvP servers. It's simply an option for those that like that type of gameplay. How is this hard for people to understand?
And GW2 is a game thats entirely bult around social interaction in a dynamic open world environment where community and espirt de corps in a PvE social interactive world is the reason for the game and a core philosophy of the Anet manefesto. Remove that and it simply does not work.
....Oookay... but we're not removing that. Adding PvP does not elimate social interaction or the PvE aspect of the game. It builds on top of it. How is this hard to understand? You DON'T REMOVE ANYTHING.
BUT you see if you add in what you or the OP wants then you remove the core foundational principle of what the game is trying to accomplish.
No..it doesn't. People won't sudden stop interacting with one another just because there's PvP. If anything it'll drive people together even more because you'll NEED other people to survive. You'll need friends and guildies. How do you not understand this simple simple thing. Have you ever played a PvP game, ever?
I don't care if an OPTIONAL SERVER'S VERY PRESSENCE damages or goes against YOUR INTERPRETATION OF A MANIFESTO (a marketing gimmick) it will NOT change the mechanics of the game and thus NOTHING is removed.
How would an optional server "bastardize" the game? Almost every MMO has a FFA PVP server.
A lot of you "civlized" PvE folks are acting like total snobs. "No it's NOT possible because I don't like it!"
read before you respond. your question was answered before you posted.
it has to do with marketing, and mechanics.
short version:
marketing; it would alienate target market and create brand confusion.
mechanics; in order to make it possible, a ton of code would have to be rewritten and added. what you are proposing isn't a horrible idea, if properly developed. but can they afford to do it?
Conjecture : They wouldn't have to market the PvP server so I don't see how it'd hurt the "brand". It could only bring in more people.
and to the second, wrong.
PvP is a boolean value. On, or off. No rewritten code.
Now, if they wanted to go full bore and make a really good FFA PVP server by reworking all the mechanics, THAT'D take a lot. But that's not what the OP is asking for. The OP is only asking for a server like Mordred. Know what the only difference between Mordred and normal servers was? After level 20, anyone could attack you. And that's it. No other differences.
Good God, you really hove no idea do you?
Adding enjoyable FFA is far from "just turning it on". To make FFA work, it has to be considered in every design step along the way. The world has to be designed with FFA in mind, the scripted events have to be designed to with FFA in mind, NPC AI in general has to be designed with FFA in mind... and thats only mentioning few random things of the top of my head.
So yeah. Not as simple as just enabling FFA. It would take considerable amount of time to rework all the game content to make it enjoyable and to meet Anet quality standards.
I see. So its the "I don't like your play style so it should not be accomodated!" argument. Almost none of the games that have FFA PVP are built for it, yet people still play those MMOs and enjoy those servers.
It's the "The developer doesn't want it and there are plenty of other games which have it" argument. Play WvWvW or don't play at all is my advice.
I myself don't want to play on a FFA PVP server. But others do, and there's no reason why they shouldn't just because some of the crazies on these forums are afraid of the idea of PvP.
Show me where the developers say they don't want it. So far all I'm reading are posters who don't want it, even though it has no impact on them.
As for why "every MMO today needs FFA sandbox mode" almost every MMO since the dawn of the genre have had FFA servers.
Theres no reason because the game is designed from the ground floor to be a socially interactive MMO that promotes cooperation in the PvE setting fostering a sense of community pride twhereby that pride and willingness to help your fellow gamer
I don't think it you get it. I don't think you get a great many things. You're just copy and pasting the "manifesto" over and over again, spitting out words I'm not sure you yourself understand or even believe.
I don't think you get what Mordred is.
I don't think you get how FFA PVP works.
There seem to be about 3 people in this ENTIRE thread that understands what the OP is asking. He's not asking for a recoding of the whole game. He's NOT asking for PvPers and "evil ggank0rs" to invade your world. He asked for a Mordred. Perhaps you all should have googled what that meant first before responding with "THAT'S NOT TRUE, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!".
Mordred means, everything stays the same, except FFA PVP is turned on. That's it.
It wouldn't cost Anet time. It would not cost money beyond the server cost. It WOULD appeal to a large subset of gamers.
There's no reason a FFA PVP server would clash with the "manifesto". There's no reason it would confuse people. It'd simply be an option tacked onto the game giving even more options to even more players. It would not hurt you or your game experience yet you are CRUSADING against the very idea of it.
I'm a bit shocked and saddened. If this is the GW2 "community" I don't want to be anywhere near it. "cooperation" and "fellow man" my ass. More of "just people who share my ideas, everyone else is teh debil!"
I played AC1 and DAoC so I know full well what FFA PvP is. I have no problem with it personally as I understand its a fun challenge for a certain niche gamers.
I understand the OP is not asking to change anything but flip a switch. Heres the deal though do what you say....how do you correlate that into the WvW world in the mists? the simple solution I would guess is to not have them be able to participate in WvW because I assure you that server wouldnt stand a chance in the grand scheme of things because while the rest of the servers are building communities that server is destroying it because that server would be fighting against themselves 99% of the time. Plus you have to consider the foundation of the game world itself, if theres FFA world what do you do about the shared crafting nodes, the shared loot drops, the shared experience gain and on and on and on.
This simple answer is it wouldnt work, the devs have stated repeatedly that GW2 is designed to bring the massively back into the massievely multiplayer, take away the community building that is designed and you take away the game itself.... VERY simple to understand.
Look if you like PvP thats awesome, I do too! I played DAoC for 2+ years until Mythic bastardized the game with ToA. Mordred worked but it was by and away the least popular server and less we forget they also released Andred server which didnt last long at all.
I would think you very much if you wouldnt resort to ad-hominem attacks jsut because I disagree with you, ive enjoyed a lively spirited debate so far so no sense in ruining it with personal attacks on my intelligence, because I sir have lived and breathed GW2 for a while now and I see with my very own eyes what the deves are attempting to accomplish.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
In the end, Guild Wars 2 will never offer FFA PvP servers. The devs have shown no signs of wanting to add such a feature, or even thinking about it and the game world simply isn't built for it. It is built around community building and implementing FFA PvP would mean that ArenaNet have completely gone against the their design philosophy of bring players together. It would effectively ruin the game they are trying to build.
People can bitch & moan all they want, but nothing is going to change, regarding this feature and GW2.
In the end, Guild Wars 2 will never offer FFA PvP servers. The devs have shown no signs of wanting to add such a feature, or even thinking about it and the game world simply isn't built for it. It is built around community building and implementing FFA PvP would mean that ArenaNet have completely gone against the their design philosophy of bring players together. It would effectively ruin the game they are trying to build.
People can bitch & moan all they want, but nothing is going to change, regarding this feature and GW2.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
I played AC1 and DAoC so I know full well what FFA PvP is. I have no problem with it personally as I understand its a fun challenge for a certain niche gamers.
I understand the OP is not asking to change anything but flip a switch. Heres the deal though do what you say....how do you correlate that into the WvW world in the mists? the simple solution I would guess is to not have them be able to participate in WvW because I assure you that server wouldnt stand a chance in the grand scheme of things because while the rest of the servers are building communities that server is destroying it because that server would be fighting against themselves 99% of the time. Plus you have to consider the foundation of the game world itself, if theres FFA world what do you do about the shared crafting nodes, the shared loot drops, the shared experience gain and on and on and on.
This simple answer is it wouldnt work, the devs have stated repeatedly that GW2 is designed to bring the massively back into the massievely multiplayer, take away the community building that is designed and you take away the game itself.... VERY simple to understand.
Look if you like PvP thats awesome, I do too! I played DAoC for 2+ years until Mythic bastardized the game with ToA. Mordred worked but it was by and away the least popular server and less we forget they also released Andred server which didnt last long at all.
I would think you very much if you wouldnt resort to ad-hominem attacks jsut because I disagree with you, ive enjoyed a lively spirited debate so far so no sense in ruining it with personal attacks on my intelligence, because I sir have lived and breathed GW2 for a while now and I see with my very own eyes what the deves are attempting to accomplish.
^This. Just like I and others have said... The game simply isn't built with any sort of PvP server in mind and simply flipping a switch would simply go against the various community building features that ArenaNet have spent years developing and implementing.
It doesn't take a fanboy to see that and I seriously hate how people label others as fanboys, just because the individual is knowledgable on a product.
Comments
Because GW2 is simply not built for it. So while it wouldn't 'bastardise' the game initially, certain mechanics wouldn't work or wouldn't be dersirable in a FFA PvP setting (instant teleportation for example). Pretty soon you (and no doubt others) would be back on the forums asking for changes (like a teleport timer) to better accomodate the FFA PvP ruleset and before we know it we're all playing a 'bastardised' version of what GW2 would have been without FFA PvP servers.
Like others have said, if FFA PvP is all you want (and by your own admission "Almost every MMO has a FFA PVP server"), there are plenty of other MMOs out there for you already.
I think you did Bunks =D
I see. So its the "I don't like your play style so it should not be accomodated!" argument. Almost none of the games that have FFA PVP are built for it, yet people still play those MMOs and enjoy those servers.
The PvP folks are supposed to be the "evil unfriendly" ones but all I see in this thread are a bunch of selfish closed minded elitists. You don't even want a server for the "filth" to slum in, you want them away from your pristine MMO entirely. It baffles me. Most of my post is not directed at you, by the way. You stated your case in a very civil and clear way.
If all Arenanet had to do was lock out the instant teleportation, I don't see why a PvP server wouldn't work as it has in countless other games. DAoC had instant teleportation by the end and the result was that people would pick 2-3 towns to constantly fight in.
Of course it's possible. And of course there are people who'd like to see it. But it won't happen, at least not for a good while. Anet has said what they are focusing on, and FFA in the midst of their events is not it.
"There are two great powers, and they've been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit."
John Parry, to his son Will; "The Subtle Knife," by Phillip Pullman
unnecessarily mean, moreso to a first poster (if you were correct). don't ad hominin if you want to be considered worthwhile, jackass.
instanceing is as anti-mmo as having server shards; in fact it is having server shards. in some cases it sucks but in others having zones which unload is quite nice, like when you unload the people screwing around in major cities which you aren't in.
It's the "The developer doesn't want it and there are plenty of other games which have it" argument. Play WvWvW or don't play at all is my advice.
Why does every MMO today need some form of FFA Anarchist sandbox mode? See how well it went in AoC. Guild politics, yeah I'm all for that but you have to agree it's quite a complex system to get right.
Something for Bioware to spend 200 million instead of wasting it on dialogue? Bwahaha.
I myself don't want to play on a FFA PVP server. But others do, and there's no reason why they shouldn't just because some of the crazies on these forums are afraid of the idea of PvP.
Show me where the developers say they don't want it. So far all I'm reading are posters who don't want it, even though it has no impact on them.
As for why "every MMO today needs FFA sandbox mode" almost every MMO since the dawn of the genre have had FFA servers.
Show me the FFA servers in WoW and SWTOR then, oh wait, they don't have them because they have factions.
Anet has stated time and time again that they want PvE to be cooperative and PvP to be consensual.
Yes, on normal servers. It was the same way in DAoC. And in AC. And in EQ. And in WoW. And Vanguard.
But all those games had special servers set aside for FFA PVP.
read before you respond. your question was answered before you posted.
it has to do with marketing, and mechanics.
short version:
marketing; it would alienate target market and create brand confusion.
mechanics; in order to make it possible, a ton of code would have to be rewritten and added. what you are proposing isn't a horrible idea, if properly developed. but can they afford to do it?
in order to get that pollitical dynamic to work coherently rather than having everyone with one bias towards quest givers, there would have to be more of a spectrum of the quest givers, and the abbility to quest with the various dynamic event groups (like the cenataurs which are invading the villiage). if the game is in beta it is close to release, and there isn't time to double or tripple the size of the game. that is what killed duke neukem.
you would have to develop exponential levels of content, and flavor text with far more context awareness. you want duplicity, but all questing/progression in PvE world is based on helping one side (including personal stories). it also means that griefing lowbies by killing quest givers is impossible. the lack keeps the game from breaking. by offering incentive to allow and reward people for doing whatever they want, you destroy the sense of communal accomplishment, it goes beyond dynamic content, which goes up and down a slider, and turns into FFA gameplay; the opposite of dynamic (but still railed) content. it isn't possible, because for allot of the game, it isn't possible. in the Wv2 (world vs two worlds) there are apparently allot of FFA events including FFA questing but that isn't dynamic events, it is a diferent type of thing. if you want you can go and solely play Wv2 events for all your leveling (after getting level 2) and experiance and it is exactly what you mean (though not what you ask for). and then if you want to work with others on PvE for some reason, you can leave the PvP server which is Wv2, and do the main part of the game. switching 'servers' (technically zones) and engaging with other people who want that type of gameplay can still be done, you just can't bully random PvErs or first timers who suck at the game and who refuse to PvP.
there is character migration from PvP to PvE so you can do any assortment or combination of content with one toon, and the content is oriented towards the relevant playstyle. why you would want PvE questing as a PvPer rather than PvP questing really doesn't make sense. creating a PvP server is as strange a claim as trying to make the PvP partition of a server PvE... it loses the enthrall, and the point of the zone. care bears get PvE and the abbility to listen to quests, without any of the game visible. PvPers get player kill quests...
how would people killing you while you watch a cinematic, make the game better in your opinion?
And GW2 is a game thats entirely bult around social interaction in a dynamic open world environment where community and espirt de corps in a PvE social interactive world is the reason for the game and a core philosophy of the Anet manefesto. Remove that and it simply does not work.
If you say is true then having a PvE only server in Mortal Online or Darkfall seperate and aside from the FFA PvP servers would do no more harm then anything else, in fact it might actually bring in more subscribers. As for AC1 and EQ those games were designed from the ground up to NOT foster a sense of community building, thats not to say they didnt but it wasnt the PRIMARY focus of the devs, whereas GW2 is designed to be a PRIMARILY socially cultivating experience. When a game has the core foundation as the pinnacle of social interaction then it makes fighting in WvW all the more worthwhile.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Conjecture : They wouldn't have to market the PvP server so I don't see how it'd hurt the "brand". It could only bring in more people.
and to the second, wrong.
PvP is a boolean value. On, or off. No rewritten code.
Now, if they wanted to go full bore and make a really good FFA PVP server by reworking all the mechanics, THAT'D take a lot. But that's not what the OP is asking for. The OP is only asking for a server like Mordred. Know what the only difference between Mordred and normal servers was? After level 20, anyone could attack you. And that's it. No other differences.
The reason I made the point about GW2 not being 'built for FFA PvP' is that I've seen it countless times in other MMOs (most notably WoW, but also Aion and others) where rules are changed, introduced or removed, skills are 'balanced' and items are adjusted all in the name of a certain playstyle (both PvP and PvE), and it is always to the detriment of the other.
Now granted GW2 would probably fare better than most as it is already heavily designed for PVP, but only in certain areas. Instant teleportation was just ome example, but world geography (choke points, town defences, layout (introduction) of safe areas, position of various key locations etc.) would be another; basically the PvE world has not been built with PvP in mind. To change something like that this late in development, or even at all, will be deterimental to the PvE experience that GW2 has been marketed as having.
....Oookay... but we're not removing that. Adding PvP does not elimate social interaction or the PvE aspect of the game. It builds on top of it. How is this hard to understand? You DON'T REMOVE ANYTHING.
Theres no reason because the game is designed from the ground floor to be a socially interactive MMO that promotes cooperation in the PvE setting fostering a sense of community pride twhereby that pride and willingness to help your fellow gamer on your world translates into the ultimate test of community building while in the WvW world. I for the life of me do not understand how anyone can argue against soemthing like this.
Watch the Anet GW2 Manefesto, the community hosted events, the word of mouth at all the cons, the game theory design conferences at GDC and elsewhere and you would be extremely naive to think that the developers want it.
Again every single MMO might have them but they were not designed to do what GW2 is attempting to do. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3uMlHSbPSY&feature=plcp&context=C4658907VDvjVQa1PpcFOBsrCpAGNlPrdS4mbuqv6ppfhfgyNlaT4%3D at the 1:11 min mark you might get a sense for what Anet is trying to do away with.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
[mod edit[
I don't think you get what Mordred is.
I don't think you get how FFA PVP works.
There seem to be about 3 people in this ENTIRE thread that understands what the OP is asking. He's not asking for a recoding of the whole game. He's NOT asking for PvPers and "evil ggank0rs" to invade your world. He asked for a Mordred. Perhaps you all should have googled what that meant first before responding with "THAT'S NOT TRUE, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!".
Mordred means, everything stays the same, except FFA PVP is turned on. That's it.
It wouldn't cost Anet time. It would not cost money beyond the server cost. It WOULD appeal to a large subset of gamers.
There's no reason a FFA PVP server would clash with the "manifesto". There's no reason it would confuse people. It'd simply be an option tacked onto the game giving even more options to even more players. It would not hurt you or your game experience yet you are CRUSADING against the very idea of it.
[mod edit]
Darkfall Travelogues!
BUT you see if you add in what you or the OP wants then you remove the core foundational principle of what the game is trying to accomplish. It builds nothing, it takes away because the game is NOT designed to be able to fight other players unless its in the WvW world. How is this hard to understand> You REMOVE EVERYTHING the game stands for if you are allowed to attack anyone wherever you want.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
No..it doesn't. People won't sudden stop interacting with one another just because there's PvP. If anything it'll drive people together even more because you'll NEED other people to survive. You'll need friends and guildies. How do you not understand this simple simple thing. Have you ever played a PvP game, ever?
I don't care if an OPTIONAL SERVER'S VERY PRESSENCE damages or goes against YOUR INTERPRETATION OF A MANIFESTO (a marketing gimmick) it will NOT change the mechanics of the game and thus NOTHING is removed.
Darkfall Travelogues!
Good God, you really hove no idea do you?
Adding enjoyable FFA is far from "just turning it on". To make FFA work, it has to be considered in every design step along the way. The world has to be designed with FFA in mind, the scripted events have to be designed to with FFA in mind, NPC AI in general has to be designed with FFA in mind... and thats only mentioning few random things of the top of my head.
So yeah. Not as simple as just enabling FFA. It would take considerable amount of time to rework all the game content to make it enjoyable and to meet Anet quality standards.
I played AC1 and DAoC so I know full well what FFA PvP is. I have no problem with it personally as I understand its a fun challenge for a certain niche gamers.
I understand the OP is not asking to change anything but flip a switch. Heres the deal though do what you say....how do you correlate that into the WvW world in the mists? the simple solution I would guess is to not have them be able to participate in WvW because I assure you that server wouldnt stand a chance in the grand scheme of things because while the rest of the servers are building communities that server is destroying it because that server would be fighting against themselves 99% of the time. Plus you have to consider the foundation of the game world itself, if theres FFA world what do you do about the shared crafting nodes, the shared loot drops, the shared experience gain and on and on and on.
This simple answer is it wouldnt work, the devs have stated repeatedly that GW2 is designed to bring the massively back into the massievely multiplayer, take away the community building that is designed and you take away the game itself.... VERY simple to understand.
Look if you like PvP thats awesome, I do too! I played DAoC for 2+ years until Mythic bastardized the game with ToA. Mordred worked but it was by and away the least popular server and less we forget they also released Andred server which didnt last long at all.
I would think you very much if you wouldnt resort to ad-hominem attacks jsut because I disagree with you, ive enjoyed a lively spirited debate so far so no sense in ruining it with personal attacks on my intelligence, because I sir have lived and breathed GW2 for a while now and I see with my very own eyes what the deves are attempting to accomplish.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
In the end, Guild Wars 2 will never offer FFA PvP servers. The devs have shown no signs of wanting to add such a feature, or even thinking about it and the game world simply isn't built for it. It is built around community building and implementing FFA PvP would mean that ArenaNet have completely gone against the their design philosophy of bring players together. It would effectively ruin the game they are trying to build.
People can bitch & moan all they want, but nothing is going to change, regarding this feature and GW2.
Exactly.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
^This. Just like I and others have said... The game simply isn't built with any sort of PvP server in mind and simply flipping a switch would simply go against the various community building features that ArenaNet have spent years developing and implementing.
It doesn't take a fanboy to see that and I seriously hate how people label others as fanboys, just because the individual is knowledgable on a product.
Edit: Great minds think alike.