this can not be done with out a a big time rewrute of the code yes to add pvp and make it open world may not be but adding pvp to what the world is now whould have work.
rember the is no mob tagging any more so if you try and kill a player in a fight with mobs you will also be a target of the mobs also do not forget about sidekicking you will be at the same lvl if you go to a zone lower then your current lvl so there is a good chance that player may kill you back.
so here what happens
PvPkiller: i think i will kill that player fighting 5 mobs this should be easy.... WTF 3 of the mobs are comeing after me.
PvEplayer: thanks for the help.
PvPkiller: was not here to help but kill you so here we go.
PvEplayer: kills PvPkiller
PvPkiller: wtf this noob kill me damm that right i was sidekicked down...hey areanet this open world pvp skuck's i can not kill any one you need to make it so mobs do not come after me and take the sidekicking out and give me end game gear etc...
this can not be done with out a a big time rewrute of the code yes to add pvp and make it open world may not be but adding pvp to what the world is now whould have work.
rember the is no mob tagging any more so if you try and kill a player in a fight with mobs you will also be a target of the mobs also do not forget about sidekicking you will be at the same lvl if you go to a zone lower then your current lvl so there is a good chance that player may kill you back.
so here what happens
PvPkiller: i think i will kill that player fighting 5 mobs this should be easy.... WTF 3 of the mobs are comeing after me.
PvEplayer: thanks for the help.
PvPkiller: was not here to help but kill you so here we go.
PvEplayer: kills PvPkiller
PvPkiller: wtf this noob kill me damm that right i was sidekicked down...hey areanet this open world pvp skuck's i can not kill any one you need to make it so mobs do not come after me and take the sidekicking out and give me end game gear etc...
haha, that's exactly what would happen, which is why I'm glad GW2 is not budging and caving in to their "ganking" tantrums
Is it that hard to just set up a server with a FFA rule set now days? One server IMO can only do a MMO good not bad so I fail to see the reason.
Darkfall is a game with that ruleset and it seems to be hard for them to set up a pve only server for those not interested in that ruleset so why should Guild Wars 2 be expected to do any different?
So much for the game being called "Guild" Wars if there is no "Guild" Wars going on.
Here is what I would do If I had any say, I would make 1 FFA PvP server with the rules below:
1. A player can be attacked by any other player any where at any time unless (see 2. , 3. & 4.)
2. A players can not be attacked if they are in a group with thoses players.
3. A player can not be attacked by members of the same Guild.
4. A player can not be attacked by members of the same server in a W v W map.
IMO a server with the rule set listed above will give the player a sense of fear when playing out in the wild, also encourage grouping and guilds and giving the players a greater sense of control over there game (Less Scripted Game Play)
Remember NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to join this type of server if you do not enjoy this type of rule set but for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
Again is someone wanting a PVP server going to find a solution for the PVE mechanics lol.
Like we might have to list em out seperately.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
... for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
Yes, they said exactly that about Darkfall. Read the forum archives for that game, if you have the chance. Or Tasos wild fabrications. We all know just how well that worked out.
Enough PVP Utopia dejá-vus. I'd rather have a robust system that empowers everyone, instead of just empowering a handful.
So much for the game being called "Guild" Wars if there is no "Guild" Wars going on.
Here is what I would do If I had any say, I would make 1 FFA PvP server with the rules below:
1. A player can be attacked by any other player any where at any time unless (see 2. , 3. & 4.)
2. A players can not be attacked if they are in a group with thoses players.
3. A player can not be attacked by members of the same Guild.
4. A player can not be attacked by members of the same server in a W v W map.
IMO a server with the rule set listed above will give the player a sense of fear when playing out in the wild, also encourage grouping and guilds and giving the players a greater sense of control over there game (Less Scripted Game Play)
Remember NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to join this type of server if you do not enjoy this type of rule set but for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
How would you change the PvE side of the game without drastically changing the core design and thus requiring a waste of developer time and resources? Remember almost all melee attacks hit in an arc and all ranged attacks hit everything located between the caster and the targer, so how would you make that work in a PvE environment without turning every dynamic event into a free for all brawl?
... for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
Yes, they said exactly that about Darkfall. Read the forum archives for that game, if you have the chance. Or Tasos wild fabrications. We all know just how well that worked out.
Enough PVP Utopia dejá-vus. I'd rather have a robust system that empowers everyone, instead of just empowering a hadful.
I played Darkfall and I didn't like the game at all, the game felt cheap the engine choppy, I want a AAA MMO like Guild Wars to give players a watered down version of a FFA played on a soild AAA game engine like Guild Wars 2.
The problem with alot of the other FFA MMO out there is that they lack the AAA feel, polish and detail to game play.
So much for the game being called "Guild" Wars if there is no "Guild" Wars going on.
Here is what I would do If I had any say, I would make 1 FFA PvP server with the rules below:
1. A player can be attacked by any other player any where at any time unless (see 2. , 3. & 4.)
2. A players can not be attacked if they are in a group with thoses players.
3. A player can not be attacked by members of the same Guild.
4. A player can not be attacked by members of the same server in a W v W map.
IMO a server with the rule set listed above will give the player a sense of fear when playing out in the wild, also encourage grouping and guilds and giving the players a greater sense of control over there game (Less Scripted Game Play)
Remember NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to join this type of server if you do not enjoy this type of rule set but for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
So much for the game being called "Guild" Wars if there is no "Guild" Wars going on.
Here is what I would do If I had any say, I would make 1 FFA PvP server with the rules below:
1. A player can be attacked by any other player any where at any time unless (see 2. , 3. & 4.)
2. A players can not be attacked if they are in a group with thoses players.
3. A player can not be attacked by members of the same Guild.
4. A player can not be attacked by members of the same server in a W v W map.
IMO a server with the rule set listed above will give the player a sense of fear when playing out in the wild, also encourage grouping and guilds and giving the players a greater sense of control over there game (Less Scripted Game Play)
Remember NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to join this type of server if you do not enjoy this type of rule set but for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
How would you change the PvE side of the game without drastically changing the core design and thus requiring a waste of developer time and resources? Remember almost all melee attacks hit in an arc and all ranged attacks hit everything located between the caster and the targer, so how would you make that work in a PvE environment without turning every dynamic event into a free for all brawl?
Easy, to avoid friendly fire a player must be in the same group, raid also can make it that friendly fire can be avoided if a player is on each others friends list.
So much for the game being called "Guild" Wars if there is no "Guild" Wars going on.
Here is what I would do If I had any say, I would make 1 FFA PvP server with the rules below:
1. A player can be attacked by any other player any where at any time unless (see 2. , 3. & 4.)
2. A players can not be attacked if they are in a group with thoses players.
3. A player can not be attacked by members of the same Guild.
4. A player can not be attacked by members of the same server in a W v W map.
IMO a server with the rule set listed above will give the player a sense of fear when playing out in the wild, also encourage grouping and guilds and giving the players a greater sense of control over there game (Less Scripted Game Play)
Remember NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to join this type of server if you do not enjoy this type of rule set but for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
Thank you for the chuckle. Pretty much lost any credibility right on the first line.
You want a different game... clearly... perhaps GW2 is not for you.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
So much for the game being called "Guild" Wars if there is no "Guild" Wars going on.
Here is what I would do If I had any say, I would make 1 FFA PvP server with the rules below:
1. A player can be attacked by any other player any where at any time unless (see 2. , 3. & 4.)
2. A players can not be attacked if they are in a group with thoses players.
3. A player can not be attacked by members of the same Guild.
4. A player can not be attacked by members of the same server in a W v W map.
IMO a server with the rule set listed above will give the player a sense of fear when playing out in the wild, also encourage grouping and guilds and giving the players a greater sense of control over there game (Less Scripted Game Play)
Remember NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to join this type of server if you do not enjoy this type of rule set but for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
How would you change the PvE side of the game without drastically changing the core design and thus requiring a waste of developer time and resources? Remember almost all melee attacks hit in an arc and all ranged attacks hit everything located between the caster and the targer, so how would you make that work in a PvE environment without turning every dynamic event into a free for all brawl?
Easy, to avoid friendly fire a player must be in the same group, raid also can make it that friendly fire can be avoided if a player is on each others friends list.
And thus you're changing the core design of the game and adding new features, wasting developer time and resources for a server that will be used by a handful of people.
I'm going to miss the random encounters while out in the open World and for me personally this is what is holding me back from buying GW2 the lack of World pvp encounters, I understand that we will be given WvWvW zones and I love the idea of that but I still want my random encounters.
My question is where, how and who do I express my concerns to about them just adding 1 server with this type of rule set?
For the last 10 years I have been looking for a AAA MMO that would at least give me a feel of danger in the World like Asherons' Call 1 did almost a decade ago, I am just sick of waiting and wishing and to tell you the truth I am about at my wits end and just might stop playing MMO's or videos games for that matter all together.
What is so god dam hard about getting it right, Its like they give cool things but then take away other things, why can't a MMO have it all for all types of player, is it that hard to just set up a server with a FFA rule set now days? One server IMO can only do a MMO good not bad so I fail to see the reason.
I understand that in GW2 we all all trying to kill some dragons but that still lacks reason why someone can't attack a alli or enemy, it;s like all MMO's today are created by a bunch of pansies that hate, fear the thrill of a online Worldy danger unless it is scripted, I mean really WTF is going on with this industry?
I wish to fear 14 year old gankers as i quest and to gank others.
If the designers don't make me feel the danger, then why am i paying them for the game. I certainly am not paying u or anyone else, so why in the world do i espect u to provide me the danger.
PVP and RPGs go together like water and Mercury (the planet). RPG is the noun, mass multiplayer online is a the adjectives. MMORPGs should simply feel like RPGs i can play with other people. Never played an RPG where random ly your party attacks itself with no story purpose, rhyme or reason.
This doesn't even make sense, do you even understand the design of the game. For some people this just feels like the concept is inconceivable. They haveon IDEA what a role playing game is.
So much for the game being called "Guild" Wars if there is no "Guild" Wars going on.
Here what I would do If I had any say, I would make 1 FFA PvP server with the rules below:
1. A player can be attacked by any other player any where at any time unless (see 2. , 3. & 4.)
2. A players can not be attacked if they are in a group with thoses players.
3. A player can not be attacked by members of the same Guild.
4. A player can not be attacked by members of the same server in a W v W map.
IMO a server with the rule set listed above will give the player a sence of fear when playing out in the wild also encourage grouping and guilds and also give the players a greater sense of control over there game (Less Scripted Game Play)
Remember NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to join this type of server if you do not enjoy this type of rule set but for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
whats so hard about not playing GW2 and playing a game that is designed for your playstyle? Why are you not playing TERA?
FFA-PvP doesn't work with GW2, and why would they put out the effort to make it work for a distint MINORITY playerbase. In their current build, you can rez anyone and they do not have a choice about being rezzed, they just wake up. If you had FFA-PVP then a player could kill someone, rez them, then kill them, rez them.... etc.
It also totally defeats the aspect of not forcing grouping while keeping players playing together. Your idea actually destroys the most positive aspect of this game.
So remember, NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY GW2. Drop it, move on, and play something else.
I think the idea is, the OP and others like him like the idea of this game, but want to see that one feature added. Nothing wrong with that. Now, I think they haven't got a chance because it's too much of a mechanics change to do (at least short term), plus it goes against how Anet seems to want to do things. But they have a right to make the suggestion. More power to em. If they get themselves a open server they can go play on it, and people that don't like it can play elsewhere, and everyone can be happy. Yay! Group hug?
... for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
Yes, they said exactly that about Darkfall. Read the forum archives for that game, if you have the chance. Or Tasos wild fabrications. We all know just how well that worked out.
Enough PVP Utopia dejá-vus. I'd rather have a robust system that empowers everyone, instead of just empowering a hadful.
I played Darkfall and I didn't like the game at all, the game felt cheap the engine choppy, I want a AAA MMO like Guild Wars to give players a watered down version of a FFA played on a soild AAA game engine like Guild Wars 2.
The problem with alot of the other FFA MMO out there is that they lack the AAA feel, polish and detail to game play.
Doesn't Age of Conan have what you seek,a AAA game with an awesome looking world and a FFA pvp server-Blood and Glory I believe its name is.
NOt to mention that, once again, there is no intelligent story reason for PVP in this game. Eve is the only game where, a remotely see why the attack one another, free space, pirate culture yada yada yada.
The idea of community and playing together is such a foreign culture to these pvp folks that have infested MMORPGs, that they can only blame themselves for stale game design. PVP started as a technical flaw, it couldn't be prevented, not a design choice. Makes me wish the had waited just 5 more years before the first MMORPGs came out. Then you would have had MMORPGs and MMOFPSs, what pvpers really want.
I played Darkfall and I didn't like the game at all, the game felt cheap the engine choppy, I want a AAA MMO like Guild Wars to give players a watered down version of a FFA played on a soild AAA game engine like Guild Wars 2.
The problem with alot of the other FFA MMO out there is that they lack the AAA feel, polish and detail to game play.
And herein lies the crux of the problem: It's impossible to have it all. From what you described, looks like FFA was more important to you than refinement.
That's why we want GW2 to stay as it is: it is refined and different. Why mar it frankensteining it with some horrible FFA graft?
As others have suggested, Tera looks like a game more to your liking, FFAPVP servers and all. It's brand new and good production values, so it seems. Looks like your cup of tea.
I can understand why some one would want to play FFA PvP. The issue is that it just doesn't work with the way GW2's DE and skills work. Every one would be killing eachother during a DE even if they didn't mean to.
I dont know about skills, but in FFA/PVP server it's not supposed to be all nice and friends around DE's. Just make a system where you dont hurt your team mates. Other harm than that, is what the these people actually want, they dont want to be safe or friends at DE's.
Yeah that's going to make it damn near impossible to beat a larger DE with a big boss. It just doesn't fit in with the design philosophy from the ground up.
Yeah I really do get that, the DE's would get really ugly. That's what these players want. That's the point of this kind of mentality and philosophy, and the beauty of server options is that you dont have to pay any attention to other styles of play/servers unless you choose to.
Personally I hate FFA(+full loot PvP) system, and I believe that other games that apply these kinds of rules would have a lot more players if they stick with these rules but also offer different kinds of server with FFA but no full loot, and also PvE style of play.
Obviously GW2 will do great with just one type of servers, they dont need more to be succesfull, GW2 will be wildly succesfull anyway, but it would be a grand gesture from them to add just one/few PvP servers and one/few RP servers just because they can. Maybe it would be just a minor boost to player numbers but it would promote them and their "we want players to play our game the way they want to" phrase. I'm fine if they dont do this.
The game isn't built around the idea of open world PvP. Hence it's useless trying to force the idea of open world PvP into the game. I love PvP greatly, but even I clearly see that open world PvP won't work. The dynamic events would be chaotic. It's just not that type of game to accommodate such a mechanic. If that doesn't fly with you, then GW2 is simply not your game.
I'm not even sure such a mechanic will work out well in any game nowadays. There are just way too many griefers. Hell, a friend of mine got so tired of it in Tera, he rerolled on a PvE server despite being almost max level. If you want yourself some AAA open world PvP right now, hit up Tera. Oh, and don't forget Rift, there's some open world pvp there too. You can also patiently wait for ArcheAge as well, which still doesn't have a publisher surprisingly. Still hoping for open world PvP in GW2? Don't hold your breath.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed: And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!" ~Lord George Gordon Byron
So much for the game being called "Guild" Wars if there is no "Guild" Wars going on.
Here is what I would do If I had any say, I would make 1 FFA PvP server with the rules below:
1. A player can be attacked by any other player any where at any time unless (see 2. , 3. & 4.)
2. A players can not be attacked if they are in a group with thoses players.
3. A player can not be attacked by members of the same Guild.
4. A player can not be attacked by members of the same server in a W v W map.
IMO a server with the rule set listed above will give the player a sense of fear when playing out in the wild, also encourage grouping and guilds and giving the players a greater sense of control over there game (Less Scripted Game Play)
Remember NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to join this type of server if you do not enjoy this type of rule set but for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
How would you change the PvE side of the game without drastically changing the core design and thus requiring a waste of developer time and resources? Remember almost all melee attacks hit in an arc and all ranged attacks hit everything located between the caster and the targer, so how would you make that work in a PvE environment without turning every dynamic event into a free for all brawl?
Easy, to avoid friendly fire a player must be in the same group, raid also can make it that friendly fire can be avoided if a player is on each others friends list.
And thus you're changing the core design of the game and adding new features, wasting developer time and resources for a server that will be used by a handful of people.
Well im pretty sure it's more then a handful of people, and to tell you the truth I will happy pay a monthly fee for a server with this type of rule set to make this profitable for Arenanet.
So much for the game being called "Guild" Wars if there is no "Guild" Wars going on.
Here is what I would do If I had any say, I would make 1 FFA PvP server with the rules below:
1. A player can be attacked by any other player any where at any time unless (see 2. , 3. & 4.)
2. A players can not be attacked if they are in a group with thoses players.
3. A player can not be attacked by members of the same Guild.
4. A player can not be attacked by members of the same server in a W v W map.
IMO a server with the rule set listed above will give the player a sense of fear when playing out in the wild, also encourage grouping and guilds and giving the players a greater sense of control over there game (Less Scripted Game Play)
Remember NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to join this type of server if you do not enjoy this type of rule set but for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
How would you change the PvE side of the game without drastically changing the core design and thus requiring a waste of developer time and resources? Remember almost all melee attacks hit in an arc and all ranged attacks hit everything located between the caster and the targer, so how would you make that work in a PvE environment without turning every dynamic event into a free for all brawl?
Easy, to avoid friendly fire a player must be in the same group, raid also can make it that friendly fire can be avoided if a player is on each others friends list.
And thus you're changing the core design of the game and adding new features, wasting developer time and resources for a server that will be used by a handful of people.
Well im pretty sure it's more then a handful of people, and to tell you the truth I will happy pay a monthly fee for a server with this type of rule set to make this profitable for Arenanet.
Warjin if your serious about this please find a solution for this.
PVP server now how will it work and make sense with GW 2's pve lol?
What's sad is I have a feeling your solution will sound identical to another feature GW 2 has.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
But hey if this did happen think of the bright side,they might be so fractured in WvW because of all the pent up grudges and frustrations from being ganked that they might find it difficult to set aside their differences and work together thereby being an easy win for the other server. =P
So much for the game being called "Guild" Wars if there is no "Guild" Wars going on.
Here is what I would do If I had any say, I would make 1 FFA PvP server with the rules below:
1. A player can be attacked by any other player any where at any time unless (see 2. , 3. & 4.)
2. A players can not be attacked if they are in a group with thoses players.
3. A player can not be attacked by members of the same Guild.
4. A player can not be attacked by members of the same server in a W v W map.
IMO a server with the rule set listed above will give the player a sense of fear when playing out in the wild, also encourage grouping and guilds and giving the players a greater sense of control over there game (Less Scripted Game Play)
Remember NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to join this type of server if you do not enjoy this type of rule set but for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
How would you change the PvE side of the game without drastically changing the core design and thus requiring a waste of developer time and resources? Remember almost all melee attacks hit in an arc and all ranged attacks hit everything located between the caster and the targer, so how would you make that work in a PvE environment without turning every dynamic event into a free for all brawl?
Easy, to avoid friendly fire a player must be in the same group, raid also can make it that friendly fire can be avoided if a player is on each others friends list.
And thus you're changing the core design of the game and adding new features, wasting developer time and resources for a server that will be used by a handful of people.
Well im pretty sure it's more then a handful of people, and to tell you the truth I will happy pay a monthly fee for a server with this type of rule set to make this profitable for Arenanet.
$15 a month is not going to recoup the cost of having a team of developers changing half the game to satisfy an extreme minority.
Comments
What about a FFA-PVP-Perma-Death-Server?^^
As many have already said: There are enough games that have PvP-Servers. GW2 delivers another system with a lot of good ideas.
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.
this can not be done with out a a big time rewrute of the code yes to add pvp and make it open world may not be but adding pvp to what the world is now whould have work.
rember the is no mob tagging any more so if you try and kill a player in a fight with mobs you will also be a target of the mobs also do not forget about sidekicking you will be at the same lvl if you go to a zone lower then your current lvl so there is a good chance that player may kill you back.
so here what happens
PvPkiller: i think i will kill that player fighting 5 mobs this should be easy.... WTF 3 of the mobs are comeing after me.
PvEplayer: thanks for the help.
PvPkiller: was not here to help but kill you so here we go.
PvEplayer: kills PvPkiller
PvPkiller: wtf this noob kill me damm that right i was sidekicked down...hey areanet this open world pvp skuck's i can not kill any one you need to make it so mobs do not come after me and take the sidekicking out and give me end game gear etc...
haha, that's exactly what would happen, which is why I'm glad GW2 is not budging and caving in to their "ganking" tantrums
Darkfall is a game with that ruleset and it seems to be hard for them to set up a pve only server for those not interested in that ruleset so why should Guild Wars 2 be expected to do any different?
So much for the game being called "Guild" Wars if there is no "Guild" Wars going on.
Here is what I would do If I had any say, I would make 1 FFA PvP server with the rules below:
1. A player can be attacked by any other player any where at any time unless (see 2. , 3. & 4.)
2. A players can not be attacked if they are in a group with thoses players.
3. A player can not be attacked by members of the same Guild.
4. A player can not be attacked by members of the same server in a W v W map.
IMO a server with the rule set listed above will give the player a sense of fear when playing out in the wild, also encourage grouping and guilds and giving the players a greater sense of control over there game (Less Scripted Game Play)
Remember NO ONE IS FORCING YOU to join this type of server if you do not enjoy this type of rule set but for the players that like the sense fear & danger, back stabbing & betrayal with a player controlled political system governed the players this will be a dream come true.
Again is someone wanting a PVP server going to find a solution for the PVE mechanics lol.
Like we might have to list em out seperately.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Yes, they said exactly that about Darkfall. Read the forum archives for that game, if you have the chance. Or Tasos wild fabrications. We all know just how well that worked out.
Enough PVP Utopia dejá-vus. I'd rather have a robust system that empowers everyone, instead of just empowering a handful.
How would you change the PvE side of the game without drastically changing the core design and thus requiring a waste of developer time and resources? Remember almost all melee attacks hit in an arc and all ranged attacks hit everything located between the caster and the targer, so how would you make that work in a PvE environment without turning every dynamic event into a free for all brawl?
I played Darkfall and I didn't like the game at all, the game felt cheap the engine choppy, I want a AAA MMO like Guild Wars to give players a watered down version of a FFA played on a soild AAA game engine like Guild Wars 2.
The problem with alot of the other FFA MMO out there is that they lack the AAA feel, polish and detail to game play.
Guild Wars gets is name from the lore not pvp
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/The_Guild_Wars
Easy, to avoid friendly fire a player must be in the same group, raid also can make it that friendly fire can be avoided if a player is on each others friends list.
Thank you for the chuckle. Pretty much lost any credibility right on the first line.
You want a different game... clearly... perhaps GW2 is not for you.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
And thus you're changing the core design of the game and adding new features, wasting developer time and resources for a server that will be used by a handful of people.
I wish to fear 14 year old gankers as i quest and to gank others.
If the designers don't make me feel the danger, then why am i paying them for the game. I certainly am not paying u or anyone else, so why in the world do i espect u to provide me the danger.
PVP and RPGs go together like water and Mercury (the planet). RPG is the noun, mass multiplayer online is a the adjectives. MMORPGs should simply feel like RPGs i can play with other people. Never played an RPG where random ly your party attacks itself with no story purpose, rhyme or reason.
This doesn't even make sense, do you even understand the design of the game. For some people this just feels like the concept is inconceivable. They haveon IDEA what a role playing game is.
whats so hard about not playing GW2 and playing a game that is designed for your playstyle? Why are you not playing TERA?
FFA-PvP doesn't work with GW2, and why would they put out the effort to make it work for a distint MINORITY playerbase. In their current build, you can rez anyone and they do not have a choice about being rezzed, they just wake up. If you had FFA-PVP then a player could kill someone, rez them, then kill them, rez them.... etc.
It also totally defeats the aspect of not forcing grouping while keeping players playing together. Your idea actually destroys the most positive aspect of this game.
So remember, NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO PLAY GW2. Drop it, move on, and play something else.
I think the idea is, the OP and others like him like the idea of this game, but want to see that one feature added. Nothing wrong with that. Now, I think they haven't got a chance because it's too much of a mechanics change to do (at least short term), plus it goes against how Anet seems to want to do things. But they have a right to make the suggestion. More power to em. If they get themselves a open server they can go play on it, and people that don't like it can play elsewhere, and everyone can be happy. Yay! Group hug?
Doesn't Age of Conan have what you seek,a AAA game with an awesome looking world and a FFA pvp server-Blood and Glory I believe its name is.
NOt to mention that, once again, there is no intelligent story reason for PVP in this game. Eve is the only game where, a remotely see why the attack one another, free space, pirate culture yada yada yada.
The idea of community and playing together is such a foreign culture to these pvp folks that have infested MMORPGs, that they can only blame themselves for stale game design. PVP started as a technical flaw, it couldn't be prevented, not a design choice. Makes me wish the had waited just 5 more years before the first MMORPGs came out. Then you would have had MMORPGs and MMOFPSs, what pvpers really want.
And herein lies the crux of the problem: It's impossible to have it all. From what you described, looks like FFA was more important to you than refinement.
That's why we want GW2 to stay as it is: it is refined and different. Why mar it frankensteining it with some horrible FFA graft?
As others have suggested, Tera looks like a game more to your liking, FFAPVP servers and all. It's brand new and good production values, so it seems. Looks like your cup of tea.
Yeah I really do get that, the DE's would get really ugly. That's what these players want. That's the point of this kind of mentality and philosophy, and the beauty of server options is that you dont have to pay any attention to other styles of play/servers unless you choose to.
Personally I hate FFA(+full loot PvP) system, and I believe that other games that apply these kinds of rules would have a lot more players if they stick with these rules but also offer different kinds of server with FFA but no full loot, and also PvE style of play.
Obviously GW2 will do great with just one type of servers, they dont need more to be succesfull, GW2 will be wildly succesfull anyway, but it would be a grand gesture from them to add just one/few PvP servers and one/few RP servers just because they can. Maybe it would be just a minor boost to player numbers but it would promote them and their "we want players to play our game the way they want to" phrase. I'm fine if they dont do this.
The game isn't built around the idea of open world PvP. Hence it's useless trying to force the idea of open world PvP into the game. I love PvP greatly, but even I clearly see that open world PvP won't work. The dynamic events would be chaotic. It's just not that type of game to accommodate such a mechanic. If that doesn't fly with you, then GW2 is simply not your game.
I'm not even sure such a mechanic will work out well in any game nowadays. There are just way too many griefers. Hell, a friend of mine got so tired of it in Tera, he rerolled on a PvE server despite being almost max level. If you want yourself some AAA open world PvP right now, hit up Tera. Oh, and don't forget Rift, there's some open world pvp there too. You can also patiently wait for ArcheAge as well, which still doesn't have a publisher surprisingly. Still hoping for open world PvP in GW2? Don't hold your breath.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"
~Lord George Gordon Byron
Well im pretty sure it's more then a handful of people, and to tell you the truth I will happy pay a monthly fee for a server with this type of rule set to make this profitable for Arenanet.
Warjin if your serious about this please find a solution for this.
PVP server now how will it work and make sense with GW 2's pve lol?
What's sad is I have a feeling your solution will sound identical to another feature GW 2 has.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
But hey if this did happen think of the bright side,they might be so fractured in WvW because of all the pent up grudges and frustrations from being ganked that they might find it difficult to set aside their differences and work together thereby being an easy win for the other server. =P
$15 a month is not going to recoup the cost of having a team of developers changing half the game to satisfy an extreme minority.