RvR is an incomplete system.

Nilden

This is about any RvR system from GW 2, DAOC, ESO, or the upcoming Camelot Unchained if done the same way etc. I'll explain why I think this and what system would feel more complete to me.

The reason it is incomplete is because of the faction/realm lock. While some people would cite realm pride or loyalty I would have much more of either in something if it was my guild that I was fighting for. This can be done by having guilds build cities/towns and able to war or ally with other guilds forming alliances, having neighbours, and actual friends or enemies that you get to pick and are not presented to you by the game. See EVE or Shadowbane for the basic premise.

MaxJac

Originally posted by nilden

This is about any RvR system from GW 2, DAOC, ESO, or the upcoming Camelot Unchained if done the same way etc. I'll explain why I think this and what system would feel more complete to me.

The reason it is incomplete is because of the faction/realm lock. While some people would cite realm pride or loyalty I would have much more of either in something if it was my guild that I was fighting for. This can be done by having guilds build cities/towns and able to war or ally with other guilds forming alliances, having neighbours, and actual friends or enemies that you get to pick and are not presented to you by the game. See EVE or Shadowbane for the basic premise.

Or look at your avatar. Minecraft servers often have players decide who they want to fight and who they will ally with. I am not prepared to throw RvR under the buss, Warhammer was one of my favorite PvP experiences ever, but I would rather have a game that placed emphasis on guilds.

Anthur

It's not incomplete it is just different.

You propose Guild vs Guild and DAoC does Realm vs Realm, GW2 server vs server and ESO whatever they will use.

Different concepts based on the same idea. Each one has it's pro and cons.

Nilden

Originally posted by Anthur

It's not incomplete it is just different.

You propose Guild vs Guild and DAoC does Realm vs Realm, GW2 server vs server and ESO whatever they will use.

Different concepts based on the same idea. Each one has it's pro and cons.

I feel like the RvR system is missing something hence why I elude to it being incomplete. What it's missing is the freedom to make friends or enemies. Who is on what team and even the teams themself just get picked for you unless you make an effort to circumvent the game and join RL friends/use a forum to join a guild on a certain team beforehand.

 

tom_gore

I've stated in many other threads that player factions trump locked dev factions 100-0 in practically all aspects that matter. You think EVE Online would still be alive if the players would be locked with their initial faction for PvP forever?

ForumPvP

it is complete system for those who dont want to PvP.

MMOExposed

Originally posted by tom_gore
I've stated in many other threads that player factions trump locked dev factions 100-0 in practically all aspects that matter. You think EVE Online would still be alive if the players would be locked with their initial faction for PvP forever?

Yes because FFA is popular now days....

 

Edit:

 

Wow a time warp paradox!!!

I posted this statement back in 1997, but its just getting posted on the thread.

Grandfather paradox!

Distopia

It really boils down to accessibility: while Guild alliances and enemies fighting over property tends to create a more passionate form of PVP, it's really only accessible to those in those guilds, RvR systems are open to everyone.

Nilden

Originally posted by Distopia
It really boils down to accessibility: while Guild alliances and enemies fighting over property tends to create a more passionate form of PVP, it's really only accessible to those in those guilds, RvR systems are open to everyone.

This is a very valid point. It could be solved by having default factions that you join at character creation that you can then leave.

Rider071

DAoC played with your idea with 2 specialized servers long ago. You could travel to any realm, play any race. Guild warfare was to be the focus, instead of realm vs realm. There were 2 ruleset servers one was FFA the other more care-bearish.

This philosophy was proven again and again to inhibit RvR play.  On the care-bear server, there was basically no RvR, just people enjoying the ability to quest and play in any realm, nothing wrong there.

On the FFA server, it was more of a gank-fest, no real realm vs realm at all, just heated battles of groups but mainly solo players raising hell.

Either way, they were both considerably less populations than the regular game servers.

So if you were a game developer,. what would you draw from that experiment?

Kyleran

There are certain positives to faction based RVR, most notable being the automatic inclusion of everyone on a team, regardless of guild affiliation or lack thereof. I preferred playing on Mordred, the FFA PVP server on DAOC back in the day, but it was a real challenge to get in one of the major guilds on the server, and until you got in one you were mostly fodder.

kosac

yea aliance wars are best solution RvR is to much closed system...

Redgorilla

One of the best PvP systems I've ever had was Guild vs Guild in Ultima Online. You War other guilds you want to or just deceide to be a guild not waring with anyone. Also the Order vs Chaos in Ultima Online was awesome. Choose rather you are order or chaos and you fight the opposing faction anywhere. Town warcraft with a guild vs guild system was awesome. Sitting at the bank and all of the sudden two huge guilds show up and battle it out. 

 

  No matter what you try and say THAT ^^^ was and alway will be the best system for PvP. Don't want to PvP then don't go Order or Chaos and don't accept any War status' with anyone. I was lucky enough to be on Chesapeake server and in the best guild Keepers of Chaos / Iron Chefs and we would show up ANYWHERE and word would get around and all of the sudden two or three allied guilds would show up and battle.

ShakyMo

I like both, when done right. Trouble is rvr has only been done right twice - by daoc & planetside.

The main advantage rvr has over ffa is only apparent once the game has matured. Rvr is less intimidating to new players when your game is 6 months or so + old. If you come into an existing rvr game after 6 months you know you only have to worry about 2/3rds of the players, you've got some ready made backup.

Also some people just don't want to get involved in politics and intrigue.

But hey I really like daoc and eve. They're the two best mmos imo.

One sort of pvp I don't like is all this Esports bullshit and the lies that come with it like the mythical "balance in a mmo" pedaled to us by the likes of arenanet and blizzard.

Kyleran

Originally posted by Redgorilla

One of the best PvP systems I've ever had was Guild vs Guild in Ultima Online. You War other guilds you want to or just deceide to be a guild not waring with anyone. Also the Order vs Chaos in Ultima Online was awesome. Choose rather you are order or chaos and you fight the opposing faction anywhere. Town warcraft with a guild vs guild system was awesome. Sitting at the bank and all of the sudden two huge guilds show up and battle it out. 

 

  No matter what you try and say THAT ^^^ was and alway will be the best system for PvP. Don't want to PvP then don't go Order or Chaos and don't accept any War status' with anyone. I was lucky enough to be on Chesapeake server and in the best guild Keepers of Chaos / Iron Chefs and we would show up ANYWHERE and word would get around and all of the sudden two or three allied guilds would show up and battle.

Hmm, first time I've ever seen anyone say this about UO, it has always been famous for its FFA PVP at least according to most posters in these forums. (Pre-Trammel and all that).  Were  you on some sort of alternate rules server or is this a post-Trammel thing?

 

Icewhite

Originally posted by Anthur

It's not incomplete it is just different.

I want it to be just exactly like my fave (game X) instead of bob's fave (Game Y).

How many many threads have begun from that basic premise?

ShakyMo

Would add ffa makes sense in a game like eve where you have economic drivers and player loot.

Ffa in.m themeparks like say wow pvp servers is VASTLY INFERIOR to a daoc / planetside type system.

meddyck

They tried that in DAOC on the Mordred server. It flopped just like Shadowbane and most other FFA/GvG systems. 

tom_gore

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by tom_gore
I've stated in many other threads that player factions trump locked dev factions 100-0 in practically all aspects that matter. You think EVE Online would still be alive if the players would be locked with their initial faction for PvP forever?

Yes because FFA is popular now days....

 

Edit:

 

Wow a time warp paradox!!!

I posted this statement back in 1997, but its just getting posted on the thread.

Grandfather paradox!

 

The problem is that developers somehow think that introducing player factions somehow requires FFA PvP (with full loot). There is nothing in the fabric of reality that forces this. You can have consent-only PvP (separate areas or whole world) while having player factions. Ultima Online did this with the Renaissance expansion, but after that no other game has taken this route and it makes me extremely sad.

I'm still waiting for a game that does this right. It's so simple I'm astounded it hasn't been done yet:

a) create a separate area for FFA PvP

b) make the rest of the world consent-only PvP

c) let player factions (guilds/alliances) make a war invitation against each other, which goes in effect when the other side accepts the invitation

d) distribute resources so that the best time vs. reward will be in the FFA PvP areas, but make everything still available in the consent-only PvP area

e) watch the game world spring into life as player alliances rise, fight and die over the resources.

f) watch roleplaying communities flourish as they can decide who to fight and who to not.

In this system, everyone is truly free to play their way, all the way from the total PvE carebear to the hardcore FFA PvPer and everything in between.

 

tom_gore

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Redgorilla

One of the best PvP systems I've ever had was Guild vs Guild in Ultima Online. You War other guilds you want to or just deceide to be a guild not waring with anyone. Also the Order vs Chaos in Ultima Online was awesome. Choose rather you are order or chaos and you fight the opposing faction anywhere. Town warcraft with a guild vs guild system was awesome. Sitting at the bank and all of the sudden two huge guilds show up and battle it out. 

 

  No matter what you try and say THAT ^^^ was and alway will be the best system for PvP. Don't want to PvP then don't go Order or Chaos and don't accept any War status' with anyone. I was lucky enough to be on Chesapeake server and in the best guild Keepers of Chaos / Iron Chefs and we would show up ANYWHERE and word would get around and all of the sudden two or three allied guilds would show up and battle.

Hmm, first time I've ever seen anyone say this about UO, it has always been famous for its FFA PVP at least according to most posters in these forums. (Pre-Trammel and all that).  Were  you on some sort of alternate rules server or is this a post-Trammel thing?

 

 

Post Trammel, which also brought Felucca factions for even more options how or how to not PvP.

Forcing PvP onto everyone will never work.

ShakyMo

I disagree, ffa needs player loot to drive it. Player loot and strong economic drivers push players towards targeting the "big fish", without it you just get people ganking noobs for shits and giggles.

You need a reason to pvp. Whether that is for economic reasons in ffa sandboxes like eve, perpetuum and darkfall or whether that is for faction wide resources and bonuses in open world themeparks like daoc, planetside and war I don't care. Either works for me.

tom_gore

Originally posted by ShakyMo
I disagree, ffa needs player loot to drive it. Player loot and strong economic drivers push players towards targeting the "big fish", without it you just get people ganking noobs for shits and giggles.

You need a reason to pvp. Whether that is for economic reasons in ffa sandboxes like eve, perpetuum and darkfall or whether that is for faction wide resources and bonuses in open world themeparks like daoc, planetside and war I don't care. Either works for me.

FFA gets you people ganking noobs for shits and giggles. For those people, their victims' tears is incentive enough.

In the system I described there are tons of ways to make PvP interesting and a thriving player economy, without forcing all people to FFA.

 

ShakyMo

Oh I'm not against safe areas or areas with varying security. But you need player loot to make ffa work.

Kyleran

Originally posted by meddyck
They tried that in DAOC on the Mordred server. It flopped just like Shadowbane and most other FFA/GvG systems. 

Not on topic, but I beg to differ, I played on Mordred for well over 2 years and it took quite a while for it to ultimately die.  Which isn't surprising since the entire game died and ultmately has been reduced to one RVR rule set server.

The real issue with Mordred was Mythic didn't have the resources to properly correct some of the its major issues, was sort of just thrown together and needed some real attention.

That said, there's nothing wrong with an RVR system really, it's just different and perhaps not to some folks liking, but there's different games for all of us.

Harafnir

I am sure during the second world war a lot of people went out on the field wirth a sense of.... meh. "But.. this is not REAL war.. a real war, a meaningful war, I want to be able to join with some nazis and some english, and maybe kill half my own country and save Japan... No, some of japan, because them in the south are flipping asshats..." and so on and so forth... yeah, that sounds like a logical war that really can create a sense of community and belonging. RvR has a lot more talking for it than Sociopath Online... I promise. and more peopple talk about how they want a good solid  R v R concept in a new game than a new FFA gank fest.. Otherwise, if that is not good for you.. Darkfall ---> that way. It is helluva popular game because they use your "complete" PvP system. REAL popular.... and logical... and all those good things you like.

tom_gore

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Oh I'm not against safe areas or areas with varying security. But you need player loot to make ffa work.

I'd think it's more required for a working player economy than FFA per se. And not necessarily loot, but the destruction of equipment. Frankly, I like EVE's system where it's random 50-50.