Originally posted by stragen001 I am what the hardcore PVPers like to call a "carebear" - all the mmos I have played, I have gone with pve servers because I don't like getting ganked by 15 people roaming around killing newbs 'for teh Lulz'...but my opinion is changing. I recently went back to SWTOR and rolled on a PVP server because my friends wanted to. The first time I played was on a PVE server. Being on a PVP server gave the game another dimension. Seeing someone on the horizon and chasing them down, being chased by others, those random battles when you turn a corner and someone is there really gives an adrenaline rush you just dont get from PVE. I and many others are getting easily bored of the standard mmo fare and this may be because playing against npc's is just dull compared to playing against real people. I may be somewhat a convert to open world PvP but the whole idea of full loot is an instant turn off, it just ruins the fun. Fighting others is fun, but losing all your stuff just isn't. There also needs to be good mechanics in place to prevent banking, such as a bandit/criminal/outlaw flagging system so people can kill newbs if they want, but there will be consequences like guards attacking them, not being able to enter cities, nos won't trade with them etc. Add to this a bounty system so you can put a bounty on someone's head if you feel the need, and you have a winning system.
The problem with non-segregated servers is that you can never turn off pvp when you're not in the mood. It's far better to have separate servers and characters to fit the mood, whether it is pve, pvp or hardcore roleplaying.
Non-consensual PVP is not going to happen on all servers. It's just realistic people the market is too small. If you want to invest millions into a new game, trash your best IP, and betray everyone of the players who stuck with EQ for 14 years make a open world forced PVP game you think people were pissed about the NGE.
There will obviously be PVP and PVP will be important to the game but expecting a darkfall EQ you're setting yourself up to be let down. I like to PVP, but I don't like to be forced into it every time I log in.
People who say the market is too small, really do not have anything to back that statement up. For one, what's too small? I mean if you are talking bigger potential player base the better, the World of Warcraft clone has a far larger potential player base than any other type of MMORPG on the market and we see how that has worked out for so many games. We also see how the scrapping of the first two iterations of EQN and the development of a sandbox EQN shows that SOE is not developing EQN for the largest potential player base.
Truth is if SOE is aiming to appeal to a wide range of players as Dave has stated in his interview, they will not add in features that will drive portions of those players away. While EQN might have open world PvP, there is no doubt it will be restricted to specific areas or even set to a flag system. There is no dev in their right mind who will build a game they want to be a success and aim it at a fraction of the overall playerbase. And while I can assume most PvPers on this forum are honorable, you will have a fringe of griefers whos sole purpose in game will be to make life miserable for everyone else. These are the same players who existed in UO and forced a large chunk of the playerbase to request changes that lead to Trammel/Felluca.
I have a feeling that what we will see is a game that has PvP, but with an on/off switch. One that will allow those who want to battle the option to flag themselves for battle. Hell, maybe even a guild system that will allow guilds to declare war on each other (possibly making their player owned lands open to attack as well).
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
If the PvP is Non-consensual, no they will not stay.
Most MMO gamers dont like PvP that is on someone elses terms.
20 million Chinese gamers have stayed with Wushu.
Make a High Fantasy sandbox for the West in the same vain as Wushu, it will grow year after year. They will stay.
I find it interesting how there are so many Asian gamers, yet Asian companies are trying so very hard to get into Western markets. Would it be due to a greater amount of revenue from us despite all of those millions of Asian gamers? If that is so, then it would seem any company would then try for the greatest number of Western gamers since appealing to a niche market even though it is Western would defeat the purpose of higher profit margins.
You can find pvp in just about every MMO out there, with exception of EQ, Vanguard and Ryzom. I think we're due another game at this point.
We haven't had another western virtual world in the AAA range since EVE-Online, get your ass to the back of the line, there are others in front of you.
My ass is sitting exactly where it needs to be, thank you very much. Did I touch you someplace naughty or are you part of the "ME ME ME" crowd? I don't care if you think pvp is tacked on as an afterthought, the point is that you'd be hard pressed to find an MMO that doesn't have it and I think it's time for a pure pve game or at least pure pve servers.
This is one of the reasons I have not played DF, I know proper punishment/reward systems are not in place. If they were there would be no need for safe zones.
Developers need to go further that just saying "FFA!"
Totally agree with you here again.
FFA = Free For All...right?
Well no sorry because so far I have not played a game with FFA PvP that lets me build a jail and shove some ganker in it for a few hours for compensation on the ours of wasted time they inflict on others.
If a player wants the freedom to spend 4 hours repeatedly killing another player preventing them from doing what they want to do then the other player should have the same freedom to lock up an enemy for the same period of time preventing them from doing what they want to do.
It is called balance and FFA games, to date, do not have it.
Wrong my friend. Snail Games created it, and Wushu has it. SOE can do the same.
Ganker comes along murders someone for no reason. The one murdered places a bounty. The one murdered loses all of 2 minutes (if that) the murderer loses up to 5 hours. It works. plan and simple.
If the PvP is Non-consensual, no they will not stay.
Most MMO gamers dont like PvP that is on someone elses terms.
20 million Chinese gamers have stayed with Wushu.
Make a High Fantasy sandbox for the West in the same vain as Wushu, it will grow year after year. They will stay.
I find it interesting how there are so many Asian gamers, yet Asian companies are trying so very hard to get into Western markets. Would it be due to a greater amount of revenue from us despite all of those millions of Asian gamers? If that is so, then it would seem any company would then try for the greatest number of Western gamers since appealing to a niche market even though it is Western would defeat the purpose of higher profit margins.
You can find pvp in just about every MMO out there, with exception of EQ, Vanguard and Ryzom. I think we're due another game at this point.
We haven't had another western virtual world in the AAA range since EVE-Online, get your ass to the back of the line, there are others in front of you.
My ass is sitting exactly where it needs to be, thank you very much. Did I touch you someplace naughty or are you part of the "ME ME ME" crowd? I don't care if you think pvp is tacked on as an afterthought, the point is that you'd be hard pressed to find an MMO that doesn't have it and I think it's time for a pure pve game or at least pure pve servers.
Sadly pure pve servers wont really work. Mainly because they will eventually start seeing class nerfs/balances etc that are based on whats going on in pvp.
FULL LOOT OPEN PVP IS NICHE ONLY BECAUSE OF HOW IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED THUS FAR
THE PROBLEM IS THAT GAME DEVELOPERS APING UO HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGING THE BEHAVIOR OF GANKERS AND TROLLS
BUT LIKE REAL LIFE, JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS POSSIBLE (ie: killing anyone at any time and taking everything they had on their corpse) DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE ENCOURAGED
----------------
Imagine if you will a game unlike Darkfall or Mortal, with established, deep lore and actual governments that existed in-game, run by the GMs/devs (effectively NPCs for the most part).
The further you go from the centers of these nations the more dangerous it gets (read: High-Sec, Low-Sec, Null-Sec).
You can be attacked or attack at BY ANYONE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON however this world has LAWS and it has NPCs that are charged with UPHOLDING THOSE LAWS.
At this point you're think about flagging from UO or Mortal, and the /guard command.
We must take it much further than that. Committing crimes must have REAL consequences. Outlaws must be just that: OUT-laws, as in they are forced to live on the fringes of society and can only enter civilized lands in disguise or risk being hauled off to jail (depending on their crimes).
Now, the final step.
If you become an outlaw with a certain amount of bounty on your head (yes players should be able to collect bounties on outlaws) and you are captured by the NPCs (think of public enemy #1 status) then there is a good chance that you will be EXECUTED PUBLICLY (which will happen to your character at an appointed time regardless of whether you are logged in or not, you can't escape your fate by logging out). You character is hauled to the city square of whatever nation you were captured in and is executed. This DELETES your character.
So that is perma-death, but it is only for a chosen few who are SO EVIL that the world within the game decides they must be ended.
Most players will end up wanting to avoid even a few moments in jail, let alone having their character deleted. But there will be some players who RELISH in it and see it as a BADGE OF HONOR. This is what will create a DYNAMIC WORLD that has almost as much depth and complexity as our own.
A few more details are necessary to make this work, for example, the crimes you can commit all need to have very nuanced elements to them.
If you go up to someone and (accidentally or on purpose) hit them, just once, the person being hit should have the ability to forgive you or press charges. To press charges they must find a guard and report the crime. The guard will then find you and fine you a measly amount, some of which will go to the player you hit (SEE THE POTENTIAL IN THIS SYSTEM?). Let's say you challenge someone to a duel and win, but then you kill them. That would be a crime in most nations (perhaps not in a more barbaric society). Let's then say that you loot their corpse. Oh boy now you've done it. You dishonor yourself by breaking the treaty of an agreed-upon duel. Each subsequently dishonorable action piles on the consequences. Also, any players should be able to report crimes, as well as NPCs (kinda like Skyrim, except not with chickens).
As for public enemy #1 (ie: you'll be executed/perma-killed if caught), it should take a LONG time to get there and every time you are caught and you lose your bounty (but your past crimes are not erased from record) so it would be really hard to become this high-level criminal. Wouldn't it be so exciting to hear about a certain player who has evaded capture and has the highest bounty in the game? If you manage to kill him you could earn a bit of gold, haul him in for execution however, and you would be set for life, and he would be GONE FROM THE GAME FOREVER (and would either quit entirely or have to make a new character/play on an alt).
But that is the life he chose and the risk he took and his name will always be on the tongues of those would-be outlaws trying to make a name for themselves.
This is just one element of how you A) make FFA full-loot pvp viable but also create dynamic, player-driven legends that are passed down in the game-world.
It would take a lot of balls to do something like this. I really hope SOE figure out some element of this and build off of it.
I left a lot out here (I have a 30-page document detailing just crime and punishment in a game) so if anyone has any questions or what ifs throw 'em at me.
Originally posted by DocBrodyBring up one major developer big budget sandbox like EQN with non consensual PvP, then we´ll talk again.I can already taste the sweet sweet tears of the PvE-only players, when the game hits 10 million players.
EQ had non consensual PVP actually. And the PVP servers died, there is only 1 left, while there are 16 PVE servers.Some people like non-consensual PVP, but you're delusional if you think it's anything more than a small niche market.
Here son, show us on the doll where the bad pvpers touched you (I am seriously sick of your narrowminded, judgemental replies to any thread with this topic, either make a valid comment on its, PVP's, place in a future, not passed, EQ game with actual facts behind your arguments and I might not just start taking apart the jokes you call arguments).
It may be narrow minded, but it's based in reality. Call it what you will, FFA PvP, OWPvP, whatever, it pulls in fewer people than "flagging" PvP or battlegrounds style PvP.
In Rift, six out of twenty two servers are PvP servers.
Fifty five percent of WoW characters are rolled on PvE servers. The servers are actually pretty balanced, with there being four more PvE servers than PvP servers. There are more than double the number of RPPvE servers than RPPvP servers, but there aren't a ton of RP servers overall. No way to tell how many people participate in the PvP content on PvP servers though.
The majority of running EQ and EQ2 servers are PvE servers, not PvP servers.
Most of the people in Eve are playing in a game with non-consensual PvP, but they are playing in high security space. In other words, most players do not participate in PvP.
The statement that more people prefer PvE servers or consensual PvP to PvP servers or non-consensual PvP is easily supportable.
It goes further than that.
Many PvP players love to dangle the success of EVE in an attempt to make a point as to the popularity of open world PvP. What they fail to realize is that the player base of EVE, for the most part, reflects the total number of PvP players available to the genre.
In other words, it is not unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion that if EVE is the flag bearer for an open world PvP game, and if for the longest time it has been pretty much the most popular open world PvP game on the market in an industry quite devoid of the genre, then it stands to reason that its player base population is a really good reflection of the potential population that such a game will be able to generate.
So the question before us is obvioulsly, would SOE be satisfied with a potential player base the size of EVE's. If the answer is yes, then its reasonable to presume that the option is viable and on the table. If not, then it goes without saying that it will not happen.
I am, without a doubt certain, that SOE is striving for loftier goals.
If the PvP is Non-consensual, no they will not stay.
Most MMO gamers dont like PvP that is on someone elses terms.
20 million Chinese gamers have stayed with Wushu.
Make a High Fantasy sandbox for the West in the same vain as Wushu, it will grow year after year. They will stay.
I find it interesting how there are so many Asian gamers, yet Asian companies are trying so very hard to get into Western markets. Would it be due to a greater amount of revenue from us despite all of those millions of Asian gamers? If that is so, then it would seem any company would then try for the greatest number of Western gamers since appealing to a niche market even though it is Western would defeat the purpose of higher profit margins.
You can find pvp in just about every MMO out there, with exception of EQ, Vanguard and Ryzom. I think we're due another game at this point.
We haven't had another western virtual world in the AAA range since EVE-Online, get your ass to the back of the line, there are others in front of you.
And did you ever stop to think there might be a reason for that?
Maybe you arent the majority you think you are.
But Im sure you know more than all the people in charge of putting together a multi million dollar project.
He's also forgetting the AAA pvp centric attempts with Warhammer Online, Aion, Guild Wars 2, Planetside 2, Age of Wushu and the not so AAA attempt with Darkfall 1 & 2. These pvp fanatics are narrow-minded and selectively blind.
Then there are the upcoming AAA pvp centric games in the form of Archeage, Camelot Unchained and Elder Scrolls Online.
Originally posted by DocBrodyBring up one major developer big budget sandbox like EQN with non consensual PvP, then we´ll talk again.I can already taste the sweet sweet tears of the PvE-only players, when the game hits 10 million players.
EQ had non consensual PVP actually. And the PVP servers died, there is only 1 left, while there are 16 PVE servers.Some people like non-consensual PVP, but you're delusional if you think it's anything more than a small niche market.
Here son, show us on the doll where the bad pvpers touched you (I am seriously sick of your narrowminded, judgemental replies to any thread with this topic, either make a valid comment on its, PVP's, place in a future, not passed, EQ game with actual facts behind your arguments and I might not just start taking apart the jokes you call arguments).
It may be narrow minded, but it's based in reality. Call it what you will, FFA PvP, OWPvP, whatever, it pulls in fewer people than "flagging" PvP or battlegrounds style PvP.
In Rift, six out of twenty two servers are PvP servers.
Fifty five percent of WoW characters are rolled on PvE servers. The servers are actually pretty balanced, with there being four more PvE servers than PvP servers. There are more than double the number of RPPvE servers than RPPvP servers, but there aren't a ton of RP servers overall. No way to tell how many people participate in the PvP content on PvP servers though.
The majority of running EQ and EQ2 servers are PvE servers, not PvP servers.
Most of the people in Eve are playing in a game with non-consensual PvP, but they are playing in high security space. In other words, most players do not participate in PvP.
The statement that more people prefer PvE servers or consensual PvP to PvP servers or non-consensual PvP is easily supportable.
It goes further than that.
Many PvP players love to dangle the success of EVE in an attempt to make a point as to the popularity of open world PvP. What they fail to realize is that the player base of EVE, for the most part, reflects the total number of PvP players available to the genre.
In other words, it is not unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion that if EVE is the flag bearer for an open world PvP game, and for the longest time it has been pretty much the most popular open world PvP game on the market in an industry quite devoid of the genre, then it stands to reason that its player base population is a really good reflection of the potential population that such a game will be able to generate.
So the question before us is obvioulsly, would SOE be satisfied with a potential player base the size of EVE. If the answer is yes, then its reasonable to presume that the option is viable and on the table. If not, then it goes without saying that it will not happen.
I am, without a doubt certain, that SOE is striving for loftier goals.
Actually its even worse than that...theyve put out statistics saying how alot of their playerbase doesnt even leave secure space... wish I remembered exactly how high it was but it was a pretty substantial percent. Maybe Ill go look for it.
"This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."
Again, I will hold off judgement until August.
No one is forced to play the game.
The word griefing does not equate to being pked. Smedley is a fan of Hulkageddon which every PVEer here would classify as griefing, but it's not really griefing.
lol that doesn't mean he's going to implement it.
I like FFA pvp and would prefer most games to be set up as Lineage 2 was WITH the long grind.
Now ask me if I'd make a game like that? Given that I would be expected to make back the invested money and then some.
I've said it before and I've said it again. they will not make their beloved IP, which has a large pve playerbase, a game that pushes away that playerbase. Not with the large amount of money they are putting into it. Even that one e-mail, which "some" players seem to selectively read, indictes (from the writer) "pvp servers".
I am fully aware that Smedley likes EVE which Is why my sense is that that EQ next will be set up "in a similiar" fashion. There will be areas that are very safe and areas that are "not so much".
Some players have read more into his comments than what's there.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by DocBrodyBring up one major developer big budget sandbox like EQN with non consensual PvP, then we´ll talk again.I can already taste the sweet sweet tears of the PvE-only players, when the game hits 10 million players.
EQ had non consensual PVP actually. And the PVP servers died, there is only 1 left, while there are 16 PVE servers.Some people like non-consensual PVP, but you're delusional if you think it's anything more than a small niche market.
Here son, show us on the doll where the bad pvpers touched you (I am seriously sick of your narrowminded, judgemental replies to any thread with this topic, either make a valid comment on its, PVP's, place in a future, not passed, EQ game with actual facts behind your arguments and I might not just start taking apart the jokes you call arguments).
It may be narrow minded, but it's based in reality. Call it what you will, FFA PvP, OWPvP, whatever, it pulls in fewer people than "flagging" PvP or battlegrounds style PvP.
In Rift, six out of twenty two servers are PvP servers.
Fifty five percent of WoW characters are rolled on PvE servers. The servers are actually pretty balanced, with there being four more PvE servers than PvP servers. There are more than double the number of RPPvE servers than RPPvP servers, but there aren't a ton of RP servers overall. No way to tell how many people participate in the PvP content on PvP servers though.
The majority of running EQ and EQ2 servers are PvE servers, not PvP servers.
Most of the people in Eve are playing in a game with non-consensual PvP, but they are playing in high security space. In other words, most players do not participate in PvP.
The statement that more people prefer PvE servers or consensual PvP to PvP servers or non-consensual PvP is easily supportable.
So PVE focused games with tacked on and neglected PVP don't keep around PVP players? Shocking data you have there.
Non-consensual PVP is not going to happen on all servers. It's just realistic people the market is too small. If you want to invest millions into a new game, trash your best IP, and betray everyone of the players who stuck with EQ for 14 years make a open world forced PVP game you think people were pissed about the NGE.
There will obviously be PVP and PVP will be important to the game but expecting a darkfall EQ you're setting yourself up to be let down. I like to PVP, but I don't like to be forced into it every time I log in.
People who say the market is too small, really do not have anything to back that statement up. For one, what's too small? I mean if you are talking bigger potential player base the better, the World of Warcraft clone has a far larger potential player base than any other type of MMORPG on the market and we see how that has worked out for so many games. We also see how the scrapping of the first two iterations of EQN and the development of a sandbox EQN shows that SOE is not developing EQN for the largest potential player base.
How do you figure ? People don't want a wow clone they have plenty . People are sick of wow even people playing wow are just waiting for that next game that does something new.
New and different does not = open world PVP that is not new its not different several dozen games have it or have tried it and failed.
All of the speculation EQN will be an open world PVP game are unfounded and based of one quote that everyone has a different meaning to.
You better believe smed is going for a bigger crowd here he doesn't want another game with 200k players he already has a few of them.
For those arguing that the market is too small and that PvPers are nonexistent I suggest you take a moment and think about something. What game is the most popular PC game at the moment? And no, it's not World of WarCraft. It's an entirely PvP driven experience. Then I'd also like for you all to take into consideration the immense success of titles like DayZ which brought the whole conflict driven sandbox experience to the masses. Guess what? People loved it.
So can we please put the silly notion of gamers not liking PvP behind us? The proof is in the pudding and the vast majority of gamers absolutely love player conflict. The trick is doing it right. Most of the failed sandbox MMOs cited here were awful games at just about every level. They didn't fail because they focused on PvP, they failed because they were shoddily designed.
Non-consensual PVP is not going to happen on all servers. It's just realistic people the market is too small. If you want to invest millions into a new game, trash your best IP, and betray everyone of the players who stuck with EQ for 14 years make a open world forced PVP game you think people were pissed about the NGE.
There will obviously be PVP and PVP will be important to the game but expecting a darkfall EQ you're setting yourself up to be let down. I like to PVP, but I don't like to be forced into it every time I log in.
People who say the market is too small, really do not have anything to back that statement up. For one, what's too small? I mean if you are talking bigger potential player base the better, the World of Warcraft clone has a far larger potential player base than any other type of MMORPG on the market and we see how that has worked out for so many games. We also see how the scrapping of the first two iterations of EQN and the development of a sandbox EQN shows that SOE is not developing EQN for the largest potential player base.
Actually what its shows is that they wanted to make something players wouldn't launch and go "Oh hey, been here, done that". It doesn't mean it has anything to do with PvP/PvE.
If you actually read the interviews and listen to the videos with a clear and open mind you will see they are talking about overall mechanics of the game, systems like questing, crafting, exploration, etc. How games of the past have followed a strict guideline of "Quest > Level > Dungeon > Loot > New Zone > Repeat".
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
So let me get this straight, people want ffa PvP, with harsh penalties? I can't imagine this, people got pissed off in UO when they put penalties in place, and people are saying UO encouraged bad behavior so it needs to be worse. I remember all the crying about the penalties and people calling others names and quitting due to the penalties.
I am not buying that the majority calling for ffa pvp, are also calling for a 'responsible' ffa pvp system with penalties.
PvP penalty balancing is like class balancing, someone is always pissed that it is too prohibitive, or it doesn't much.
As a side note, the poll being used for this thread didn't ask if people wanted to play a ffa pvp EQ, just if they would still try it (It is free to play, so they made no commitment to liking ffa pvp or staying), while those that said no, made a commitment to not playing period.
MMO's should be about a linear story and blowing through it like it's a single player game, there are pletny of games like that and that do it a whole damn lot better than any MMO could ever hope to.
MMO's should be about the players, the community and the world. PvP ain't consensual in the real world, I think the trick is to dissuade players from killing other players without reason, if it runs too rampant it's will break the immersion and if it doesn't exist at all it will also break the immersion. If they have a smart solution to this I'm all for it.
Either way I'm happy someone has the balls to go against the norm.
For those arguing that the market is too small and that PvPers are nonexistent I suggest you take a moment and think about something. What game is the most popular PC game at the moment? And no, it's not World of WarCraft. It's an entirely PvP driven experience. Then I'd also like for you all to take into consideration the immense success of titles like DayZ which brought the whole conflict driven sandbox experience to the masses. Guess what? People loved it.
So can we please put the silly notion of gamers not liking PvP behind us? The proof is in the pudding and the vast majority of gamers absolutely love player conflict. The trick is doing it right. Most of the failed sandbox MMOs cited here were awful games at just about every level. They didn't fail because they focused on PvP, they failed because they were shoddily designed.
Yet the format for the majority of pvp only gaming is not in the form of MMOs and there is a very good reason for that. Pvp is stressful and most people only want it in small doses, hence the plethora of single player and non-time consuming multiplayer pvp games. MMOs are another beast because they require a lot more effort, a lot more time investment and usually cannot be played in small chunks of time. Add pvp as the mainstay of an MMO and you have a recipe that turns off most gamers. The inability to turn off pvp when you're not in the mood. Having to deal with enough jerks who waste your time and steal your hard earned loot and or XP (something you do not ever suffer in regular multiplayer games). Pvpers can and have blocked other players from progressing by locking off content areas and or quest objectives.
The point is that pvp has a severe and sometimes very negative effect on an MMO that can't be found in other genres.
Non-consensual PVP is not going to happen on all servers. It's just realistic people the market is too small. If you want to invest millions into a new game, trash your best IP, and betray everyone of the players who stuck with EQ for 14 years make a open world forced PVP game you think people were pissed about the NGE.
There will obviously be PVP and PVP will be important to the game but expecting a darkfall EQ you're setting yourself up to be let down. I like to PVP, but I don't like to be forced into it every time I log in.
People who say the market is too small, really do not have anything to back that statement up. For one, what's too small? I mean if you are talking bigger potential player base the better, the World of Warcraft clone has a far larger potential player base than any other type of MMORPG on the market and we see how that has worked out for so many games. We also see how the scrapping of the first two iterations of EQN and the development of a sandbox EQN shows that SOE is not developing EQN for the largest potential player base.
How do you figure ? People don't want a wow clone they have plenty . People are sick of wow even people playing wow are just waiting for that next game that does something new.
New and different does not = open world PVP that is not new its not different several dozen games have it or have tried it and failed.
All of the speculation EQN will be an open world PVP game are unfounded and based of one quote that everyone has a different meaning to.
You better believe smed is going for a bigger crowd here he doesn't want another game with 200k players he already has a few of them.
How do I figure what exactly? The fact is, the largest apparent market within the MMORPG genre is the World of Warcraft market. That is why there are still a slew of games that are coming out that are WoW clones despite the success of the games coming out not compensating for the budget needed to produce that type of game.
New and different does not automatically equate to open world, you are right. That is why games like Guild Wars 2 comes out. Yet what do they have to make different exactly?
The irony of this conversation is that people on this forum will argue that the PVP market is too small, but then in another thread call for things like corpse runs, experience loss, mob grind, item camping, and long leveling times as if there is some magical large market for that. It's a joke really. What is really the case is that they don't want a PVP based game, so they will say literally anything to convince themselves that it won't be built around PVP.
So let me get this straight, people want ffa PvP, with harsh penalties? I can't imagine this, people got pissed off in UO when they put penalties in place, and people are saying UO encouraged bad behavior so it needs to be worse. I remember all the crying about the penalties and people calling others names and quitting due to the penalties.
I am not buying that the majority calling for ffa pvp, are also calling for a 'responsible' ffa pvp system with penalties.
PvP penalty balancing is like class balancing, someone is always pissed that it is too prohibitive, or it doesn't much.
As a side note, the poll being used for this thread didn't ask if people wanted to play a ffa pvp EQ, just if they would still try it (It is free to play, so they made no commitment to liking ffa pvp or staying), while those that said no, made a commitment to not playing period.
The trick is it has to be in from the start. You can't have a free-for-all and THEN impose penalties mid-stream, you HAVE to start out with them.
Read this and tell me it wouldn't be an exciting world to live in:
FULL LOOT OPEN PVP IS NICHE ONLY BECAUSE OF HOW IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED THUS FAR
THE PROBLEM IS THAT GAME DEVELOPERS APING UO HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGING THE BEHAVIOR OF GANKERS AND TROLLS
BUT LIKE REAL LIFE, JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS POSSIBLE (ie: killing anyone at any time and taking everything they had on their corpse) DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE ENCOURAGED
----------------
Imagine if you will a game unlike Darkfall or Mortal, with established, deep lore and actual governments that existed in-game, run by the GMs/devs (effectively NPCs for the most part).
The further you go from the centers of these nations the more dangerous it gets (read: High-Sec, Low-Sec, Null-Sec).
You can be attacked or attack at BY ANYONE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON however this world has LAWS and it has NPCs that are charged with UPHOLDING THOSE LAWS.
At this point you're think about flagging from UO or Mortal, and the /guard command.
We must take it much further than that. Committing crimes must have REAL consequences. Outlaws must be just that: OUT-laws, as in they are forced to live on the fringes of society and can only enter civilized lands in disguise or risk being hauled off to jail (depending on their crimes).
Now, the final step.
If you become an outlaw with a certain amount of bounty on your head (yes players should be able to collect bounties on outlaws) and you are captured by the NPCs (think of public enemy #1 status) then there is a good chance that you will be EXECUTED PUBLICLY (which will happen to your character at an appointed time regardless of whether you are logged in or not, you can't escape your fate by logging out). You character is hauled to the city square of whatever nation you were captured in and is executed. This DELETES your character.
So that is perma-death, but it is only for a chosen few who are SO EVIL that the world within the game decides they must be ended.
Most players will end up wanting to avoid even a few moments in jail, let alone having their character deleted. But there will be some players who RELISH in it and see it as a BADGE OF HONOR. This is what will create a DYNAMIC WORLD that has almost as much depth and complexity as our own.
A few more details are necessary to make this work, for example, the crimes you can commit all need to have very nuanced elements to them.
If you go up to someone and (accidentally or on purpose) hit them, just once, the person being hit should have the ability to forgive you or press charges. To press charges they must find a guard and report the crime. The guard will then find you and fine you a measly amount, some of which will go to the player you hit (SEE THE POTENTIAL IN THIS SYSTEM?). Let's say you challenge someone to a duel and win, but then you kill them. That would be a crime in most nations (perhaps not in a more barbaric society). Let's then say that you loot their corpse. Oh boy now you've done it. You dishonor yourself by breaking the treaty of an agreed-upon duel. Each subsequently dishonorable action piles on the consequences. Also, any players should be able to report crimes, as well as NPCs (kinda like Skyrim, except not with chickens).
As for public enemy #1 (ie: you'll be executed/perma-killed if caught), it should take a LONG time to get there and every time you are caught and you lose your bounty (but your past crimes are not erased from record) so it would be really hard to become this high-level criminal. Wouldn't it be so exciting to hear about a certain player who has evaded capture and has the highest bounty in the game? If you manage to kill him you could earn a bit of gold, haul him in for execution however, and you would be set for life, and he would be GONE FROM THE GAME FOREVER (and would either quit entirely or have to make a new character/play on an alt).
But that is the life he chose and the risk he took and his name will always be on the tongues of those would-be outlaws trying to make a name for themselves.
This is just one element of how you A) make FFA full-loot pvp viable but also create dynamic, player-driven legends that are passed down in the game-world.
It would take a lot of balls to do something like this. I really hope SOE figure out some element of this and build off of it.
I left a lot out here (I have a 30-page document detailing just crime and punishment in a game) so if anyone has any questions or what ifs throw 'em at me.
It will be interesting to see if EQN goes this route which is by no means guaranteed because we will finally have definitive proof one way or another on the viability of a game focused mainly on FFA PvP.
I don't count Age of Wushu as proof because
A) I have no idea how well it is doing outside of China
AoW would be near as popular in China even if it's focus was not PvP.Wuxia is by far the most popular genre in China,There is no equivalent in the west that compares to the popularity of Wuxia in China.
C)It's arguable that AoW is AAA.
If SoE does go this route I doubt they will make any inroads into the AoW player base in China.
One of my pet peeves in threads like these though is the premise that UO was all about FFA PvP,that was not the focus of UO,it was just a feature that was there if you chose and was only a fraction of what UO offered.
Like I said it will be interesting if SOE does fully commit to FFA PvP focus and I'll try it if it does like any other game.I personally don't care what the focus of the game is only that I find it fun,you guys can pidgeon hole yourselves as narrow focused gamers who can't find enjoyment outside of a specialized rule set but that's not for me.I'll continue to enjoy the breadth and depth that video gaming offers.
It will be interesting to see if EQN goes this route which is by no means guaranteed because we will finally have definitive proof one way or another on the viability of a game focused mainly on FFA PvP.
I don't count Age of Wushu as proof because
A) I have no idea how well it is doing outside of China
AoW would be near as popular in China even if it's focus was not PvP.Wuxia is by far the most popular genre in China,There is no equivalent in the west that compares to the popularity of Wuxia in China.
C)It's arguable that AoW is AAA.
If SoE does go this route I doubt they will make any inroads into the AoW player base in China.
One of my pet peeves in threads like these though is the premise that UO was all about FFA PvP,that was not the focus of UO,it was just a feature that was there if you chose and was only a fraction of what UO offered.
Like I said it will be interesting if SOE does fully commit to FFA PvP focus and I'll try it if it does like any other game.I personally don't care what the focus of the game is only that I find it fun,you guys can pidgeon hole yourselves as narrow focused gamers who can't find enjoyment outside of a specialized rule set but that's not for me.I'll continue to enjoy the breadth and depth that video gaming offers.
Why even if it fails people will just claim they did it wrong....
Open world forced PvP fans always extremely over-estimate the size of that group.
It is tiny, very very tiny. That is why people don't spend $100 million making a game for that group. Look at how many MMOs have a full PvP server option and then look at how many play that vs the large number of non-pvp servers. It is a microscopic niche market.
Now look at a game like Darkfall which went out of its way to target that crowd. See how tiny that game population is?
Games are entertainment. Most people want to enjoy their entertainment. Most people don't find it fun when trying to enjoy their entertainment (getting ready to do a quest, gathering materials, hunting, etc.) some guy pops out and kills them. That gets in the way of their enjoyment and so they don't play those types of games. For some reason the die hard PvP crowd can never understand that.
I used to love open world anything goes PvP. I enjoy UO when it was a free-for-all (before the red blue grey crap). I enjoyed when EQ tried out their RvR server. I absolutely loved DAoC and all I did in that game was PvP. As I've gotten older I've found that I don't enjoy the forced MMO PvP. I thoroughly enjoy PvP on my terms (battlegrounds, opt in/opt out styles) but I hate being forced into it when trying to do something else. That is because as you get older you tend to get far less game time. So when you do get a chance to game you want to do what it is that you want to do. Not log in for an hour and get killed/camped everywhere you try to go. So I play battleground PvP or, and this is a shocking concept, I play a genre that is all about PvP when I want some action such as FPS games.
No major company will make a flagship MMO that is all forced open world PvP. It would be a giant failure. Instead most will launch with 1 or 2 PvP server and then watch as those dry up while the other servers flourish.
I agree with the OP, I know for a fact that games like shadowbane would have never died if it wasnt for bad programming. EVE did it right and anything they did wrong they corrected in a way it didnt hurt their product. People have been waiting a long long long time for a sword and bored style EVE, IMO just make SB2 BUT if EQN is anything like sb then I will be playing it for a long long time.
Comments
The problem with non-segregated servers is that you can never turn off pvp when you're not in the mood. It's far better to have separate servers and characters to fit the mood, whether it is pve, pvp or hardcore roleplaying.
People who say the market is too small, really do not have anything to back that statement up. For one, what's too small? I mean if you are talking bigger potential player base the better, the World of Warcraft clone has a far larger potential player base than any other type of MMORPG on the market and we see how that has worked out for so many games. We also see how the scrapping of the first two iterations of EQN and the development of a sandbox EQN shows that SOE is not developing EQN for the largest potential player base.
Truth is if SOE is aiming to appeal to a wide range of players as Dave has stated in his interview, they will not add in features that will drive portions of those players away. While EQN might have open world PvP, there is no doubt it will be restricted to specific areas or even set to a flag system. There is no dev in their right mind who will build a game they want to be a success and aim it at a fraction of the overall playerbase. And while I can assume most PvPers on this forum are honorable, you will have a fringe of griefers whos sole purpose in game will be to make life miserable for everyone else. These are the same players who existed in UO and forced a large chunk of the playerbase to request changes that lead to Trammel/Felluca.
I have a feeling that what we will see is a game that has PvP, but with an on/off switch. One that will allow those who want to battle the option to flag themselves for battle. Hell, maybe even a guild system that will allow guilds to declare war on each other (possibly making their player owned lands open to attack as well).
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
My ass is sitting exactly where it needs to be, thank you very much. Did I touch you someplace naughty or are you part of the "ME ME ME" crowd? I don't care if you think pvp is tacked on as an afterthought, the point is that you'd be hard pressed to find an MMO that doesn't have it and I think it's time for a pure pve game or at least pure pve servers.
Wrong my friend. Snail Games created it, and Wushu has it. SOE can do the same.
Ganker comes along murders someone for no reason. The one murdered places a bounty. The one murdered loses all of 2 minutes (if that) the murderer loses up to 5 hours. It works. plan and simple.
Sadly pure pve servers wont really work. Mainly because they will eventually start seeing class nerfs/balances etc that are based on whats going on in pvp.
FULL LOOT OPEN PVP IS NICHE ONLY BECAUSE OF HOW IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED THUS FAR
THE PROBLEM IS THAT GAME DEVELOPERS APING UO HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGING THE BEHAVIOR OF GANKERS AND TROLLS
BUT LIKE REAL LIFE, JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS POSSIBLE (ie: killing anyone at any time and taking everything they had on their corpse) DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE ENCOURAGED
----------------
Imagine if you will a game unlike Darkfall or Mortal, with established, deep lore and actual governments that existed in-game, run by the GMs/devs (effectively NPCs for the most part).
The further you go from the centers of these nations the more dangerous it gets (read: High-Sec, Low-Sec, Null-Sec).
You can be attacked or attack at BY ANYONE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON however this world has LAWS and it has NPCs that are charged with UPHOLDING THOSE LAWS.
At this point you're think about flagging from UO or Mortal, and the /guard command.
We must take it much further than that. Committing crimes must have REAL consequences. Outlaws must be just that: OUT-laws, as in they are forced to live on the fringes of society and can only enter civilized lands in disguise or risk being hauled off to jail (depending on their crimes).
Now, the final step.
If you become an outlaw with a certain amount of bounty on your head (yes players should be able to collect bounties on outlaws) and you are captured by the NPCs (think of public enemy #1 status) then there is a good chance that you will be EXECUTED PUBLICLY (which will happen to your character at an appointed time regardless of whether you are logged in or not, you can't escape your fate by logging out). You character is hauled to the city square of whatever nation you were captured in and is executed. This DELETES your character.
So that is perma-death, but it is only for a chosen few who are SO EVIL that the world within the game decides they must be ended.
Most players will end up wanting to avoid even a few moments in jail, let alone having their character deleted. But there will be some players who RELISH in it and see it as a BADGE OF HONOR. This is what will create a DYNAMIC WORLD that has almost as much depth and complexity as our own.
A few more details are necessary to make this work, for example, the crimes you can commit all need to have very nuanced elements to them.
If you go up to someone and (accidentally or on purpose) hit them, just once, the person being hit should have the ability to forgive you or press charges. To press charges they must find a guard and report the crime. The guard will then find you and fine you a measly amount, some of which will go to the player you hit (SEE THE POTENTIAL IN THIS SYSTEM?). Let's say you challenge someone to a duel and win, but then you kill them. That would be a crime in most nations (perhaps not in a more barbaric society). Let's then say that you loot their corpse. Oh boy now you've done it. You dishonor yourself by breaking the treaty of an agreed-upon duel. Each subsequently dishonorable action piles on the consequences. Also, any players should be able to report crimes, as well as NPCs (kinda like Skyrim, except not with chickens).
As for public enemy #1 (ie: you'll be executed/perma-killed if caught), it should take a LONG time to get there and every time you are caught and you lose your bounty (but your past crimes are not erased from record) so it would be really hard to become this high-level criminal. Wouldn't it be so exciting to hear about a certain player who has evaded capture and has the highest bounty in the game? If you manage to kill him you could earn a bit of gold, haul him in for execution however, and you would be set for life, and he would be GONE FROM THE GAME FOREVER (and would either quit entirely or have to make a new character/play on an alt).
But that is the life he chose and the risk he took and his name will always be on the tongues of those would-be outlaws trying to make a name for themselves.
This is just one element of how you A) make FFA full-loot pvp viable
but also create dynamic, player-driven legends that are passed down in the game-world.
It would take a lot of balls to do something like this. I really hope SOE figure out some element of this and build off of it.
I left a lot out here (I have a 30-page document detailing just crime and punishment in a game) so if anyone has any questions or what ifs throw 'em at me.
It goes further than that.
Many PvP players love to dangle the success of EVE in an attempt to make a point as to the popularity of open world PvP. What they fail to realize is that the player base of EVE, for the most part, reflects the total number of PvP players available to the genre.
In other words, it is not unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion that if EVE is the flag bearer for an open world PvP game, and if for the longest time it has been pretty much the most popular open world PvP game on the market in an industry quite devoid of the genre, then it stands to reason that its player base population is a really good reflection of the potential population that such a game will be able to generate.
So the question before us is obvioulsly, would SOE be satisfied with a potential player base the size of EVE's. If the answer is yes, then its reasonable to presume that the option is viable and on the table. If not, then it goes without saying that it will not happen.
I am, without a doubt certain, that SOE is striving for loftier goals.
He's also forgetting the AAA pvp centric attempts with Warhammer Online, Aion, Guild Wars 2, Planetside 2, Age of Wushu and the not so AAA attempt with Darkfall 1 & 2. These pvp fanatics are narrow-minded and selectively blind.
Then there are the upcoming AAA pvp centric games in the form of Archeage, Camelot Unchained and Elder Scrolls Online.
Actually its even worse than that...theyve put out statistics saying how alot of their playerbase doesnt even leave secure space... wish I remembered exactly how high it was but it was a pretty substantial percent. Maybe Ill go look for it.
lol that doesn't mean he's going to implement it.
I like FFA pvp and would prefer most games to be set up as Lineage 2 was WITH the long grind.
Now ask me if I'd make a game like that? Given that I would be expected to make back the invested money and then some.
I've said it before and I've said it again. they will not make their beloved IP, which has a large pve playerbase, a game that pushes away that playerbase. Not with the large amount of money they are putting into it. Even that one e-mail, which "some" players seem to selectively read, indictes (from the writer) "pvp servers".
I am fully aware that Smedley likes EVE which Is why my sense is that that EQ next will be set up "in a similiar" fashion. There will be areas that are very safe and areas that are "not so much".
Some players have read more into his comments than what's there.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
So PVE focused games with tacked on and neglected PVP don't keep around PVP players? Shocking data you have there.
How do you figure ? People don't want a wow clone they have plenty . People are sick of wow even people playing wow are just waiting for that next game that does something new.
New and different does not = open world PVP that is not new its not different several dozen games have it or have tried it and failed.
All of the speculation EQN will be an open world PVP game are unfounded and based of one quote that everyone has a different meaning to.
You better believe smed is going for a bigger crowd here he doesn't want another game with 200k players he already has a few of them.
For those arguing that the market is too small and that PvPers are nonexistent I suggest you take a moment and think about something. What game is the most popular PC game at the moment? And no, it's not World of WarCraft. It's an entirely PvP driven experience. Then I'd also like for you all to take into consideration the immense success of titles like DayZ which brought the whole conflict driven sandbox experience to the masses. Guess what? People loved it.
So can we please put the silly notion of gamers not liking PvP behind us? The proof is in the pudding and the vast majority of gamers absolutely love player conflict. The trick is doing it right. Most of the failed sandbox MMOs cited here were awful games at just about every level. They didn't fail because they focused on PvP, they failed because they were shoddily designed.
Actually what its shows is that they wanted to make something players wouldn't launch and go "Oh hey, been here, done that". It doesn't mean it has anything to do with PvP/PvE.
If you actually read the interviews and listen to the videos with a clear and open mind you will see they are talking about overall mechanics of the game, systems like questing, crafting, exploration, etc. How games of the past have followed a strict guideline of "Quest > Level > Dungeon > Loot > New Zone > Repeat".
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
So let me get this straight, people want ffa PvP, with harsh penalties? I can't imagine this, people got pissed off in UO when they put penalties in place, and people are saying UO encouraged bad behavior so it needs to be worse. I remember all the crying about the penalties and people calling others names and quitting due to the penalties.
I am not buying that the majority calling for ffa pvp, are also calling for a 'responsible' ffa pvp system with penalties.
PvP penalty balancing is like class balancing, someone is always pissed that it is too prohibitive, or it doesn't much.
As a side note, the poll being used for this thread didn't ask if people wanted to play a ffa pvp EQ, just if they would still try it (It is free to play, so they made no commitment to liking ffa pvp or staying), while those that said no, made a commitment to not playing period.
The entire title rides on who the op means by "they".
Looks like about half of them might stay, from the polling data (subject to enormous polling data errors, as always).
The cool thing about 50:50 is that either side can declare a (forum) victory, after the fact.
The accountants and shareholders might have a different idea about what constitutes "victory".
MMO's should be about a linear story and blowing through it like it's a single player game, there are pletny of games like that and that do it a whole damn lot better than any MMO could ever hope to.
MMO's should be about the players, the community and the world. PvP ain't consensual in the real world, I think the trick is to dissuade players from killing other players without reason, if it runs too rampant it's will break the immersion and if it doesn't exist at all it will also break the immersion. If they have a smart solution to this I'm all for it.
Either way I'm happy someone has the balls to go against the norm.
Yet the format for the majority of pvp only gaming is not in the form of MMOs and there is a very good reason for that. Pvp is stressful and most people only want it in small doses, hence the plethora of single player and non-time consuming multiplayer pvp games. MMOs are another beast because they require a lot more effort, a lot more time investment and usually cannot be played in small chunks of time. Add pvp as the mainstay of an MMO and you have a recipe that turns off most gamers. The inability to turn off pvp when you're not in the mood. Having to deal with enough jerks who waste your time and steal your hard earned loot and or XP (something you do not ever suffer in regular multiplayer games). Pvpers can and have blocked other players from progressing by locking off content areas and or quest objectives.
The point is that pvp has a severe and sometimes very negative effect on an MMO that can't be found in other genres.
How do I figure what exactly? The fact is, the largest apparent market within the MMORPG genre is the World of Warcraft market. That is why there are still a slew of games that are coming out that are WoW clones despite the success of the games coming out not compensating for the budget needed to produce that type of game.
New and different does not automatically equate to open world, you are right. That is why games like Guild Wars 2 comes out. Yet what do they have to make different exactly?
The irony of this conversation is that people on this forum will argue that the PVP market is too small, but then in another thread call for things like corpse runs, experience loss, mob grind, item camping, and long leveling times as if there is some magical large market for that. It's a joke really. What is really the case is that they don't want a PVP based game, so they will say literally anything to convince themselves that it won't be built around PVP.
The trick is it has to be in from the start. You can't have a free-for-all and THEN impose penalties mid-stream, you HAVE to start out with them.
Read this and tell me it wouldn't be an exciting world to live in:
FULL LOOT OPEN PVP IS NICHE ONLY BECAUSE OF HOW IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED THUS FAR
THE PROBLEM IS THAT GAME DEVELOPERS APING UO HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGING THE BEHAVIOR OF GANKERS AND TROLLS
BUT LIKE REAL LIFE, JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS POSSIBLE (ie: killing anyone at any time and taking everything they had on their corpse) DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE ENCOURAGED
----------------
Imagine if you will a game unlike Darkfall or Mortal, with established, deep lore and actual governments that existed in-game, run by the GMs/devs (effectively NPCs for the most part).
The further you go from the centers of these nations the more dangerous it gets (read: High-Sec, Low-Sec, Null-Sec).
You can be attacked or attack at BY ANYONE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON however this world has LAWS and it has NPCs that are charged with UPHOLDING THOSE LAWS.
At this point you're think about flagging from UO or Mortal, and the /guard command.
We must take it much further than that. Committing crimes must have REAL consequences. Outlaws must be just that: OUT-laws, as in they are forced to live on the fringes of society and can only enter civilized lands in disguise or risk being hauled off to jail (depending on their crimes).
Now, the final step.
If you become an outlaw with a certain amount of bounty on your head (yes players should be able to collect bounties on outlaws) and you are captured by the NPCs (think of public enemy #1 status) then there is a good chance that you will be EXECUTED PUBLICLY (which will happen to your character at an appointed time regardless of whether you are logged in or not, you can't escape your fate by logging out). You character is hauled to the city square of whatever nation you were captured in and is executed. This DELETES your character.
So that is perma-death, but it is only for a chosen few who are SO EVIL that the world within the game decides they must be ended.
Most players will end up wanting to avoid even a few moments in jail, let alone having their character deleted. But there will be some players who RELISH in it and see it as a BADGE OF HONOR. This is what will create a DYNAMIC WORLD that has almost as much depth and complexity as our own.
A few more details are necessary to make this work, for example, the crimes you can commit all need to have very nuanced elements to them.
If you go up to someone and (accidentally or on purpose) hit them, just once, the person being hit should have the ability to forgive you or press charges. To press charges they must find a guard and report the crime. The guard will then find you and fine you a measly amount, some of which will go to the player you hit (SEE THE POTENTIAL IN THIS SYSTEM?). Let's say you challenge someone to a duel and win, but then you kill them. That would be a crime in most nations (perhaps not in a more barbaric society). Let's then say that you loot their corpse. Oh boy now you've done it. You dishonor yourself by breaking the treaty of an agreed-upon duel. Each subsequently dishonorable action piles on the consequences. Also, any players should be able to report crimes, as well as NPCs (kinda like Skyrim, except not with chickens).
As for public enemy #1 (ie: you'll be executed/perma-killed if caught), it should take a LONG time to get there and every time you are caught and you lose your bounty (but your past crimes are not erased from record) so it would be really hard to become this high-level criminal. Wouldn't it be so exciting to hear about a certain player who has evaded capture and has the highest bounty in the game? If you manage to kill him you could earn a bit of gold, haul him in for execution however, and you would be set for life, and he would be GONE FROM THE GAME FOREVER (and would either quit entirely or have to make a new character/play on an alt).
But that is the life he chose and the risk he took and his name will always be on the tongues of those would-be outlaws trying to make a name for themselves.
This is just one element of how you A) make FFA full-loot pvp viable
but also create dynamic, player-driven legends that are passed down in the game-world.
It would take a lot of balls to do something like this. I really hope SOE figure out some element of this and build off of it.
I left a lot out here (I have a 30-page document detailing just crime and punishment in a game) so if anyone has any questions or what ifs throw 'em at me.
It will be interesting to see if EQN goes this route which is by no means guaranteed because we will finally have definitive proof one way or another on the viability of a game focused mainly on FFA PvP.
I don't count Age of Wushu as proof because
A) I have no idea how well it is doing outside of China
C)It's arguable that AoW is AAA.
If SoE does go this route I doubt they will make any inroads into the AoW player base in China.
One of my pet peeves in threads like these though is the premise that UO was all about FFA PvP,that was not the focus of UO,it was just a feature that was there if you chose and was only a fraction of what UO offered.
Like I said it will be interesting if SOE does fully commit to FFA PvP focus and I'll try it if it does like any other game.I personally don't care what the focus of the game is only that I find it fun,you guys can pidgeon hole yourselves as narrow focused gamers who can't find enjoyment outside of a specialized rule set but that's not for me.I'll continue to enjoy the breadth and depth that video gaming offers.
Why even if it fails people will just claim they did it wrong....
Open world forced PvP fans always extremely over-estimate the size of that group.
It is tiny, very very tiny. That is why people don't spend $100 million making a game for that group. Look at how many MMOs have a full PvP server option and then look at how many play that vs the large number of non-pvp servers. It is a microscopic niche market.
Now look at a game like Darkfall which went out of its way to target that crowd. See how tiny that game population is?
Games are entertainment. Most people want to enjoy their entertainment. Most people don't find it fun when trying to enjoy their entertainment (getting ready to do a quest, gathering materials, hunting, etc.) some guy pops out and kills them. That gets in the way of their enjoyment and so they don't play those types of games. For some reason the die hard PvP crowd can never understand that.
I used to love open world anything goes PvP. I enjoy UO when it was a free-for-all (before the red blue grey crap). I enjoyed when EQ tried out their RvR server. I absolutely loved DAoC and all I did in that game was PvP. As I've gotten older I've found that I don't enjoy the forced MMO PvP. I thoroughly enjoy PvP on my terms (battlegrounds, opt in/opt out styles) but I hate being forced into it when trying to do something else. That is because as you get older you tend to get far less game time. So when you do get a chance to game you want to do what it is that you want to do. Not log in for an hour and get killed/camped everywhere you try to go. So I play battleground PvP or, and this is a shocking concept, I play a genre that is all about PvP when I want some action such as FPS games.
No major company will make a flagship MMO that is all forced open world PvP. It would be a giant failure. Instead most will launch with 1 or 2 PvP server and then watch as those dry up while the other servers flourish.