When I said he was trying to push his personal agenda of twisting meanings to fit his personal point of view people thought I was kidding.
No offense mate. I think everyone's kidding on these forums. The alternative of people being really serious is just too horrifying for me to handle!
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Open world PVP wasn't even something we talked about until WOW and others created instanced PVP scenario matches as a quasi e-sport. The term originally was used to describe any PVP in MMOs that was not an instanced match.
Whether it happened everywhere in the game or only in some areas was irrelevant to the original use of the term.
Games were never meant to be called OWPVP as that simply described an activity within a game, not a game type.
This is how i feel if you need to use the term i most likely dont consider your game to be a built from the ground up to be a PVP game to begin with. i cant even imagine how silly i would sound telling my friends one day "Hey bros, ya know today i might just do some Open world PvP in either crowfall or camelot unchained!" lmao
The problem is thinking instanced zones are not part of the open world.
Take Bree in lotro as an example. According to @Eldurian logic Bree isn't part of the open world as it's instanced.
Ettemoors is not openworld PvP by your own definition as the technology is in place to create another instance of the area if it ever gets over populated.
That's why instancing has nothing to do with it.
Ettenmoors is a sectioned of zone like an arena, same for Cyrodil in ESO.
Personally OWPvP has always mean't when PvP is not sectioned off to certain area's. Which Lotro does and ESO.
In my opinion a mmo has open world pvp if you cannot level/progress without being exposed to non-consensual pvp. In games such as darkfall or mortal online where leveling areas allow pvp they become open world pvp games. Games like lotro where you can reach the max level without ever having to worry about pvp attacks are not open world pvp games. I believe its fairly clear and most people understand this even if they are not being clear about it.
The problem is thinking instanced zones are not part of the open world.
Take Bree in lotro as an example. According to @Eldurian logic Bree isn't part of the open world as it's instanced.
Ettemoors is not openworld PvP by your own definition as the technology is in place to create another instance of the area if it ever gets over populated.
That's why instancing has nothing to do with it.
Ettenmoors is a sectioned of zone like an arena, same for Cyrodil in ESO.
Personally OWPvP has always mean't when PvP is not sectioned off to certain area's. Which Lotro does and ESO.
I haven't played LotRO in over five years but unless Bree has been changed it is not instanced.
Bree (And I don't even think it was all of Bree, just the place you push the first few levels as a human / hobbit) and Ettenmoors were just areas separated off from the rest of the world by teleportation (Sort of like every system in EVE is separated from every other system in in EVE that way.) But you've always ended up in same version of those zones as everyone else if you were on the same server. I played LotRO back when it was still new/popular and I never ended up in a separate instance of the Ettenmoors from anyone else so if there really is some kind of cap it must be set absurdly high.
The problem is thinking instanced zones are not part of the open world.
Take Bree in lotro as an example. According to @Eldurian logic Bree isn't part of the open world as it's instanced.
Ettemoors is not openworld PvP by your own definition as the technology is in place to create another instance of the area if it ever gets over populated.
That's why instancing has nothing to do with it.
Ettenmoors is a sectioned of zone like an arena, same for Cyrodil in ESO.
Personally OWPvP has always mean't when PvP is not sectioned off to certain area's. Which Lotro does and ESO.
I haven't played LotRO in over five years but unless Bree has been changed it is not instanced.
Bree (And I don't even think it was all of Bree, just the place you push the first few levels as a human / hobbit) and Ettenmoors were just areas separated off from the rest of the world by teleportation (Sort of like every system in EVE is separated from every other system in in EVE that way.) But you've always ended up in same version of those zones as everyone else if you were on the same server. I played LotRO back when it was still new/popular and I never ended up in a separate instance of the Ettenmoors from anyone else so if there really is some kind of cap it must be set absurdly high.
I can't remember when it was introduced. I just want to clarify it's not the whole of Bree it's just the Town. Also not exclusive to Bree Town, majority of busy areas have been instanced.
They call it dynamic layering I think. An icon will display in the corner with a tooltip:
That's new then. Bree certainly was not instanced when I played. Well one example used in the article is towns from the original Guild Wars which were divided into layers in a nearly identical fashion.
If that's what they did to the Ettenmoors then Ettenmoors were Open World PvP originally. That term is certainly a lot more disputable if they divided it into "Dynamic Layers."
Though I will add Dynamic Layers are certainly a very non-traditional form of instancing popping up with increasing frequency these days in games like ESO and Star Citizen and apparently LotRO I guess. They will probably lead to changes in what terms like instance, open world, and open world PvP mean. That is a debate in which I don't see a clear right or wrong answer as of yet though, so I don't really care to throw my opinion around on it.
For me, the term "open world PvP" means player versus player combat that can occur within a non-instanced area of the virtual world.
The term has nothing to do with consenting. The term has nothing to do with factions The term has nothing to do with how much area is available for pvp The term has everything to do with your actions - fighting real people The term has everything to do with the location - the open world
So, with that in mind, I would classify the Ettenmoors as Open World PvP - you can fight other players, it is not instanced, anyone can go there, the zone is persistent. LotRO is obviously not an open world pvp game, because the focus of the game is not open world pvp, that is just a minor feature.
A game like WAR also had open world pvp. You could fight other players in most, if not all of the non-instanced areas of the game. Some areas were forced pvp (the lakes), others were consensual (flagging yourself whilst in pve areas). I would also describe that game as an Open World PvP game, seeing as it's primary focus was on that feature.
A game like Darkfall also had open world pvp. Again, you could fight other players is virtually all non-instanced areas of the game, and as that was the focus of the game, I would also describe the game as an open world pvp game.
With ESO, you start slipping into a grey area and I'm not sure I know enough details to make a judgement. Cyrodiil is sort of instanced, yet there is some sort of persistence to each instance. I also think there is a player cap per instance, though I don't think the cap is ever reached. So, in the strict sense of my definition, I would not classify Cyrodiil as open world pvp, more like a very long duration battleground, however the gameplay experience is much the same as you would find other open world pvp.
With something like SW:TOR, even though it has Ilum (pvp zone) and even though you can flag throughout the whole game, I wouldn't say it has open world pvp because of the player limit per instance. The game is so poorly coded that it can't handle many people in the same zone, so it spins up instances very quickly. When I was still playing, that limit was about 50 people. That meant it was virtually impossible to be able to get to the fight - if pvp was occurring in the world, chances are you couldn't enter that instance because it was already full. It killed all spontaneity. I remember one night, I formed a raid with my guild, we all flagged then went out to cause some trouble. We hardly saw anyone, because our raid (24) alone half filled our instance, leaving very few slots open to others to come and fight us. One imperial raid did eventually come out to fight us, they had about 18 people, however we could never find each other because the game was unable to put both raids in the same instance.
So are you implying that LOTRO is an open world PvP game using the definition you gave us for option 1, or are you not?
I am not implying any game is Open World PvP, because no game is Open World PvP. Open World PvP is content. Thus the question "Is LotRO an Open World PvP Game" is a similarly nonsensical question to "Is WoW and Arena PvP Game"? Or "Are you a liver person"? And then trying to insinuate the answer "no" means WoW doesn't have arena PvP, and you don't have a liver.
I am implying it is a game that has a small area set aside in which Open World PvP is possible. It's an Open World zone enabled for PvP. Roaming gangs of players encounter other roaming gangs of players in a persistent area with no set numbers per side, features generally distinct to Open World PvP.
No, it's not what the game is about, but that doesn't stop it from being Open World PvP any more than it means you don't have a liver if you decide not to classify yourself as a "liver person." Your question itself just means your entire thought process surrounding the matter is wrong. ________________
Another analogy is if you walked into a Mexican restaurant, found a burger on the menu and said. "They can't have burgers here because this isn't a burger joint! Whatever it is, it's not a burger!"
Again, the difference between falsely assuming the term "Open World PvP" applies to games, and realizing it is simply a type of content like Arena PvP, dungeons, questing, crafting etc.
Hmm, I see . . . I'll tell all used car sales men then they can call their cars new if it has one new part then. I'm sure they'll be ecstatic.
No, I'm saying describing a whole based on a part is a dumb idea in general, and you shouldn't do it. Period. The part doesn't cease to be what it is just because the entirety of the whole doesn't revolve around it. Adding a new radiator doesn't make the car new but the fact the car is old doesn't mean the radiator isn't new.
Games are described and identified based on their content. Therefore there absolutely can be and are open world PvP games.
In open world PvP games most or all of the world areas PvP can occur. Further the PvP is usually a significant portion of the game. Therefore again there absolutely are open world PvP games.
Having a single zone or even a few where pvp occurs is not open world. That's just a small part of the world.
Ettenmoors if not open world PvP. It is zoned PvP.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Well I think I've made my point. When you actually lay out definitions instead of just asking people to apply them to a game they may or may not have ever played, 50% of people here agree with my definition, and the other 50% can't come to any kind of consensus on what they believe.
Obviously we aren't going to change eachother's minds and I'm ceasing to care about this argument unless you guys can actually come together and and give a clear definition you all agree upon instead of a vague idea rooted in nonsense.
There has never been been a point in the history of mankind where everyone has agreed about anything. Therefore asking for everyone to agree with a single definition about something as vague as open world PvP is foolish.
Words and phrases have typically always been defined based on what the majority and sometimes what an authority believe. This is the same. Most will not say that lotro is open world PvP simple because it has a zone where that occurs. That is too small part of the world. Most would simply say it has a PvP zone.
Most will say that darkfall is open world PvP because the majority of the world has that and the safe areas are few.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
For me Open world PvP (theory!) is very simple: everyone versus everyone. Jungle law. You saw level 3, while being lvl.103 - you came, stomped level 3 to the ground, then killed a group of lvl.3s, then got killed by some lvl.206. Killed without reason, just because it's Tuesday or full moon.
There has never been been a point in the history of mankind where everyone has agreed about anything. Therefore asking for everyone to agree with a single definition about something as vague as open world PvP is foolish.
Words and phrases have typically always been defined based on what the majority and sometimes what an authority believe. This is the same. Most will not say that lotro is open world PvP simple because it has a zone where that occurs. That is too small part of the world. Most would simply say it has a PvP zone.
Most will say that darkfall is open world PvP because the majority of the world has that and the safe areas are few.
The issue is isn't vague, and roughly half the people voting in this poll have been able to come to a consensus on what it means, and share that consensus with the vast majority of sources on the subject found outside these forums. Three of which I've cited for you in this topic.
Open World PvP happens out in the world which means there is no expectation of fairness. You could get jumped by 10 people while you are alone. While you're out hunting for other players to fight or while you're mining a rock. There is no telling what will happen.
That's free for all (FFA) PvP. FFA is not exlcusive to open world, instanced arena games such as FPS and RTS games allow FFA servers/game modes.
Also, if we consider all forms of PvP within a game, LOTRO could be classed as a complete openworld PvP game as you can spar anyone any where.
I just find it strange it has to be non-instanced. Why? When it doesn't effect game mechanics or game rules.
It can't be a numbers participating reason as Skyrim is classed as open world and it's a single player game. That would be more relevant to whether it's an MMO or not.
When a game had open world PvP it sometimes had a seperate server usually. Everquest for example. A server where you can kill anybody any where in the game world.
Maybe the term has changed over the years. No one can agree on the what MMO means today.
There has never been been a point in the history of mankind where everyone has agreed about anything. Therefore asking for everyone to agree with a single definition about something as vague as open world PvP is foolish.
Words and phrases have typically always been defined based on what the majority and sometimes what an authority believe. This is the same. Most will not say that lotro is open world PvP simple because it has a zone where that occurs. That is too small part of the world. Most would simply say it has a PvP zone.
Most will say that darkfall is open world PvP because the majority of the world has that and the safe areas are few.
The issue is isn't vague, and roughly half the people voting in this poll have been able to come to a consensus on what it means, and share that consensus with the vast majority of sources on the subject found outside these forums. Three of which I've cited for you in this topic.
That means half the people haven't. Your stats work against you.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Take Bree in lotro as an example. According to @Eldurian logic Bree isn't part of the open world as it's instanced.
Ettemoors is not openworld PvP by your own definition as the technology is in place to create another instance of the area if it ever gets over populated.
That's why instancing has nothing to do with it.
Ettenmoors is a sectioned of zone like an arena, same for Cyrodil in ESO.
Personally OWPvP has always mean't when PvP is not sectioned off to certain area's. Which Lotro does and ESO.
I believe its fairly clear and most people understand this even if they are not being clear about it.
"In massively multiplayer online games, an instance is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy of the location for each group, or for certain number of players, that enters the area."
Bree (And I don't even think it was all of Bree, just the place you push the first few levels as a human / hobbit) and Ettenmoors were just areas separated off from the rest of the world by teleportation (Sort of like every system in EVE is separated from every other system in in EVE that way.) But you've always ended up in same version of those zones as everyone else if you were on the same server. I played LotRO back when it was still new/popular and I never ended up in a separate instance of the Ettenmoors from anyone else so if there really is some kind of cap it must be set absurdly high.
They call it dynamic layering I think. An icon will display in the corner with a tooltip:
If that's what they did to the Ettenmoors then Ettenmoors were Open World PvP originally. That term is certainly a lot more disputable if they divided it into "Dynamic Layers."
Though I will add Dynamic Layers are certainly a very non-traditional form of instancing popping up with increasing frequency these days in games like ESO and Star Citizen and apparently LotRO I guess. They will probably lead to changes in what terms like instance, open world, and open world PvP mean. That is a debate in which I don't see a clear right or wrong answer as of yet though, so I don't really care to throw my opinion around on it.
MAGA
The term has nothing to do with consenting.
The term has nothing to do with factions
The term has nothing to do with how much area is available for pvp
The term has everything to do with your actions - fighting real people
The term has everything to do with the location - the open world
So, with that in mind, I would classify the Ettenmoors as Open World PvP - you can fight other players, it is not instanced, anyone can go there, the zone is persistent. LotRO is obviously not an open world pvp game, because the focus of the game is not open world pvp, that is just a minor feature.
A game like WAR also had open world pvp. You could fight other players in most, if not all of the non-instanced areas of the game. Some areas were forced pvp (the lakes), others were consensual (flagging yourself whilst in pve areas). I would also describe that game as an Open World PvP game, seeing as it's primary focus was on that feature.
A game like Darkfall also had open world pvp. Again, you could fight other players is virtually all non-instanced areas of the game, and as that was the focus of the game, I would also describe the game as an open world pvp game.
With ESO, you start slipping into a grey area and I'm not sure I know enough details to make a judgement. Cyrodiil is sort of instanced, yet there is some sort of persistence to each instance. I also think there is a player cap per instance, though I don't think the cap is ever reached. So, in the strict sense of my definition, I would not classify Cyrodiil as open world pvp, more like a very long duration battleground, however the gameplay experience is much the same as you would find other open world pvp.
With something like SW:TOR, even though it has Ilum (pvp zone) and even though you can flag throughout the whole game, I wouldn't say it has open world pvp because of the player limit per instance. The game is so poorly coded that it can't handle many people in the same zone, so it spins up instances very quickly. When I was still playing, that limit was about 50 people. That meant it was virtually impossible to be able to get to the fight - if pvp was occurring in the world, chances are you couldn't enter that instance because it was already full. It killed all spontaneity. I remember one night, I formed a raid with my guild, we all flagged then went out to cause some trouble. We hardly saw anyone, because our raid (24) alone half filled our instance, leaving very few slots open to others to come and fight us. One imperial raid did eventually come out to fight us, they had about 18 people, however we could never find each other because the game was unable to put both raids in the same instance.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
In open world PvP games most or all of the world areas PvP can occur. Further the PvP is usually a significant portion of the game. Therefore again there absolutely are open world PvP games.
Having a single zone or even a few where pvp occurs is not open world. That's just a small part of the world.
Ettenmoors if not open world PvP. It is zoned PvP.
Obviously we aren't going to change eachother's minds and I'm ceasing to care about this argument unless you guys can actually come together and and give a clear definition you all agree upon instead of a vague idea rooted in nonsense.
Words and phrases have typically always been defined based on what the majority and sometimes what an authority believe. This is the same. Most will not say that lotro is open world PvP simple because it has a zone where that occurs. That is too small part of the world. Most would simply say it has a PvP zone.
Most will say that darkfall is open world PvP because the majority of the world has that and the safe areas are few.
http://www.mmoblogg.wordpress.com
Also, if we consider all forms of PvP within a game, LOTRO could be classed as a complete openworld PvP game as you can spar anyone any where.
I just find it strange it has to be non-instanced. Why? When it doesn't effect game mechanics or game rules.
It can't be a numbers participating reason as Skyrim is classed as open world and it's a single player game. That would be more relevant to whether it's an MMO or not.
When a game had open world PvP it sometimes had a seperate server usually. Everquest for example. A server where you can kill anybody any where in the game world.
Maybe the term has changed over the years. No one can agree on the what MMO means today.