Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

MMO Devs listen up - OPT-IN Open World PvP

MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member

I was in a discussion in another thread about open world PvP.  As always, I am reminded how many of you have only been gaming since WoW.  I know a lot of people don't like world PvP, but there's really no programming reason why we can't have the best of both worlds.  In fact it's already been done in some games of the past.

I'm talking about an opt-in / flagging system for world PvP.  It's actually painfully simple in concept and it drives me insane trying to understand why something like this is not used these days.  Devs make all kinds of excuses up for lack of PvP, but their main excuse is that most players don't want to PvP.  I think it's just lazy development or lack of imagination in a lot of cases. Star Wars Galaxies had what I consider a pretty much best of both worlds system.  

In SWG you had a simple command to toggle yourself "on leave" or "active duty".  On leave meant you were completely PvE, and no one could touch you anywhere.  The exception to that was if you flagged yourself through attacking a faction NPC spawn (such as an imperial or rebel camp spawn), or in some versions of the game, if you pulled your light saber in public.  Even then you could toggle on leave, and wait for the timer. This prevented griefing and other problems.  Active duty is what it sounds like.  You are flagged for World PvP, and can be engaged at any time by the enemy faction.  

In practice, I loved this system.  If there was a PvP fight going on in the city, I was free to join in, or go about my business.  People who wanted to completely stay out of the fights could do so.  I could join a battle in the war, or do other things.

When I look at struggling new games like The Secret World, where there are three factions that are supposedly "best buds" all of the sudden because they have to fight evil together, I just shake my head.  This was the excuse Funcom gave for no faction v faction world PvP.  I find it hard to believe that these factions which have been fighting each other for hundreds of years, just suddenly became brother and sisters in peace.  Besides, there were quite a few people who wanted world PvP in the game, and it would add a whole new dimension to TSW that may attract new players.  I know I would go back for it if done right.

That's just an example though, and the point is that you can have logic built into PvP so that those who are not interested could stay out of it.  Even as  PvE player, I would find it both fun and interesting to see other people battling it out in the streets.  It would make these often dead and dry worlds feel much more alive and it would attract a wider player base.

A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

«1

Comments

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    Well, the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend (for now) has plenty of precedent. You need look no further then WWII and the relationship between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union for that.

    It's not that the powers become all "buddy, buddy", it's that they recognize that without some level of cooperation they are going to be destroyed. They do it out of neccesity, not desire.  I don't play Secret World, but I think the way they have that dynamic setup between the factions is a very interesting aspect of the game.

    In terms of  "OPT-IN" Open World PvP....I think there are some problems in that regard... more so for sandbox style games. Mostly this would be in terms of actions that support combat efforts but aren't directly combat actions themselves.

    For example is a millitary force supposed to simply let someone they KNOW is working for the enemy stroll all around thier base or stanging areas scouting out positions for the enemy simply because they have thier "flag off"?  Even in the field, if you see someone that is freindly to the enemy, do you let them alone so they can provide combat intel about your forces and movements?

    The other aspect is if the game includes any sort of economic/logistic aspects to warfare (as sandbox games often seek to incorporate). If someone is out gathering resources that you KNOW are going to be used to craft/construct weapons for the enemy...you just leave them alone because they are "unflagged" ?

    By allowing the "OPT-IN" feature, you are taking very important elements out of warfare.

     

    I'd vastly prefer systems where there were "free fire" and "non-agression" zones/area.  This allows players to choose to engage or not based upon the territory they entered. Once you enter a "free fire" zone you are fair game regardless of whether you really want to fight or not. By contrast "non agression zones" you don't allow fighting no matter what your faction is.

    This both gets around some of the problems with the "OPT-IN" model and is more realistic. There are plenty of situations where hostile factions can't engage each other in neutral territory (e.g. Switzerland) or are restricted to brushfire/proxy wars in remote territories because they don't want to risk escalation by direct attacks on each others homeland (US/Soviet situation during the Cold War). YMMV

     

  • kadepsysonkadepsyson sun prairie, WIPosts: 1,937Member

    I'm more of a fan of the risk vs reward system.  I'm a bit less of a fan of the "oh I know I can win this fight, time to flag, then hide while my timer disappears" system.

    I think if you choose to travel into an area that's dangerous, you should expect some... danger?

    I find it extremely irritating when a player can just wander around in complete protection despite being from a faction I'm at war with because... he didn't enter a slash command.  That's just silly.

    El Psy Congroo

  • worldalphaworldalpha Milton, ONPosts: 403Member
    Here's hoping I'm not in the clueless club!

    Thanks,
    Mike
    Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,667Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MindTrigger

    I'm talking about an opt-in / flagging system for world PvP.  It's actually painfully simple in concept and it drives me insane trying to understand why something like this is not used these days.  Devs make all kinds of excuses up for lack of PvP, but their main excuse is that most players don't want to PvP.  I think it's just lazy development or lack of imagination in a lot of cases.

    PVP flagging is great if there's a reason for it. AC and, as you mentioned, SWG offered it. However, the more meaningful the actions of the players and the resources of the game world in relation to PVP, the more PVP flagging works against it.

    Although UO's solution was a duct tape solution, it's one of my favorite approaches - two facets of the game world so that you can use the same character on the same server for both open world PVP and consensual PVP environments. GW2 emulated that with the separate PvP area, while also addressing the issue of PvE vs PvP gear.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • xDracxDrac HamburgPosts: 183Member

    You know what game hat absolute perfect Open World PVP? 

    Lineage II

    Lineage 3 - www.lineage3-online.com
    Web & Graphic Design - www.xdrac.com

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Baltimore, MDPosts: 5,359Member

    I've never thought that flagging is a good solution to open-world PvP.  I've played several games that had it, and it almost universally led to hardly any open world PvP.

    The only folks who would set their flag on, would basically be looking for a fight, which kind of defeats the purpose of open-world PvP.  And then if you were crazy enough to walk around flagged, all it would take is for a few other opportunistic players to see you, turn their flag on, and kill you while you couldn't have done anything  to them before they attacked.

    Then there are "perma-flag" systems like EQ1 that were just epic fail.  Reds (flagged) in EQ1 couldn't get healed by other players unless they were red, so grouping with them wasn't really possible.  And I think I may have saw only like 2 red names during my entire playtime in EQ1.

    IMO, a good way to do open world PvP would be where anyone could attack anyone, but there would be REALLY harsh penalties for "murderers."  There would be factions you could join though that were "at war" so you could PvP without threat of being a murderer.  The problem is that the devs always cowtow to the ganker whiners that want to be able to gank with miniscule penalties.  In my mind, if you are a murderer in a game, perma-death should be on the table for you.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Well, the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend (for now) has plenty of precedent. You need look no further then WWII and the relationship between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union for that.

    It's not that the powers become all "buddy, buddy", it's that they recognize that without some level of cooperation they are going to be destroyed. They do it out of neccesity, not desire.  I don't play Secret World, but I think the way they have that dynamic setup between the factions is a very interesting aspect of the game.

    In terms of  "OPT-IN" Open World PvP....I think there are some problems in that regard... more so for sandbox style games. Mostly this would be in terms of actions that support combat efforts but aren't directly combat actions themselves.

    For example is a millitary force supposed to simply let someone they KNOW is working for the enemy stroll all around thier base or stanging areas scouting out positions for the enemy simply because they have thier "flag off"?  Even in the field, if you see someone that is freindly to the enemy, do you let them alone so they can provide combat intel about your forces and movements?

    The other aspect is if the game includes any sort of economic/logistic aspects to warfare (as sandbox games often seek to incorporate). If someone is out gathering resources that you KNOW are going to be used to craft/construct weapons for the enemy...you just leave them alone because they are "unflagged" ?

    By allowing the "OPT-IN" feature, you are taking very important elements out of warfare.

     

    I'd vastly prefer systems where there were "free fire" and "non-agression" zones/area.  This allows players to choose to engage or not based upon the territory they entered. Once you enter a "free fire" zone you are fair game regardless of whether you really want to fight or not. By contrast "non agression zones" you don't allow fighting no matter what your faction is.

    This both gets around some of the problems with the "OPT-IN" model and is more realistic. There are plenty of situations where hostile factions can't engage each other in neutral territory (e.g. Switzerland) or are restricted to brushfire/proxy wars in remote territories because they don't want to risk escalation by direct attacks on each others homeland (US/Soviet situation during the Cold War). YMMV

     

    I'm 40 years old and I'm well schooled on world history.  (I actually read and stuff)

    These aren't governments in TSW.  They are basically megalomaniacal cults.  The point wasn't about the viability of working together, it was about how easy it would have been to allow PvP in a game like TSW, and originally I believe it was part of the design.  It was changed very late in development.

    I don't care about non-aggression zones because they segregate the population.  The point of opt-in PvP is to put it out there for anyone to experience, even if they are just bystanders.  I loved the battles that would happen in SWG cities, even when I was just watching.  There were also times when I joined in a fight because someone asked me for help, or because seeing everyone else fighting gave me the itch.  That wouldn't have happened much had the battles always been in some far away zone.

    I understand your opinion, but I stil find opt-in to be the best of both worlds, while also inviting people who might otherwise only PvE to be a part of it all.  Look how dead and boring London and Seoule are in TSW.  It would have been a lot more fun to see fights on the streets, or out in the game world in my opinion.  The same goes for a lot of other boring games out there.

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by Creslin321

    I've never thought that flagging is a good solution to open-world PvP.  I've played several games that had it, and it almost universally led to hardly any open world PvP.

    The only folks who would set their flag on, would basically be looking for a fight, which kind of defeats the purpose of open-world PvP.  And then if you were crazy enough to walk around flagged, all it would take is for a few other opportunistic players to see you, turn their flag on, and kill you while you couldn't have done anything  to them before they attacked.

    Then there are "perma-flag" systems like EQ1 that were just epic fail.  Reds (flagged) in EQ1 couldn't get healed by other players unless they were red, so grouping with them wasn't really possible.  And I think I may have saw only like 2 red names during my entire playtime in EQ1.

    IMO, a good way to do open world PvP would be where anyone could attack anyone, but there would be REALLY harsh penalties for "murderers."  There would be factions you could join though that were "at war" so you could PvP without threat of being a murderer.  The problem is that the devs always cowtow to the ganker whiners that want to be able to gank with miniscule penalties.  In my mind, if you are a murderer in a game, perma-death should be on the table for you.

    SWG had PvP fights all the time, in the NPC cities, and the player-built cities when Galactic Civil War bases were introduced.  Just depends on the game, I guess.  There were also large groups of duelers that would hang out and fight.  It made the cities more interesting, IMO.

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    Every single flagging system I've encountered has sucked. I agree with GrumpyMel2 zones would be a much more robust solution. Flagging systems are never simple, and will always be exploited.

    But then again I think OWPvP is crap so what do I know...

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • ste2000ste2000 londonPosts: 4,705Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by xDrac

    You know what game hat absolute perfect Open World PVP? 

    Vanilla WoW.

    Never PvPed so much in my life.

     

  • drivecdrivec tulsa, OKPosts: 93Member

    pvp zones where exp rewards are higher then normal thus giveing reason for pvp and options to op out if you dont want to.

     

    this would be my favorite type of solution. 

  • phantomghostphantomghost Atlanta, GAPosts: 694Member Uncommon

    I never really considered myself to be real good at pvp.

     

    In EQ yeah I won most GM pvp events.  I won my servers self run ffa pvp event.  But I was at the time the best monk on server and I had my team with me.

     

    Every game after EQ I went PvP server.

     

    WoW... I was amazing at pvp... I never had such an easier pvp experience.  I could solo 2v2 to 2200+ by myself.  I always made top % of team and it became very boring.  This was the only game I felt I was better than everyone else... because simply put I was.

    AoC-  I was very good... the game was easy... open world pvp was a joke.

    DF- I was ok but really I was no where near as skilled as many others.

    MO- I always sucked really... I could win fights with groups that was about it, but I did start late and did not play long.

    Rift- I sucked at first then I found the OP 2h skill tree and became amazing.

    SWTOR- I was amazing... everyone else sucked.

     

    Why do I get so bored with WoW clones?  Because they are so easy... they are boring.  I should not go into the game and easily out perform many others... when i go into a PvP game I am no where near the competition.

     

    photo SIG_zpszteuyd0ejpg
  • BanquettoBanquetto CityPosts: 1,037Member Uncommon
    I find it amusing that you sneer at people who "have only been gaming since WoW", and then go on to propose a system which is pretty much identical to how WoW's Normal servers work.
  • ElSandmanElSandman BrisbanePosts: 94Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Well, the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend (for now) has plenty of precedent. You need look no further then WWII and the relationship between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union for that.

    It's not that the powers become all "buddy, buddy", it's that they recognize that without some level of cooperation they are going to be destroyed. They do it out of neccesity, not desire.  I don't play Secret World, but I think the way they have that dynamic setup between the factions is a very interesting aspect of the game.

    In terms of  "OPT-IN" Open World PvP....I think there are some problems in that regard... more so for sandbox style games. Mostly this would be in terms of actions that support combat efforts but aren't directly combat actions themselves.

    For example is a millitary force supposed to simply let someone they KNOW is working for the enemy stroll all around thier base or stanging areas scouting out positions for the enemy simply because they have thier "flag off"?  Even in the field, if you see someone that is freindly to the enemy, do you let them alone so they can provide combat intel about your forces and movements?

    The other aspect is if the game includes any sort of economic/logistic aspects to warfare (as sandbox games often seek to incorporate). If someone is out gathering resources that you KNOW are going to be used to craft/construct weapons for the enemy...you just leave them alone because they are "unflagged" ?

    By allowing the "OPT-IN" feature, you are taking very important elements out of warfare.

     

    I'd vastly prefer systems where there were "free fire" and "non-agression" zones/area.  This allows players to choose to engage or not based upon the territory they entered. Once you enter a "free fire" zone you are fair game regardless of whether you really want to fight or not. By contrast "non agression zones" you don't allow fighting no matter what your faction is.

    This both gets around some of the problems with the "OPT-IN" model and is more realistic. There are plenty of situations where hostile factions can't engage each other in neutral territory (e.g. Switzerland) or are restricted to brushfire/proxy wars in remote territories because they don't want to risk escalation by direct attacks on each others homeland (US/Soviet situation during the Cold War). YMMV

     

    I agree totally with this ^^

    The point of open world PvP is the whole meta game that ensues as a consequence.  Opt-In flags effectively totally destroy this meta game.

    When you sign into the game you are opting in.  (excluding possible limited afety areas)

     

  • rungardrungard st. john''s, NFPosts: 1,035Member

    i think players are going to have to adapt to world pvp at some point for content reasons.

    my strategy would be to better incorperate it into the game through ingame mechanisms.

    for instance if your a killer then your a killer. You look different, have many restrictions and get few if any protections from other players killing you. You do get more power to compensate for your disadvantages.

    if your a hardcore carebear then your a carebear. You join the order of pacification and you get all kinds of tools to avoid the killers, but no tools to kill them. for instance one skill might be "Detect Evil".. you can detect them long before they get close to you, or "great divide" which makes you invisible to them and them invisible to you when activated,  numerous inventory gold and item protections.

    and of course if your a killer of killers, you join the order of hunters and you get tracking, some equipment protections (but not nearly as many as the carebear order), and other skills for tracking down and killing killers. You wouldnt have as many avoidance skills as the carebear order above.

    and other organizations that offer different benifits in relation to open world pvp to suit everyones taste.

    it can all be done in game, and additionally you can allow players to accept many different levels of risk according to their playstyle, but rather than keep them seperate, you integrate them in the same world and give them tools.

    i dont think people would be nearly as averse to world pvp if they had the tools to defend themselves with on a level they are comfortable with.

  • AusareAusare adamstown, MDPosts: 850Member
    People do not have to adapt. Pve content could just improve.
  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 510Member
    Open World PVP is a "inevitable" and mandatory feature in sandbox mmos, since these mmos try to simulate a "realistic" competion between humans for political/geopolitical domains, ownerships, resources and etc. Without OWPvP, that competion and its social consequences (necessity of in-game alliances, friendships, political intrigues, tactics for self-defense, etc) ceases to exist.

    "What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

    image
  • rungardrungard st. john''s, NFPosts: 1,035Member
    Originally posted by Ausare
    People do not have to adapt. Pve content could just improve.

     how so? Without a brain behind it, it will always be scripted.

    i say make it really really hard to exist  as a killer so theres not to many of them ( about 4%), make it so that the killers need to compete among themselves and give the best of them skills to initiate npc attacks on the 96%.

    Free dynamic gameplay for everyone.

     

  • AusareAusare adamstown, MDPosts: 850Member
    Depends. Say you have a world with not but a starter town and a world filled with mobs. The characters then have to go out a clear areas to build. Towns have to be organized and defended from mob swarms that would try to reclaim areas. Pve...sandbox....player politics cause towns can decay without management.
  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ste2000
    Originally posted by xDrac

    You know what game hat absolute perfect Open World PVP? 

    Vanilla WoW.

    Never PvPed so much in my life.

     

    Yeah but it was pointless!

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ausare
    People do not have to adapt. Pve content could just improve.

    OR, people need to realize there is room for many different games. PVE needs to improve in general, and PVP needs to be brought back for those who want it (me lol). 

  • OrtwigOrtwig Cambridge, MAPosts: 1,159Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Well, the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend (for now) has plenty of precedent. You need look no further then WWII and the relationship between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union for that.

    It's not that the powers become all "buddy, buddy", it's that they recognize that without some level of cooperation they are going to be destroyed. They do it out of neccesity, not desire.  I don't play Secret World, but I think the way they have that dynamic setup between the factions is a very interesting aspect of the game.

    In terms of  "OPT-IN" Open World PvP....I think there are some problems in that regard... more so for sandbox style games. Mostly this would be in terms of actions that support combat efforts but aren't directly combat actions themselves.

    For example is a millitary force supposed to simply let someone they KNOW is working for the enemy stroll all around thier base or stanging areas scouting out positions for the enemy simply because they have thier "flag off"?  Even in the field, if you see someone that is freindly to the enemy, do you let them alone so they can provide combat intel about your forces and movements?

    The other aspect is if the game includes any sort of economic/logistic aspects to warfare (as sandbox games often seek to incorporate). If someone is out gathering resources that you KNOW are going to be used to craft/construct weapons for the enemy...you just leave them alone because they are "unflagged" ?

    By allowing the "OPT-IN" feature, you are taking very important elements out of warfare.

     

    I'd vastly prefer systems where there were "free fire" and "non-agression" zones/area.  This allows players to choose to engage or not based upon the territory they entered. Once you enter a "free fire" zone you are fair game regardless of whether you really want to fight or not. By contrast "non agression zones" you don't allow fighting no matter what your faction is.

    This both gets around some of the problems with the "OPT-IN" model and is more realistic. There are plenty of situations where hostile factions can't engage each other in neutral territory (e.g. Switzerland) or are restricted to brushfire/proxy wars in remote territories because they don't want to risk escalation by direct attacks on each others homeland (US/Soviet situation during the Cold War). YMMV

     

    I'm 40 years old and I'm well schooled on world history.  (I actually read and stuff)

    These aren't governments in TSW.  They are basically megalomaniacal cults.  The point wasn't about the viability of working together, it was about how easy it would have been to allow PvP in a game like TSW, and originally I believe it was part of the design.  It was changed very late in development.

    I don't care about non-aggression zones because they segregate the population.  The point of opt-in PvP is to put it out there for anyone to experience, even if they are just bystanders.  I loved the battles that would happen in SWG cities, even when I was just watching.  There were also times when I joined in a fight because someone asked me for help, or because seeing everyone else fighting gave me the itch.  That wouldn't have happened much had the battles always been in some far away zone.

    I understand your opinion, but I stil find opt-in to be the best of both worlds, while also inviting people who might otherwise only PvE to be a part of it all.  Look how dead and boring London and Seoule are in TSW.  It would have been a lot more fun to see fights on the streets, or out in the game world in my opinion.  The same goes for a lot of other boring games out there.

    I could see opt in working for a game like TSW where the story could be explained by "rogue agents"!and such. it's less about mass strategic movements of armies and more about individual action. territories for pvp and safe zones might work better for large scale battles.  I like the idea of classes for the different pvp styles -- player killer, hunter, etc. 

  • rungardrungard st. john''s, NFPosts: 1,035Member

    i see so much more than classes for pvp styles though. Think about this:

    look at how your guild works in any modern mmo. Now think about the old eq faction system. What if each one of those factions had all the upgrade options of a guild, with the difference that a npc controlled the top level instead of a player.

    say you were in the "order of pacification" above for the pve only crowd. You join this order and you get a certain number of skills and protections to go with your race and class. You can then improve your protections by everyone in your order working toward "order" goals. As the order progresses more and more skills become available, and in this case they specialize in protection. Protecting you from getting ganked, protecting your items and gold, protecting your equipment.

    you progress in the order independant of your other "organizations" i.e class, race etc and you can either do things like combat, salvage, gather materials, or help build the order hall (each order would have one) or even set up an order outpost. You can contribute on your own to gain faction and unlock the skills and abilities, or with a group or a zerg if thats your style.

    It may be possible that you might have a chance of being killed by a killer type player, but joining this order gives you a plethora of tools to allow you to avoid it fairly easily. This orders focus is just that though. 

    now if you add many more levels of this npc guild type faction, you can design in pvp rulesets tailored to the needs of the individual player the order of pacification being the most pve extreme order.

    You could have orders for sentinels which give up some protections for other defensive pvp related abilities

    you could have Rangers which dont have alot of protections but instead get tracking abilities and other useful tools for hunting the killer type players.

    you can have many flavors and each flavor could have a mix of plusses and minuses chosable by the player depending on their play style.

    at the bottom is the killers. Those who choose to kill other players who are not killers. Unlike all the other factions, the killer factions are seen as "evil" and are kos to all "good factions from above and are actually in league with the npc villians of the game. They look like the "evil" aka dark elf vs high elf version of the good side, but their factions are not concerned with protections, this extreme is only interested in power and control and thus all the skillls and abilities reflect that.

    in these factions players compete for control of the upper ranks (maybe top 20 players online or something) ( read fight amongst themselves) and the top ranks get to initiate npc events that the "good" side would see as dynamic content.

    the trick is to make the evil faction very difficult and unforgiving to play (focus on power not protection) such that the number of evil players would always be a small subset of the population (4-5%). Difficult and unforgiving usually easily accomplish this goal.

    pvp can be integrated into a game. It does not have to be seperated.

  • PurutzilPurutzil East Stroudsburg, PAPosts: 2,924Member Uncommon
    Is been used before in the past, and honestly its not that good of a system. Problem is people just flag in when they want and go crazy. It promotes people purposely staying flagged and then jumping as soon as they spot someone red they can take down. Its just not all that orderly and its just a rather meh feature. You either have open pvp or you don't. The inbetween area just makes it a rather lack luster experience for anyone wanting to get flagged.
  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Open World PVP is a "inevitable" and mandatory feature in sandbox mmos, since these mmos try to simulate a "realistic" competion between humans for political/geopolitical domains, ownerships, resources and etc. Without OWPvP, that competion and its social consequences (necessity of in-game alliances, friendships, political intrigues, tactics for self-defense, etc) ceases to exist.

    Actualy I'm going to disagree with this, because it assumes that the players are the ONLY powers that exist in a sandbox game. That simply does not need to be true. "Sandbox" simply implies that the players have a significant creative role in shaping the game narrative/environment.  It does not imply that there are NO other powers in the game world that the players must deal with....or even that the players are by any stretch of the imagination the most powerfull entities in the game world. "Sandbox" certainly leaves room for other entities/powers to exist in the world that the players must deal with....including ones that the players may recognize as vastly more powerfull then themselves.

    There are plenty of examples in real world history (and even greater room for them to exist in fiction) where individuals/groups/factions even nations had to abide by rules of engagement for where they could and could not conduct hostilities. Even if you would really like to cut down someone of an opposing faction, you simply aren't going to do so if it means violating the neutrality of a power that could crush you like a bug. Since most games don't have perma-death (and no creation of a new account if you are killed), one effective way to simulate this effect is "safe zones".

    Having such a mechanic does not prevent the game from being a "sandbox"....even real world "sandboxes" have some basic boundaries and rules that control thier use.

     

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.