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!

Optional Open World PVP

2456

Comments

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLPosts: 4,507Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by NaughtyP

    I was always a fan of the overt/covert way SWG handled PvP.

    • If you are overt, you are fair game and show up as red.
    • If you are covert, you show up as neutral and cannot be attacked
    • If you are covert, but attack an overt enemy (or help an overt ally), you've earned yourself a temporary enemy flag (TEF - flagged overt for X minutes).

    While this does lead to TEF wars, it also makes a lot of sense. When you think about it, guerilla warfare, spying, and all of those other fun war games are legitimate tactics.

    Plus this way you can mix PvP players with PvE players without needing to convert zones into specific special areas like PvE only or PvP only. It makes the game world bigger.

    Well, that's just how I feel. I always thought SWG's PvP was the most elegant since you could play whatever way you wanted.

    I always thought the whole overt/covert flag ruined SWG.   I mean... really?  The guy standing 5 feet from me now has his "covert' flag up when 20 minutes ago he was killing my Imperial Allies in the same spot?  And now I can't do anything even though it's the same guy?  

     

    Talk about an anti-sandbox mechanism...

     

    Sure guerilla warfare and 'spying" are legitimate tactics but when you KNOW the other guy is a spy and he was just killing people a few minutes ago, but now you cannot do anything but sit and let him spy.... is just a bad.. BAD mechanism.

     

     

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • ReklawReklaw Am.Posts: 6,478Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Slapshot1188
    Originally posted by NaughtyP

    I was always a fan of the overt/covert way SWG handled PvP.

    • If you are overt, you are fair game and show up as red.
    • If you are covert, you show up as neutral and cannot be attacked
    • If you are covert, but attack an overt enemy (or help an overt ally), you've earned yourself a temporary enemy flag (TEF - flagged overt for X minutes).

    While this does lead to TEF wars, it also makes a lot of sense. When you think about it, guerilla warfare, spying, and all of those other fun war games are legitimate tactics.

    Plus this way you can mix PvP players with PvE players without needing to convert zones into specific special areas like PvE only or PvP only. It makes the game world bigger.

    Well, that's just how I feel. I always thought SWG's PvP was the most elegant since you could play whatever way you wanted.

    I always thought the whole overt/covert flag ruined SWG.   I mean... really?  The guy standing 5 feet from me now has his "covert' flag up when 20 minutes ago he was killing my Imperial Allies in the same spot?  And now I can't do anything even though it's the same guy?  

     

    Talk about an anti-sandbox mechanism...

     

    Sure guerilla warfare and 'spying" are legitimate tactics but when you KNOW the other guy is a spy and he was just killing people a few minutes ago, but now you cannot do anything but sit and let him spy.... is just a bad.. BAD mechanism.

     

     

    Why do you feel it's a anti-sandbox mechanism?

    I mean don't we have thousands of PVP games already where you are never safe cause that's what already is done in multiplayer games. Shouldn't MMORPG's go far beyond what we already have especially considering players to have a choice in how they want to play a sandbox game.

    And in all fairness since the mechanic doesn't atract you. You are free to not to play that game and pick some of the forced pvp oriented sandbox games, which like your opinion is to me a anti-sandbox mechanic cause nothing should be forced in sandbox, we have themepark games and regular multiplayer games for that.

    I also bet that you might get allot more people willing to try PVP even if they are more into PVE due to it being a choice.

    Again pure my opinion based on my own experiance so don't read as solid fact.

  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Champaign, ILPosts: 1,552Member Uncommon

    I hate PvP because PvP'ers cry for the game makers to gimp PvE rogues, archers, and rangers until we can't hit a bunny straight!!!  How would you fix the cry babbies that ruined my game???  

     

    *mad bro?

    Very!


  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon

    I prefer the flag system, but one where you can't immediately turn it off.  Lets you pvp when you want and not pvp when you want.

    Flag it on, cant' turn it off for an hour or a day or so to reduce the abuse.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • kadepsysonkadepsyson sun prairie, WIPosts: 1,937Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    I prefer the flag system, but one where you can't immediately turn it off.  Lets you pvp when you want and not pvp when you want.

    Flag it on, cant' turn it off for an hour or a day or so to reduce the abuse.

    Would suck to get surrounded by peopel who weren't flagged, while you are flagged, and just wait for them to be ready to instantly slaughter you once they flag themselves at once and stab you.

    Then again, I do prefer a system of you risk more to earn more.  Rather than extremely artificial systems that don't fit within the setting of the game at all.

    El Psy Congroo

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kadepsyson
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    I prefer the flag system, but one where you can't immediately turn it off.  Lets you pvp when you want and not pvp when you want.

    Flag it on, cant' turn it off for an hour or a day or so to reduce the abuse.

    Would suck to get surrounded by peopel who weren't flagged, while you are flagged, and just wait for them to be ready to instantly slaughter you once they flag themselves at once and stab you.

    Then again, I do prefer a system of you risk more to earn more.  Rather than extremely artificial systems that don't fit within the setting of the game at all.

    Sometimes yes.  But it sucks to be surrounded by people who want to pvp when all you want to do is mine that ore.  Or to have no pvp at all in your game of preference.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    I prefer the flag system, but one where you can't immediately turn it off.  Lets you pvp when you want and not pvp when you want.

    Flag it on, cant' turn it off for an hour or a day or so to reduce the abuse.

    Naw, man, flagging systems are stupid and as exploitable as neutral factions. Even worse, I think. With that system, I could turn my PvP flag on and log off to wait for the timer. When I log back in I can unflag myself at will.

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

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    I prefer the flag system, but one where you can't immediately turn it off.  Lets you pvp when you want and not pvp when you want.

    Flag it on, cant' turn it off for an hour or a day or so to reduce the abuse.

    Naw, man, flagging systems are stupid and as exploitable as neutral factions. Even worse, I think. With that system, I could turn my PvP flag on and log off to wait for the timer. When I log back in I can unflag myself at will.

    But you can't pvp while your logged off so the people are safe from you.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    I prefer the flag system, but one where you can't immediately turn it off.  Lets you pvp when you want and not pvp when you want.

    Flag it on, cant' turn it off for an hour or a day or so to reduce the abuse.

    Naw, man, flagging systems are stupid and as exploitable as neutral factions. Even worse, I think. With that system, I could turn my PvP flag on and log off to wait for the timer. When I log back in I can unflag myself at will.

    But you can't pvp while your logged off so the people are safe from you.

    I... think you missed what my point or do you expect the flag to reset when someone logs off? Because that would be a whole new bag of trouble.

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

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    I prefer the flag system, but one where you can't immediately turn it off.  Lets you pvp when you want and not pvp when you want.

    Flag it on, cant' turn it off for an hour or a day or so to reduce the abuse.

    Naw, man, flagging systems are stupid and as exploitable as neutral factions. Even worse, I think. With that system, I could turn my PvP flag on and log off to wait for the timer. When I log back in I can unflag myself at will.

    But you can't pvp while your logged off so the people are safe from you.

    I... think you missed what my point or do you expect the flag to reset when someone logs off? Because that would be a whole new bag of trouble.

    No I wouldn't expect the flag to reset.  The system prevents people from pkng someone and then immediately unflagging to prevent retaliation. 

    Should you decide to pvp you are fair game for a set amount of time after your flag and/or kill.  Anyone that wants to pvp can, if you don't want to pvp than don't flag, or be aware that you will be flagged for awhile even after your target is dead.

     

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • GrayGhost79GrayGhost79 Webster, MAPosts: 4,813Member

    One take on this thats being proposed for a "project" I know of is a split in combat and Professions/classes. One of the reasons I and others like this idea is because it allows for Open world PvP by consent. 

    Soldier would be a profession but in no way impacts how you fight, what weapons or armor you use etc. Soldier as your profession is how you earn gold and such in game. You come across an enemy soldier you can attack them freely but you aren't allowed to attack civilians. You get rewarded/paid for your enemy kills, the reward/amount is dependent on a number of factors to prevent or at least limit exploiting. If your "nation" sieges another and you participate you are rewarded/paid based on your performance. 

     

    Explorer's get paid/rewarded by private collectors, museums, cartographers, and etc. for places they've discovered, how much of it they've explored, finding rare artifacts and treasures, etc. 

     

    Thieves work for guilds to get paid/rewarded. You can take jobs from clients, the thieves guild, etc but you can also freelance and get rewarded/paid for pulling off independant dangerous, difficult, and/or big jobs. There is the possibility of them being able to attack and steal from soldiers and members of rival theives guild. If this comes to pass they would be attackable by guards from any nation. 

     

    Professions/classes dictate your source of income as well as how you interact with the world but in no way shape or form effects your combat. 

     

    This unfortunately is as much detail as I can go into about it. 

  • danmax67danmax67 Brooklyn, NYPosts: 30Member Common
    The problem is, in most of these games, open world pvp in large part cannot be good due to the structure of games.  In most games, my level 643 whatever will kill your level 12 adventurer every time without any risk to you whatsoever.  This results in a situation that is simply not good gameplay.
  • IkifalesIkifales tucson, AZPosts: 265Member Uncommon
    The flagging system in SWG was great. It worked well. When you unflaggef it took time to kick in. So you could not just unflag to avoid being attacked. Also the player bounty system kept you in danger of being attacked - flagged or not.
  • PWN_FACEPWN_FACE SeoulPosts: 670Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    ... People will exploit the crap out of everything they can when the stakes are high. That's why the rules should be as few and simple as possible.

    That's why I pvp in Chivalry now. 

     

    It's hard to get it right in mmorpgs. They either become instanced battlegrounds, which is fine for a lot of people, or exploited hack-fests like Mortal Online or Darkfall.

     

    The instanced battlegrounds become boring to me because they mainly revolve around gear earned through grinding the same events over and over till your eyes bleed. And if there is factional imbalance, then it will be a longer, harder, more frustrating road to get "there" to the point when you have ground out better gear than most other pvpers to make yourself one of the 1337.

     

    The MO and DF type of games get dominated by cliques of cheaters (who will also be good at twitch based pvp -- not to take away from their skill). So it's not just cheaters and skilled pvpers the average player is up against, but skilled cheaters. I'm not saying all the best pvpers in those games are cheaters, but I'll bet a lot of them are. That's frustrating for average players who like to play the whole game and explore rather than park their character at a "blood wall" or tucked away somewhere else macroing skills up 23 hours a day. In a full-loot pvp game with cliques and the "average" players will eventually leave and there will be a tiny population of like-minded individuals left in that game. That's good for them if the developer can make enough money to keep their game going. 

     

    I'm not arguing that ffa pvp sandboxes should be watered down or dumbed down for average players (like I have become). I am saying that if an ffa pvp sandbox can be made that has room for all types of players and is not an exploit-cheatfest, that would be awesome. 

     

    Hopefully, games like that will be coming out soon enough.

     

     

     

  • ReklawReklaw Am.Posts: 6,478Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kadepsyson
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    I prefer the flag system, but one where you can't immediately turn it off.  Lets you pvp when you want and not pvp when you want.

    Flag it on, cant' turn it off for an hour or a day or so to reduce the abuse.

    Would suck to get surrounded by peopel who weren't flagged, while you are flagged, and just wait for them to be ready to instantly slaughter you once they flag themselves at once and stab you.

    Then again, I do prefer a system of you risk more to earn more.  Rather than extremely artificial systems that don't fit within the setting of the game at all.

    Well of course a player can not just flag or unflag themselfs on the fly, this should only be possible within your factions city or base. Which takes abit of time to get in or out such faction city or base. Sure the oppisite faction might be near your city's borders praying for the other faction to step out there safe zone, but since pvp in my game is a choice people will not complain about pvp because it's a choice for them.

    It also in my believe creates a much better enviroment, just llook at the many pvp oriented MMO's and most of the time a new person doesn't really gets a change to get to know the game unless he/she is immediately guilded even though they like/love pvp.

    As said it takes another way of thinking instead of that what has been trown at us under the name of PVP the last few years. If people enjoy current PVP let them enjoy it, I still feel the system I tried to explain in short will work and that there is room for such a system. And if you think such a system might get's abuse try another type of thinking in how we could prevent such abuse.

     

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    With that system, I could turn my PvP flag on and log off to wait for the timer. When I log back in I can unflag myself at will.

    No I wouldn't expect the flag to reset.  The system prevents people from pkng someone and then immediately unflagging to prevent retaliation. 

    Should you decide to pvp you are fair game for a set amount of time after your flag and/or kill.  Anyone that wants to pvp can, if you don't want to pvp than don't flag, or be aware that you will be flagged for awhile even after your target is dead.

    Like I said, you can log off for the duration of the timer that prevents you from unflagging yourself. Then you may log back in to unflag at will.

    Unless you expect to add "aggression timers" aswell. Again, adding more and more rules to repair the old ones...

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

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by dumpcat
    SWG did it. It was the best system for open world PvP in my opinion.

    TBH I thought it was absolutely shite for open world pvp and it would be even worse for a game which actually had any meaningful territory control or looting aspects. In fact I cannot overstate just how utterly piss poor that system was.

     

    Being able to just turn your combat status to "off" when things don't look stacked in your favour is quite clearly ridiculous from an open world pvp point of view.

     

    @OP, it would be far easier and far more effective to just make a sandbox with no open world pvp and no looting for those that want that kind of thing.

     

    Fannying about and adding more and more rule layers is both against the point of an "open" game and tends to leave you with a big old mess which no one is pleased with.

     

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,205Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Reklaw

    Sorry but I just do not get it, why is it that hard to create a sandbox MMORPG with open world full loot PVP where the PVP is optional.

    All PVP is optional.

     

    it's just that sometimes the option is not yours.

     

    That's how you keep a game 'pvp'. there's plenty of PvE games where this is not the case.

     

    you're asking for Divine Protection against other enemies. Well how often do you suspect the weaker enemy will consent?

     

    -------------------------

    EVE

    A few weks ago...a Stabber Fleet Issue is in a near system. (enemy). I hear about it and head in with my Omen Navy Edition. We see each other on a gate but there's rats so we warp off. I type in local : "1 v 1 ? ". He replies "ok". I type : "station". afraid of undocks, he warps to the customs office near-by. I start flying toards him, we lock each other, we fight, I die. He's injured and flees home.

     

    Now...this was a puny 50mil ship. Were I in a 2 billion ship an an enemy would show up... I'd never accept.

     

    So "worthwile" pvp would NEVER occur if there's a way to prevent the enemy from attacking you from your UI.

    image

  • tixylixtixylix gfff, TNPosts: 1,208Member Uncommon
    SWG Pre CU did this, I loved it, best system and it didn't split the community up through PVE and PVP servers.
  • tixylixtixylix gfff, TNPosts: 1,208Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by dumpcat
    SWG did it. It was the best system for open world PvP in my opinion.

    TBH I thought it was absolutely shite for open world pvp and it would be even worse for a game which actually had any meaningful territory control or looting aspects. In fact I cannot overstate just how utterly piss poor that system was.

     

    Being able to just turn your combat status to "off" when things don't look stacked in your favour is quite clearly ridiculous from an open world pvp point of view.

     

    @OP, it would be far easier and far more effective to just make a sandbox with no open world pvp and no looting for those that want that kind of thing.

     

    Fannying about and adding more and more rule layers is both against the point of an "open" game and tends to leave you with a big old mess which no one is pleased with.

     

     

    Your problem with the system though was down to SOE not making PVP meaningful, not the optional PVP status. You couldn't just turn it off, you had to wait awhile and tbh if PVP was more meaningful then they could have added a penalty for turning it off like losing rewards or something.

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by tixylix
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by dumpcat
     

     

     

    Your problem with the system though was down to SOE not making PVP meaningful, not the optional PVP status. You couldn't just turn it off, you had to wait awhile and tbh if PVP was more meaningful then they could have added a penalty for turning it off like losing rewards or something.

    There was a problem (a large one) with the lack of "meaningful" pvp in a game which purorted to be about a "Galactic Civil War" certainly.

     

    But no, the main problem was indeed the fact you could turn on and off SF status. It took a while to turn off, that isn't the problem though, it is the fact no one turned it on unless they had a distinct advantage or it was part of an organised pvp "event".

     

    It is just a really bad idea to have a mechanic like that in a game with open world pvp. Maybe you could start adding in punishments to using it as you allude to, but if you are going to go down that route you may as well just get rid of the thing altogether.

     

     

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    With that system, I could turn my PvP flag on and log off to wait for the timer. When I log back in I can unflag myself at will.

    No I wouldn't expect the flag to reset.  The system prevents people from pkng someone and then immediately unflagging to prevent retaliation. 

    Should you decide to pvp you are fair game for a set amount of time after your flag and/or kill.  Anyone that wants to pvp can, if you don't want to pvp than don't flag, or be aware that you will be flagged for awhile even after your target is dead.

    Like I said, you can log off for the duration of the timer that prevents you from unflagging yourself. Then you may log back in to unflag at will.

    Unless you expect to add "aggression timers" aswell. Again, adding more and more rules to repair the old ones...

    Well ou could make the timer so it is only for in game time.

    But in game or RL, doesn't matter.

    The point is that the person doing the pvp will be aware that he will be in pvp mode for a particular period of time.  If you don't want to be in pvp that long, you can either not flag or log out.

    Either way solves the problem for both pvp (they are aware of the consequences and make the choice) and for the non-pvp (if you log out they are safe or they just don't flag).

    Doesn't seem like an exploit to me.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • ReklawReklaw Am.Posts: 6,478Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by tixylix
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by dumpcat
     

     

     

    Your problem with the system though was down to SOE not making PVP meaningful, not the optional PVP status. You couldn't just turn it off, you had to wait awhile and tbh if PVP was more meaningful then they could have added a penalty for turning it off like losing rewards or something.

    There was a problem (a large one) with the lack of "meaningful guided" pvp in a game which purorted to be about a "Galactic Civil War" certainly.

    But no, the main problem was indeed the fact you could turn on and off SF status. It took a while to turn off, that isn't the problem though, it is the fact no one turned it on unless they had a distinct advantage or it was part of an organised pvp "event".

     

    It is just a really bad idea to have a mechanic like that in a game with open world pvp. Maybe you could start adding in punishments to using it as you allude to, but if you are going to go down that route you may as well just get rid of the thing altogether.

     

     

     

     Sure it could have much more cause and effect in the ingame world.

    Again it takes another type of thinking, I mean I actually pvp'd allot in SWG, we actually didn't go overt because of a organised pvp event (sometimes we did of course) or to have a distinct advantage, no, we went overt to kill Imp scum. Again as said it should have had allot more ingame consequences.

    And I still feel having forced pvp in a MMORPG is a bad game mechanic as those games have many feature's that would atract also the PVE player. Though really glad that those forced pvp games are there for those who enjoy such gameplay. I enjoy forced pvp aswell just not in my MMORPG as I play other genre's for that already. 

    And I feel it  could create a more long lasting appeal overall towards such a game if open world pvp was optional yet set on timers and certain rules to prevent abuse. For example as a neutral you can't just come inside a pvp aligned base or city, you might get a warning at about 1km distance that you are nearing a enemy faction and when coming to close you will automaticly be flagged overt. Log off and on should have timers to prevent it from abuse, thinking about your choice of guild where a guild could be a full pvp guild, or a guild could be pure pve, or guilds that mix it up with both pvp and pve.

    Must say that the way pvp was done in Fallen Earth (havn't played for well over a year now) was also thrilling, since I was mostly a crafter certain combat skills where weaker, yet I loved going into pvp area's to gather and harvest rare resources, sometimes got lucky being online when not many were, sometimes it was a rush to try to escape especially if you knew you where confronted with a true pvp player all geared up. Fun times.........

     

     

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Reklaw
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by tixylix
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by dumpcat
     

     

     

     

     Sure it could have much more cause and effect in the ingame world.

    Again it takes another type of thinking, I mean I actually pvp'd allot in SWG, we actually didn't go overt because of a organised pvp event (sometimes we did of course) or to have a distinct advantage, no, we went overt to kill Imp scum. Again as said it should have had allot more ingame consequences.

    And I still feel having forced pvp in a MMORPG is a bad game mechanic as those games have many feature's that would atract also the PVE player. Though really glad that those forced pvp games are there for those who enjoy such gameplay. I enjoy forced pvp aswell just not in my MMORPG as I play other genre's for that already. 

    And I feel it  could create a more long lasting appeal overall towards such a game if open world pvp was optional yet set on timers and certain rules to prevent abuse. For example as a neutral you can't just come inside a pvp aligned base or city, you might get a warning at about 1km distance that you are nearing a enemy faction and when coming to close you will automaticly be flagged overt. Log off and on should have timers to prevent it from abuse, thinking about your choice of guild where a guild could be a full pvp guild, or a guild could be pure pve, or guilds that mix it up with both pvp and pve.

    Must say that the way pvp was done in Fallen Earth (havn't played for well over a year now) was also thrilling, since I was mostly a crafter certain combat skills where weaker, yet I loved going into pvp area's to gather and harvest rare resources, sometimes got lucky being online when not many were, sometimes it was a rush to try to escape especially if you knew you where confronted with a true pvp player all geared up. Fun times.........

     

     

    Yes it could have had more cause and effect, the GCW was a joke, but that is not the main issue I pointed out to the initial poster. The simple fact is that the "flag on and off as you like" was a piss poor mechanic to have for open pvp.

     

    I'm glad you went around SF, you represented the 0.00001% of the playerbase in the game. I could quite happily port from SP to SP SF and count the number of enemies I encountered on one hand over the course of the entire night (and half of them where either spies or track star spec Jeedai). The fact of the matter is the system allowed for people to just try jump in and go SF when they saw the chance of a gank and because the system allowed for that, that is exactly what most of the players did.

     

    It was just a ridiculous set up as it was. People seem to be coming up with tweaks to try and justify it, but note my original point was that the system as it stood was shocking, and frankly it was. Which is why the majority of pvp players/guilds worth their salt either bailed on it, or used it for a casual blast and got their pvp fix elsewhere.

     

    The notion of pvp areas/arenas may appeal to plenty of players (and I can understand why), but I thought we where talking about open world pvp? The two don't seem to fit together as far as I am concerned. You either have open world pvp with perhaps limited safe zones, or you don't bother and you just have pvp lakes or something.

     

    I don't buy into the idea of "forced" pvp at all. You have actively chosen to play the game, there is nothing forced whatsoever.

     

    It was a great game, but it was far from a good pvp game and the SF switch mechanic helped in part to make it a shocking open world pvp game.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • BenediktBenedikt PraguePosts: 1,406Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

     

     

    But no, the main problem was indeed the fact you could turn on and off SF status. It took a while to turn off, that isn't the problem though, it is the fact no one turned it on unless they had a distinct advantage or it was part of an organised pvp "event".

    It is just a really bad idea to have a mechanic like that in a game with open world pvp. Maybe you could start adding in punishments to using it as you allude to, but if you are going to go down that route you may as well just get rid of the thing altogether.

     

    Yes it could have had more cause and effect, the GCW was a joke, but that is not the main issue I pointed out to the initial poster. The simple fact is that the "flag on and off as you like" was a piss poor mechanic to have for open pvp.

     

    I'm glad you went around SF, you and I represented the 0.00001% of the playerbase in the game. I could quite happily port from SP to SP SF and count the number of enemies I encountered on one hand over the course of the entire night (and half of them where either spies or track star spec Jeedai). The fact of the matter is the system allowed for people to just try jump in and go SF when they saw the chance of a gank and because the system allowed for that, that is exactly what 99.99999% of the players did.

     

    Need to go get buffs? Go comb not SF.

    Need to meet up to start an attack? Go comb not SF.

    Need to scout? Go comb not SF.

    Need to generally travel about? Go comb not SF?

    Want instant pvp? Hang around Restuss SP and wait for a big enough group to try and bumrush.

     

    It was just a ridiculous set up as it was. People seem to be coming up with tweaks to try and justify it, but note my original point was that the system as it stood was shocking, and frankly it was.

     

    I know people love to either defend SWG to the hilt, or mock it like a leper, but taking aside any ingrained bias the fact is from a pvp persepctive (especially an open world one) it was for the main part utterly naff. That is not to say I haven't had fun pvp in the game, but that was both rare and for the main part partly organised affairs between dedicated pvp guilds as we fought in player cities. Dedicated pvp guilds who bailed as soon as the opportunity arose. Hell even utter crud like WAR pulled pvpers away, leaving leftovers really (not trying to sound hard at all btw).

     

    The notion of pvp areas/arenas may appeal to plenty of players (and I can understand why), but I thought we where talking about open world pvp? The two don't seem to fit together as far as I am concerned. If you are going to go down that route you have smaller "safe areas" not smaller "pvp areas". Sure you can appeal to a broader spectrum of players by making arenas and off switched et al, but then you kill the open world pvp and the open world pvpers leave. A product should work out what it is trying to be and towards the end SWG didn't do that.

     

    I don't buy into the notion of "forced" pvp at all. You have actively chosen to play the game, there is nothing forced whatsoever.

     

    It was a great game, but it was far from a good pvp game and the SF switch mechanic helped in part to make it a shocking open world pvp game. I

    i always want to scream really loud when i see such posts as bunnyhopper's - how devs destroy pvp with it being consensual and how pvp have to be open world etc. .... and how when it is not made nonconsensual, most of the people (quote "99.99999%") will more or less never pvp.

    it is like they dont realize what they are in fact saying - that most of the people (quote "99.99999%") dont WANT nonconsensual open world pvp and THEY are the minority who "destroy the game" for most of the players.

    and btw - mmorpg w/o open world PVP ISN'T PVE MMORPG - it is simply just MMORPG, PVE MMORPG would be one without any PVP at all.

Sign In or Register to comment.