It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by Quirhid
Oh, so you play everything and so must everyone else is that it? Oh, so since you like fps'ers all games must have some of the things fps'ers has? As long as you insist on holding on to these MORONIC claims you'll never make proper sense about ANYTHING IN THE WHOLE OF FOREVER.
Are you capable of not appling one thing, to EVERYTHING? Seriously, you think I am not making a proper statement and so you think its not possible to make sense about anything?!?
And THAT is why you fail, black and white thinking.
One genre of video games is not tied to other genres of video games...that is why the ARE GENREs. Your train of thought is that a heavy metal band MUST include country into their music, because country music is music.
Sorry, I dont think so. Instanced PvP in a shooter has nothing to do with MMOs using instanced PvP. it came about with programmers not being able to figure out how to make their game in a way that it could handle massive amounts of people in a small area, Asherons Call which was OPEN WORLD had issues and so they added a feature that would port random people a short distance away to offset the server lag, DaoC came up with the idea to make zoned PvP so other zones wouldnt be affected, and they were slammed with server crashes, so the next idiotic thought was, small PvP zones with a population cap.
Lack of good programming created it, not the popularity of FPS instanced PvP which BTW goes all the way back to Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 in the LATE 1990s. So tell me, if instanced PvP was so damn popular in the late 90s, why did MMOs take 6 years to get there? BECAUSE THE GENRES ARE NOT TIED!
Yes, I play pretty much everything. No I don't everything to be the same. I'm quite far from black & white thinking, and I don't think it is a big deal if a genre adopts something from another genre that works. Many FPS and RTS games have successfully incorporated some form of persistent advancement in them. MMORPGs have adopted instanced PvP. They are very much tied together.
FPS games have much more time sensitive data to send from the client to the server and the server has to track every objects and players in the area aswell as their effect on each other. If that time sensitive data is lost, there's no point sending it again, hence they use UDP protocol instead of TCP. Furthermore, if those calculations take a long time on the server, it shows on all the clients as lag. You can't have lag in an FPS style combat. It is detrimental to the gameplay experience. Much more so than in many MMOs which are sometimes semi-turn based.
Games like Battlefield 3 have tried to reduce this load by doing the hit calculations on the client-side; however, this also has its drawback. Someone could cheat, or someone could exploit the system to his/her advantage. It has been done before.
Many MMOs only track players in one plane (XY). Vast majority of MMOs do not have time sensitive combat in the same sense FPS and action games do. Relatively few have collision detection and projectile tracking. Very few have any significant physics that a server should track. You see, they've cut corners. Thats why they can have hundreds of people in the same area.
Its very difficult to have action combat in large scale, even if your client computer could handle the graphics side of it.
Blizzard, Bioware, Funcom and many others are not "MMO studios" - they are game studios. Many MMOs run on Unreal engine and Cry engine. Same as other video games.
Please, tell me more about how MMORPGs are completely different from other video games.
E-sports is bigger than it ever was. There are monthly cash tournaments in many games and some games have had a tournament prize pool of 3 million dollars. Instanced PvP is hugely popular. People love it. To say its popular only because of the rewards and devs are lazy is only you trying to bury your head in the sand - you trying to wrestle with the fact that you belong in a minority.
There's nothing inferior about instanced PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Maelwydd The way I would do it... You have civillians. Civillians do not engage in PvP. Civillians cannot attack other civillians. Civillians cannot attack combatants. You have combatants. Combatants engage in PvP Combatants cannot attach civillians. Combatants can attack other combatants. A civillian can choose to engage in certain activities which will eventually lead them to becoming a combatant. There is a grey area between civillian and combatant where you are open for pvp when you perform certain activities. If you do not perform the activity you are not flagged as a combatant, if you do then you remain flagged until certain crieteria are met. Continue to perform certain activities can eventually turn you permanently into a combatant. Changing from civillian to combatant is permanent. Choose wisely. You cannot go back.
That looks very good on paper. However, you really have to look at what the open PVPers are fighting for or fighting over to actually see how that *might* be doable, but only through an unwieldy set of rules to attempt to compensate for the invulnerability status.
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
Originally posted by kadepsyson Perhaps because it doesn't make sense. Two people standing next to each other, and you can't attack one of them because an hour earlier he aligned himself to some faction. How about if you have PVP let the players choose how much to risk through the actual actions they take rather than set in stone game mechanics. In other words, those rare resources you mention, would require adventuring a bit farther from the safety of guards watchful eyes, away from the nearest city. Also realize that if someone is attacked in the town, they are unlikely to die, but it still could happen. Just the attackers would be easily apprehended. I think letting players choose their path using actions and thinking about what they are willing to risk for what they want to gain is far better a practice than just "you aligned to the third faction, safe from all pvp forever"
Asheron's Call does it on the White servers (PvE) I don't see what the harm would be.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by Benedikt
Ad1. Except it didn't work to provide more potential customers now did it. Because those not interested in open world pvp ignored it and instead pvped from time to time in the set pvp lakes. Whilst those really interested in open world pvp merely avoided the game for the main part.
You could have only 2 people interested in open world pvp and 3 billion interested in arenas, that doesn't change the fact flagging is a crap mechanic for open world pvp.
There isn't a choice of always pvp or never pvp. People not interested in open world games have the option of taking part in arenas, instances, tournaments, guild wars, pvp lakes, duels et al. Whilst those interested in open world pvp can take part in open world pvp games. Whacking in a flagging system to bastardize open world pvp just serves to fk up the situation for one group and add next to nothing for the other group.
Most "casual" pvpers in SWG used Restuss and the stim base lakes. They didn't pop SF and go looking for random fights.
Ad2. What? I pointed out there is a fking huge difference between roaming an open world and having to take the rough with the smooth, and being able to roam about in total safety until you see the chance to gank someone. The difference should be patently clear to anyone with eyes as should the issue with the latter.
If a pve player wants to pve from time to time as and when they choose, then they take advantage of lakes, arenas, duels, guild wars and instanced pvp. PvP on demand as and when they want it, not randomly walking about hoping for the best which is what flagging offers them. A flagging system which does nothing for casual pvpers and at the same time totally balls up open world pvp for those with a real interest in it.
SWG didn't need the flagging system to provide pvp to those with no interest in open world pvp.
SWG's flagging system brought more detrimental effects to open world pvp than positive effects.
A flagging system as seen in SWG as part of an open world pvp system (outside of the context of safe zone flagging) is utterly defunct at best and utterly detrimental to the system at worst.
SWG is far, far away from a good example of how open world pvp should be handled.
Seeing as how I am one of the glue-sniffing, mind-boggling, bastardized-PvP-loving SWG fans, I'm curious what your idea for a good, optional open world PvP system would be. Any thoughts or ideas?
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Originally posted by azzamasin Asheron's Call does it on the White servers (PvE) I don't see what the harm would be.
Asheron's Call has it on white servers because the game was originally designed with no white servers in mind. The white servers were a change prior to release and hitting up a shrine to toggle red/white was added in. Comparing DT to the white servers should give you your answer, as it is rather meaningless to be red on the white servers because all of the gameplay related to PVP was lost such as controlling a dungeon or holding a town/fort. Even PVP for the fun of it was quickly losing appeal on the white servers which is why they implemented PKLite in 2004 to reduce repercussion, make it a toggle, and make it more accessible.
To understand the harm it would do, don't try to imagine a white server with a red toggle. Imagine a red server with a white toggle.
Originally posted by Quirhid E-sports is bigger than it ever was. There are monthly cash tournaments in many games and some games have had a tournament prize pool of 3 million dollars. Instanced PvP is hugely popular. People love it. To say its popular only because of the rewards and devs are lazy is only you trying to bury your head in the sand - you trying to wrestle with the fact that you belong in a minority. There's nothing inferior about instanced PvP.
Yeah .. look at SC2 .. it is practically the national sport of South Korea. Look at LOL. It has MORE active players than WOW. They don't get so popular because of the rewards. In fact, there is no reward in SC2 except the feeling of winning.
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by azzamasin Asheron's Call does it on the White servers (PvE) I don't see what the harm would be.
Trying to add "meaningfull" PvP to a non-PvP server is a recipe for pissing of everyone. To the PvPers it will never be satsfied with how "meaningful" the consequences are and the non-PvPers will not like if it interferes with their primary activities. The non-PvPers specificly chose a non-PvP server so their gameplay is not dominated by PvP.
Originally posted by Torik Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by azzamasin Asheron's Call does it on the White servers (PvE) I don't see what the harm would be.
That's usually the outcome.
Originally posted by Quirhid Yes, I play pretty much everything. No I don't everything to be the same. I'm quite far from black & white thinking, SNIP E-sports is bigger than it ever was. SNIP
Loved how you started out defending yourself for not thinking in black and white and ended up right back where you started, associating something that is not tied to the MMO genre at all while avoiding every other point of my post....so the one part of my post you did refute, you ended up defeating your own argument...again.
Grats, care to try again?
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by DavisFlight It's been done in the past. Many times. Many ways. DAoC did it best.
DaoC was crap and it wasnt sandbox like the OP is talking about, it was the start of PvP becoming meaningless zergs, PvPing for rank and or items and removing PvP from the actual game world, placed into a seperate area and it became nothing more than just another themepark attraction.
DAoC had two FFA PvP servers.
Originally posted by NaughtyP Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by Benedikt
Ha, I'll answer as it was a rather amusing response :P
A good option would be to either play a game with open world pvp, embrace it and get on with it. Taking the option to either try and avoid pvp within it or take on the risks, sticking to safe zones or venturing out and hoping for the best. Or to just pick a game with consensual pvp.
A bad option would be to twist the concept of open world pvp to try and make it something it really isn't in order to appease a crowd with clearly little interest in the overiding core ideal in the first place. Not the answer you wanted no doubt but there we are.
An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage. PvP groups will abuse it to get an advantage and you will end up with horrendous downtimes between pvp (which happened all the time in SWG). It makes a mockery of the concept of open world pvp as a venue for risk and danger and it would be a game killer for any game with territory, resource control or looting etc. Neutral characters would also be abused.
A game with massive rvr lakes, duelling, arenas, guild wars and the like. That would appease even the most ardent casual pvper (and a great deal of full on pvpers as well). You could have truly epic zones and give people the option of entering them or not. People could guild war or duel anywhere they want, it would still all be consensual. That makes far more sense from a theoretical and mechanical perspective than trying to take an open world pvp system built on the core concept of full on non restricted combat and working in opt out buttons creating a nonsense hybrid which warps the core concept and leads to a balls up of a system.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Originally posted by bunnyhopper An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.
Unless, I dont know...the reasons being given to PvP in PvP only zones or full tilt PvP games are also added to the open world...you know, that keep there, that can be taken over by a faction, give the faction whatever bonuses and even turn part of that area towards their side making questing impossible for your faction unless its taken back!
And suddenly, taadaa! people have a reason to flag for PvP in a PvP optional open world.
ZOMG TEH TINKING OUT OF TEH BOXORS HURTZ MY HEADS!
Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by NaughtyP Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by Benedikt
While an RvR approach sounds like a close solution, it isn't because it still carves the world up into specific areas for specific purposes instead of all types of players being allowed to find some kind of content in that particular area no matter their playstyle. The large world shrinks rather quickly for someone who only wants PvP or only wants PvE.
Normally I would totally agree and say PvE and PvP shouldn't really overlap, but I think there are valid reasons to consider alternatives to the segregation of playstyles. Specifically the shrinking of the world mentioned above but also the added strain it puts on development and programming to have different rulesets for every zone (and possible areas within a zone like an RvR lake) and every piece of instanced content. If the developers could focus more on expanding the world and only have one type of overarching ruleset for the entire game to think about, we might end up with a lot more content to enjoy.
Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.
Perhaps your head does hurt if you think a group of players disinclined to a full open pvp system are going to be happy about having their pve content turned off or in anyway impacted upon in any meaningful way unless enough of their "side" gets on with the job.
If it makes little difference, they wont bother unless gank ready. If it makes a good deal of difference they will moan about "forced pvp".
Originally posted by NaughtyP Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by NaughtyP Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by Benedikt
Well from a technical point of view it is actually probably much easier, especially in terms of server load. Remember the hamsters struggling at Restuss? Remember how bad it was when people tried to do events away from Restuss? The first was pretty bad, the second was shocking with anymore than fifty people.
I agree it zones off the land but that's why I also included duelling and guild wars. Which you could participate in anywhere and which is ofc, still a consensual system.
In terms of not having pve and pvp overlap, well actually that really depends on the game. In a consensual based game it shouldn't really overlap (unless you consider mini pve narratives like objectives within pvp lakes), but in open world pvp games it should overlap. You should be going out there for rare resources and taking the risk of getting bashed over the head, that's part of the fabric of the system. And another reason why "off switches" are an anathema to it.
If someone really wants a more free and open system, then an open world pvp set up with safe/r zones ala EVE seems to be the most fundamentally sound system which also offers the greatest scope for alternative playstyles.
Why would you want to flag for PvP when just staying neutral gives you access to the content without having to conquer keeps or any such distraction? Since PvP is optional, people will opt not to participate in the PvP when all they want to do is the non-PvP activities in the area. By flagging themselves they limit what content they have access to when by staying neutral they have access to all the content.
Originally posted by Torik Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.
Reading, its fundaMENTAL.
Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.
Reading comprehension FTL or are we playing the lets give a reason, then after getting one pretend it was never made ploy?
Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.
If it makes a good deal of difference they will moan about "forced pvp".
Did you miss out that part completely or something?
People moaned like fuck about one single bit of pve content that was tied to pvp in SWG, the Jinzu hilt spawn. They also moaned like fuck when people mentioned it might be a good idea to tie combat ranks to special forces players. If you think a crowd like that (one not really all that interested in open world pvp) is going to think it's a great idea to have their pve limited in order to push pvp outside of dedicated zones in their games then you have more faith than I do.
The issue with your idea is that if you offer enough incentive to promote pvp via a carrot and stick measure than people will moan about forced pvp. If you don't offer enough incentive than no one will bother. In otherwords, unless you come up with some amazing balancing act (which is unlikely) then it will not work.
Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by Torik Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.
Let me rephrase this:
Since PvP in this game is optional, non-PvP players will be able to access that content without having to flag themselves. Why would PvP players choose to risk access to that content just for a chance to PvP? Also, once you flag yourself, would the game prevent you from unflagging yourself so you could do the quests as a neutral and only reflag yourself when you wanted to do PvP?
Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.
Did you miss out that part completely or something? Reading comprehension FTL indeed.
Ahh, the pretend it was never made ploy...Duck and cover, throw out a red herring, quick and hope to derail it before everyone knows I have no ground to stand on!
Shall I use the largest font next time or are you going to man up and realize you used a bad argument?
Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by NaughtyP
Let's be fair here. SWG had a lot of bugs and problems, and any number of them could bring a server to its knees!
I think there will always be games where you need risk vs reward, similar to the competition of resources like you mentioned. But I also believe there is a group of players that want competition... but only when they really want it, yet instanced content might feel a bit hollow to them. I suppose it is a strange dilemma. Wanting to compete, but also wanting the safety of an off switch. I suppose this is where a neutral faction could solve the problem... one that cannot be in faction combat at all until they've chosen a side, but can still participate in other content unrelated to faction. Maybe this is what I've been missing. Not the flagging, but the neutral faction.
Originally posted by Torik Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by Torik Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.
Ugh, as the HIGHLIGHTED and UNDERLINED point makes, by giving them an actual reason to want to do it on occasion.
I fully understand why people who PvP in games like DaoC and WoW cannot understand this concept because they know only PvP with a giant carrot hanging in front of them, it masked the piss poor gameplay.
Throw out the old outdated moronic game style brought on by those games, go back to the original way and throw in the incentives without the limitations of the previous mindset that is making people think that NO ONE WOULD EVER IN THE WHOLE OF FOREVER not flag for PvP as if games that HAD THAT OPTION had NO ONE doing it...its downright moronic to bunch every single player that ever played those games into the small box created by any one persons mind...also, the mind that states that people would only do it with and advantage like the other...person in this thread...only thinks this way because that is what HE WOULD DO.
Hell, the single best times I had in SWG was running flagged into a rebel town right into a bunch of flgged people standing around thinking they are SAFE and flamming throwing a few of them down before dieing. Nothing says WTF like one person running into a dozen+ of them unexpecting an attack and throwing them all into chaos, and I wasnt the only one who did that, and they used to do it to us. But then, I am in an old time PvP guild, we dont think like the l33t d00d ub3r PvP kidies that popped up with instanced PvP with uber ranks for bragging rights.
Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by jtcgs Originally posted by bunnyhopper
What? How exactly is saying many would be unhappy about having their pve experiences limited in order to push a bastardized form of open pvp a bad argument?
If you want to motivate people to be involved in games with open world pvp systems (those players not inclined to them), then you demonstrate why such systems benefit their chosen playstyles. You demonstrate the depth it adds to their crafting, pve and trading. You show how territory control, resource control, player haulers, pirates and bodyguards, how decentralised trading hubs and people fighting over trading routes all creates an incredibly deep game for them. You show how players fighting over player towns and cities adds a complex meta narrative which everyone can get involved in whether directly or indirectly. You incentivise them to be part of an open world pvp system, not offer them some cheap ass opt out.
You don't though say "heres an on-off switch and btw if you don't pvp a load of your pve contents getting turned off".
Oh and btw, you seem to be under the impression that I have suggested that people would stay comb and then only go SF to gank because that's what I would do. Given I spent/spend the vast majority of my mmo gaming time in full on, ffa, full loot mmos (not "oh don't attack me at the moment I'm not ready!!" games) and given I have been arguing against such on off switch systems in this thread, well i'm not sure where you are pulling that one from. No the reason I suggested that is because first hand experience over many years pointed to that being the actual case in SWG. The VAST majority only went SF when they could bumrush fewer people (outside of organized events). Any suggestion to the contrary is just rose tinted revisionism of the highest order.
I pointed out exactly why I thought your idea wouldn't work.
An on-off opt out switch for an open world pvp system is fucking stupid.
For the main part, the dumbed down version of open world pvp that was offered up by SWG was complete and utter shite from an open world pvpers perspective.
Originally posted by NaughtyP Originally posted by bunnyhopper Originally posted by NaughtyP
Wouldn't the safe/r zones offer that safety or would that be too limiting for those not inclined to full on open pvp? I suppose so.
I guess from my point of view the best idea would be to work on making the rvr lakes/arenas more "meaningful" in terms of an overarching global goal for those people who wanted that kind of aspect but who didn't want true open pvp.
I am somewhat cautious when it comes to neutral factions due to how they can be abused by competeing factions (using neut characters as mules, spies and the like). If the game involves no real conflict meta narrative (resource control and the like) then it is probably a decent option.