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

1235

Comments

  • jtcgsjtcgs New Port Richey, ILPosts: 1,777Member
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

     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?

    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?

     Its called making a comment, getting a reply to THAT comment, then trying to bring up something that is NOT related to the orginal statement in hope to derail the topic. A red-herring.

    Your original comment does not stand, a refute and idea was given to prove it wrong, then you went on a tangent. sorry, im not getting trapped in that, you were refuted, your argument no longer stands.

    “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

  • XAPKenXAPKen Northwest, INPosts: 4,899Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
     

    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.

     

    I would guess that's because PVE was a large focus of the game.

     

    I'm coming to the opinion that open world PVP and holding a PVE playerbase is an either or situation.

     


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now turned Amateur Game Developer.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  Realm Lords 2 on MMORPG.com
  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
     

     

     Its called making a comment, getting a reply to THAT comment, then trying to bring up something that is NOT related to the orginal statement in hope to derail the topic. A red-herring.

    Your original comment does not stand, a refute and idea was given to prove it wrong, then you went on a tangent. sorry, im not getting trapped in that, you were refuted, your argument no longer stands.

    How is pointing out directly, the exact flaws with your reasoning, not related to your original statement? You suggested a method which would make flagging in an open world environ work. I pointed out quite clearly (two times in fact) why your suggestion was fundamentally flawed, i.e. that it wouldn't work. Ergo your refutation was worth diddly squat quite frankly.

     

    It is both interesting and really rather telling to note that both times now you have avoided directly answering my rebuttals. I have pointed out exactly why I find your argument flawed, if you want to continue the debate try and directly respond to my rebuttal. If you are just going to harp on about herrings then do us both a favour and don't bother.

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

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

    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.

     

    I would guess that's because PVE was a large focus of the game.

     

    I'm coming to the opinion that open world PVP and holding a PVE playerbase is an either or situation.

     

    I completely agree with the first part, I have alluded to as much already. As well as having stated numerous times that consensual pvp was far more suited to that game and games like it.

     

    Open world pvp and pve/non directly pvp related systems work just fine together so long as the non pvp content is of good quality and the players taking part in the game understand that pvp will be a factor within their game world and are not the type to have a mental break down on being blown up. Plenty of non pvp orientated types thrive in EVE.

     

    The issues arise when people (who seem to have little to no experience of actual open pvp games) try mess about with systems in order to cram them into games in which they are fundamentally unsuited, to appeal to players with no real interest in the core concept of open world pvp in the first place. This thread is a testament to that.

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

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

    You make no sense whatsoever. I can't decide if you're serious or trolling. Either way the Internet is a darker place with you here.

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

  • znaiikaznaiika denver, PAPosts: 203Member

    How hard is to have two separated servers? one for PVE and the other for PVP?

    There is no way to have both "PVE and PVP" on the same server, you'll have constant arguments about loot, about gear and so on and on and on.

    Two independent servers is the best way to make everyone happy.

  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Champaign, ILPosts: 1,548Member Uncommon

    Way to completely ignore what I said.  Guess I'll just keep repeating myself.  

     

    How do you stop PvP'ers from crying to game makers and getting classes gimped?


  • ReklawReklaw Am.Posts: 6,474Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by znaiika

    How hard is to have two separated servers? one for PVE and the other for PVP?

    There is no way to have both "PVE and PVP" on the same server, you'll have constant arguments about loot, about gear and so on and on and on.

    Two independent servers is the best way to make everyone happy.

    Well I understand what YOU want but this wasn't the topic for those who want separated servers. This was about how to make PVP and PVE work together in one MMORPG. My reasoning was to have 3 factions.

    Unfortunaly many seem unable to think outside the box as they keep repeating how it was done in the passed and how they didn't like it. And while I did use one basic feature of flagging from SWG because I loved that system doesn't mean I felt it worked as intented or how much more they could have been done to make it more enjoyable/rewarding/purpose/consequence.

    Try to look at this optional open world pvp where both PVE and PVP gamestyle's are very rewarding.

    Also I don't believe you will read many arguments about loot or gear in a more sandbox type of MMORPG. Two independent servers might work for the themepark MMO.

     

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

    How do you stop PvP'ers from crying to game makers and getting classes gimped?

    Which one would you rather have: PvP driven balance or PvE driven balance? If you choose the former, you will still have PvE, but if you choose the latter, PvP will die. Now which choice is better, do you think?

    Balance has to be PvP driven because it is such a crucial part of it whereas PvE can do well with a less than ideal balance.

    Then again, if the two metagames were more similar, there wouldn't be much of a conflict.

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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Jemcrystal

    How do you stop PvP'ers from crying to game makers and getting classes gimped?

    Which one would you rather have: PvP driven balance or PvE driven balance? If you choose the former, you will still have PvE, but if you choose the latter, PvP will die. Now which choice is better, do you think?

    Balance has to be PvP driven because it is such a crucial part of it whereas PvE can do well with a less than ideal balance.

    Then again, if the two metagames were more similar, there wouldn't be much of a conflict.

    how about both? Just separate the two, and you can have both. I don't understand the need to force both pve & pvp into the same gameplay style.

    If i look at all the games i consider fun or successful (LOL, WOT, D3, WOW, STO, PS2....), they are separate.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,638Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by XAPGames
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
     

    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.

    I would guess that's because PVE was a large focus of the game.

    I'm coming to the opinion that open world PVP and holding a PVE playerbase is an either or situation.

    The majority of EVE Online players engage primarily in PvE gameplay.

    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

  • znaiikaznaiika denver, PAPosts: 203Member

    @ Reklaw.

    To make both PVE and PVP work on the same server, PVP has to be optional by flaging without safe zones when flaged, gear has to be same for both, pvpers don't need too overpowered gear, loot has to be obtained equaly no restrictions to either pve or pvp, and more.

    You know that will not work well along, spacificaly for pvp.

    First : PVPers need to protect their campain from invaders, like snifers, looters and many more other things.

    Second : PVPers need to have controlled teritory to fight for controll.

    Can't mix both pve and pvp there.

    It is for best, to have two servers separated, the only good thing would be to have for both pve and pvp together? is social, so people could talk to each other and meet new people.

     

  • Lovely_LalyLovely_Laly genevaPosts: 734Member

    GW2 try to create something like that with WvW.

    I know it small model of open world but already seems to be annoying, as you can't get PvE objectives while others PvP next to you. =XD

    Pure PvP servers IMO belongs to Asian f2p and make you spend much more on item shop as you have no time to earn anything in game.

    May be idea of A-net about PvP can work again, at GW you could buy Factions (can't also get why) and PvP pack then use large variety of PvP areas. Now GW2 has premade PvP too but it seems to be boring.

    May be system of premade (you have lvl and full gear when you buy game or PvP pack) can work on open world and will grant full fun for PvP lovers. I see like objective to earn: titles, epic items and may be new epic zones.

    But I'm against idea to mix PvE and PvP

    try before buy, even if it's a game to avoid bad surprises.
    Worst surprises for me: Aion, GW2

  • BadSpockBadSpock Somewhere, MIPosts: 7,974Member

    It worked just fine in SWG.

    Opt in OWPvP.

     

  • FeardayFearday copenhagenPosts: 31Member

    First of all Daoc (Dark age of Camelot) was not a pvp game , its was RvR  realm vs realm

    full loot of chars will never be a good game with alot of accounts , only because ppl dont like to login and get raped for there items or (gold) when they have spare time to play , sorry to say it but hardcore pvp games is gone

    we can still hope for a new game with awesome pvp but not full loot option

    Warhammer is not as bad as it was from beginning with all the bugs ,even Rift have a option to be a good pvp game if they added open world pvp and removed the conquest instance there work as 80 % pve and 20 % pvp (zerk) atm

     

  • ReklawReklaw Am.Posts: 6,474Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by znaiika

    @ Reklaw.

    To make both PVE and PVP work on the same server, PVP has to be optional by flaging without safe zones when flaged, gear has to be same for both, pvpers don't need too overpowered gear, loot has to be obtained equaly no restrictions to either pve or pvp, and more.

    You know that will not work well along, spacificaly for pvp.

    First : PVPers need to protect their campain from invaders, like snifers, looters and many more other things.

    And who said that you can not have that?, Neutrals excluded from that, obviously.

    Second : PVPers need to have controlled teritory to fight for controll.

    What makes you think you can not have teritory control? yes again the neutral player will be excluded from the benifiths it might offer, yet the neutral may profit from it never the less by trading or actually engaging into PVP, that PVP player might profit from the crafter/trader with resources/items or when needing new weapons/gear. The PVE will have plenty to do, may it be following a peacefull story line, the tools should be presented to the player to make that world their own.

    Can't mix both pve and pvp there.

    It is for best, to have two servers separated, the only good thing would be to have for both pve and pvp together? is social, so people could talk to each other and meet new people.

    I certainly understand the needs of pure PVP players, I also understand the needs for pure PVE players. Why does it seem so hard to understand that some would like meaning fully optional PVP/PVE in a MMORPG as genre that should go beyond other genre's

     

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

    how about both? Just separate the two, and you can have both. I don't understand the need to force both pve & pvp into the same gameplay style.

    If i look at all the games i consider fun or successful (LOL, WOT, D3, WOW, STO, PS2....), they are separate.

    The thread is about "optional open world PvP". You cannot keep them separate. And LoL, WoT and PS2 are strictly PvP games. Nothing separate in them.

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

  • znaiikaznaiika denver, PAPosts: 203Member

    @ Reklaw.

    "" excluded from the benefits ""

    That along is the big problem why both pve and pvp oriented pleyers can't be together on the same server.

    PVPers would never give-up their benefits for the sake of balance, why should PVEers get limited content ?

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,638Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by znaiika

    @ Reklaw.

    "" excluded from the benefits ""

    That along is the big problem why both pve and pvp oriented pleyers can't be together on the same server.

    PVPers would never give-up their benefits for the sake of balance, why should PVEers get limited content ?

    The other problem is that it reduces or even negates the importance or the value of the related PVP content.

    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

  • MalcanisMalcanis LondonPosts: 3,191Member

    Perhaps it's time people came to accept that some playstyles are incompatible with others in the same game, or at least in the same game area. If you're looking for open-world FFA PvP, maybe don't sign up to a quest-based PvE-centric game. If you just want to smoosh sprites in peace, maybe don't try and play an open world sandbox based on full-loot PvP and player interaction. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment. Why do people do this? Is being disappointed and raging at the people who've let you down by producing a game that you never wanted to play in the first place more fun that just playing a game that suits you?

    One game doesn't need to cater for all playstyle preferences, and I've never seen a convincing argument as to why it should other than the unsupported assertion "but it would make a lot of money!!!". As if the amount of money a game makes for a publisher is a reliable guide to how good it is to play.

    It is OK to tell someone "look I'm sorry, this just isn't the right game for you". People who say this often get accused of being arrogant "elitists", but the infinitely greater arrogance is that of someone who joins an existing MMO full of people who enjoy what it offers, and then demands that it be radically changed to suit them - and be dambed to the people who already play it!

    American football can never be made a suitable game for hemophiliacs.

    Golf is never going to be fun for adrenaline junkies.

    Just accept it.

    Give me liberty or give me lasers

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,638Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Malcanis

    Why do people do this?

    I don't know about others, but for me, with Aion, the experience at level 30 was completely unexpected. I could not believe that in this day and age they'd release an MMO to the NA/EU audience (NA, specifically) where at level 30 gameplay in an MMO with massive level disparity shifted to open PVP in the leveling area. The Abyss (or whatever the PVP-focused zone was called) was a great experience, but it really caught me offguard that they expected a zone with capped 60's stomping on leveling 30's to be remotely palatable to a western audience.

    Sometimes the expectation of what the game will be is reasonably misaligned with what the game actually is.

     

    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

  • EdeusEdeus Stamford, CTPosts: 506Member
    Because shut up!

    image

    Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent

  • ReklawReklaw Am.Posts: 6,474Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Malcanis

    Perhaps it's time people came to accept that some playstyles are incompatible with others in the same game, or at least in the same game area. If you're looking for open-world FFA PvP, maybe don't sign up to a quest-based PvE-centric game. If you just want to smoosh sprites in peace, maybe don't try and play an open world sandbox based on full-loot PvP and player interaction. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment. Why do people do this? Is being disappointed and raging at the people who've let you down by producing a game that you never wanted to play in the first place more fun that just playing a game that suits you?

    One game doesn't need to cater for all playstyle preferences, and I've never seen a convincing argument as to why it should other than the unsupported assertion "but it would make a lot of money!!!". As if the amount of money a game makes for a publisher is a reliable guide to how good it is to play.

    It is OK to tell someone "look I'm sorry, this just isn't the right game for you". People who say this often get accused of being arrogant "elitists", but the infinitely greater arrogance is that of someone who joins an existing MMO full of people who enjoy what it offers, and then demands that it be radically changed to suit them - and be dambed to the people who already play it!

    American football can never be made a suitable game for hemophiliacs.

    Golf is never going to be fun for adrenaline junkies.

    Just accept it.

    I don't think you got my topic.

    I wasn't asking for complete genre changes, I aint asking for this genre to die to get back at it roots.

    Also I don't aks for things in games not ment for it. Al I am asking is for something that already has been done but could use allot of improvements in perhaps a future developed MMORPG. I don't want every MMO or MMORPG to be like that. That's the thing that needs to be accepted. But do understand certain concerns due to the behaviour of some people who as you said try and want things that either would take a complete rewrite of code or piss off the current playing population.

    Highlighted red what actually got me fall in "gamers" love with MMORPG's as it started with having everything for all sorts of playstyle's. It went beyond that what we already play in other genre's.  Yet it seems accepted that this genre is geared more towards either one or two type's of playstyle being similar to what we already know from other genre's.

    Whhy do you settle for so much less? Because you doný know anything different? Or perphas as some dwell on only the negative parts of such a system instead of thinking of way's to actually make it work?

     

     

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,638Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Reklaw   

    Highlighted red what actually got me fall in "gamers" love with MMORPG's as it started with having everything for all sorts of playstyle's. It went beyond that what we already play in other genre's.  Yet it seems accepted that this genre is geared more towards either one or two type's of playstyle being similar to what we already know from other genre's.

    Whhy do you settle for so much less? Because you doný know anything different? Or perphas as some dwell on only the negative parts of such a system instead of thinking of way's to actually make it work?

    It's not a matter of settling for less. You seem to reject the premise that what you are asking for 1) didn't really work in the past and 2) reduces the effectiveness or playability of one or both types of content.  What you propose simply doesn't make sense, however I don't think you're going to believe that until you actually build it yourself and see the problems that present themselves once you add in the factors that make the PvE and open world PVP gameplay meaningful.

     

    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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    how about both? Just separate the two, and you can have both. I don't understand the need to force both pve & pvp into the same gameplay style.

    If i look at all the games i consider fun or successful (LOL, WOT, D3, WOW, STO, PS2....), they are separate.

    The thread is about "optional open world PvP". You cannot keep them separate. And LoL, WoT and PS2 are strictly PvP games. Nothing separate in them.

    But that is the point. I am questioning the wisdom of having "optional open world pvp". Why isn't it better just to keep them separate? If you look at the market and successful games, almost all (except may be Eve, but it is no where close to the success of some of these other games) have them separate.

Sign In or Register to comment.