Well, the reason many (not all) PVPers want everyone together playing open-world is so they have plenty of easy targets.
In situations like early UO, the "hard core PVPers" tended not to seek each other out to fight. Instead they went for the most gain at least risk, e.g. the crafters, RPers, explorers - basically people less able to defend themselves.
So anytime you hear "give us open world full loot PVP!" you can translate that as "give us plenty of easy kills!"
In games like Conan, on the open PVP servers, it was common to see level 60's and higher roaming the starting areas mowing down defenseless newcomers. Any game company in their right mind that wants to attract customers will avoid that sort of "PVP."
I have to disagree. I've been playing on PvP servers almost exclusively for many years and I don't know anyone who runs around looking for "easy targets"
We play on PvP servers because it's a much more unpredictable and immersive experience when compared to the PvE server rule set.
Granted, it's certainly not for everyone but to say that PvP'ers only like open world PvP because they can gank "easy targets" is simply a false generalization.
I was upset to log in and see that the PVP in this game was "debunked."
Thankfully I read the OP and realized nothing at all has actually happened or been said!
I Never said PVP was debunked, I said Non Consent PvP was debunked, and it was, regardless of what anyone wants to believe the question was only in one context and the answer was only in the context of the question.
I was upset to log in and see that the PVP in this game was "debunked."
Thankfully I read the OP and realized nothing at all has actually happened or been said!
I Never said PVP was debunked, I said Non Consent PvP was debunked, and it was, regardless of what anyone wants to believe the question was only in one context and the answer was only in the context of the question.
Your taking a leap in a direction that has no proof. What was said could be taken 100 ways.
I was upset to log in and see that the PVP in this game was "debunked."
Thankfully I read the OP and realized nothing at all has actually happened or been said!
I Never said PVP was debunked, I said Non Consent PvP was debunked, and it was, regardless of what anyone wants to believe the question was only in one context and the answer was only in the context of the question.
True enough. Open world PvP is likely still on the table, but it would be kinda stupid of them to force people into it if they don't want it. They might have a PvP server for that, but it seems the genre has been sorta moving away from servers with alternate rule sets lately. Or maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention.
And the PR train strikes again! Now even flooding over from Twitter. All this hype and buzz over known nothingness. How sweet free advertising is hey SOE? Now give a mighty golf clap to all your new age gaming lemmings <drum roll>
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box. ~ Italian proverb
Well, the reason many (not all) PVPers want everyone together playing open-world is so they have plenty of easy targets.
In situations like early UO, the "hard core PVPers" tended not to seek each other out to fight. Instead they went for the most gain at least risk, e.g. the crafters, RPers, explorers - basically people less able to defend themselves.
So anytime you hear "give us open world full loot PVP!" you can translate that as "give us plenty of easy kills!"
In games like Conan, on the open PVP servers, it was common to see level 60's and higher roaming the starting areas mowing down defenseless newcomers. Any game company in their right mind that wants to attract customers will avoid that sort of "PVP."
I have to disagree. I've been playing on PvP servers almost exclusively for many years and I don't know anyone who runs around looking for "easy targets"
We play on PvP servers because it's a much more unpredictable and immersive experience when compared to the PvE server rule set.
Granted, it's certainly not for everyone but to say that PvP'ers only like open world PvP because they can gank "easy targets" is simply a false generalization.
You highlighted a section of the post but didn't answer or even make a point against what it was actually saying. You posted why you play on a pvp server not why you want pve players to be forced to be on that server with you. No one was ever questioning why people pick a pvp server. It's why do pve players HAVE to be on there with you.
Originally posted by TheJoda Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.
It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.
I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.
No it does not. He said clearly that he specifically cannot comment on it and then made the general statement that they dont make bad design decisions.
That is typical PR BS that basically says nothing at all because there is no telling what they consider a bad design decisions. You can assume that he is referring to non consentual PvP but he has given him enough legroom to deny that later down the line.
however thats not good enough for the hardcore PVPers, apparently everyone has to be involved in the FFA PVP or else its not fun for them i guess.
I have heard the excuses of "oh the games suck if the PVP is just tacked on" so that should mean that those pure PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers fun should be ruined because of bad FFA PVP design?
I know what you're getting at, and it's a valid criticism of many, but at the same time, to be fair, "tacked-on" PVP IS decidedly suckier than designed-in PVP.
For instance, ArcheAge is a game that both intends to have very little random ganking due to prohibitive punishment, yet PVP is built into the game to such an extent that a "PVE server" really wouldn't make any sense.
PVE players don't have their fun ruined by legal ganking, but by de facto ganking. Any system in which one is not constantly looking over their shoulder, regardless of why, should remain fun.
The thread title is misleading, he didn't confirm anything one way or the other. In fact, the designer's response could be read to mean the opposite of what the OP assumes if we consider non-consensual PVP a good design decision.
however thats not good enough for the hardcore PVPers, apparently everyone has to be involved in the FFA PVP or else its not fun for them i guess.
I have heard the excuses of "oh the games suck if the PVP is just tacked on" so that should mean that those pure PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers fun should be ruined because of bad FFA PVP design?
It's like you people think that in a FFA game everyone is running around killing everything.
Originally posted by TheJoda Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.
It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.
I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.
No it does not. He said clearly that he specifically cannot comment on it and then made the general statement that they dont make bad design decisions.
That is typical PR BS that basically says nothing at all because there is no telling what they consider a bad design decisions. You can assume that he is referring to non consentual PvP but he has given him enough legroom to deny that later down the line.
It's not typical PR BS, it's actually the smart answer. The great unveiling is on Aug 2nd and any game cannot and will not comment on any design that will have people go raging all over the internet, and extreme n intense n ridiculous raging there will be when this hot topic is finally answered. No one isn't going to confirm nor deny any game mechanics until they do their press release or whatever PR event that they reveal it in.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
however thats not good enough for the hardcore PVPers, apparently everyone has to be involved in the FFA PVP or else its not fun for them i guess.
I have heard the excuses of "oh the games suck if the PVP is just tacked on" so that should mean that those pure PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers fun should be ruined because of bad FFA PVP design?
It's like you people think that in a FFA game everyone is running around killing everything.
Not everyone does this but all or most players that solo or really don't know the game get harassed by the players that do. It comes back to that old saying of the few fuck it up for the rest.
Originally posted by TheJoda Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.
It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.
I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.
You could also read it as "We avoid bad design decisions, but we know what we're doing and we don't believe this is one, so suck it up".
Originally posted by minttunator The thread title is misleading, he didn't confirm anything one way or the other. In fact, the designer's response could be read to mean the opposite of what the OP assumes if we consider non-consensual PVP a good design decision.
The reason for the vagueness is simple. They are not going to confirm or deny anything that will have people raging until they make a press release and show the system the have going for EQN as it can hurt their marketing. It's really that simple.
Originally posted by TheJoda Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.
It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.
I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.
No it does not. He said clearly that he specifically cannot comment on it and then made the general statement that they dont make bad design decisions.
That is typical PR BS that basically says nothing at all because there is no telling what they consider a bad design decisions. You can assume that he is referring to non consentual PvP but he has given him enough legroom to deny that later down the line.
It's not typical PR BS, it's actually the smart answer. The great unveiling is on Aug 2nd and any game cannot and will not comment on any design that will have people go raging all over the internet, and extreme n intense n ridiculous raging there will be when this hot topic is finally answered. No one isn't going to confirm nor deny any game mechanics until they do their press release or whatever PR event that they reveal it in.
What you just described is what I call PR BS, i.e. a statement that says everything but confirming nothing. A non statement.
It is like asking about X feature and get response:
We try not to make a bad game.
It is a useless answer because who in their right mind would consciously make a bad design decision? No one.
I have to disagree. I've been playing on PvP servers almost exclusively for many years and I don't know anyone who runs around looking for "easy targets"
What PvP servers have you been playing on? Ganking, griefing and corpse camping lowbies is a pretty well known and long established practice and is why most PvE players don't like PvP servers.
I wasn't sure if I was going to reply or not. Seems to me like you are picking a fight, and I'm not interested. Like I wouldn't be in the game unless, I feel like it.
So, you have 2 choices. Accept a (temporary enemy flag) system like the one that was in SWG, and "sometimes" fight people who usually does not wanna PvP, or, get stuck on a pure PvP server where eventually, people will leave and you'll be fighting the same 50 ppl every day. What's your choice?
You mean a temporary flagging system like the one in that game that died years and years ago and people know point to as a shinning example of "what not to do in a video game".... or a seperate server system... like the one in WoW... where some of the highest population servers come with watching you back at all times in case of danger... you know... the game thats over 10 years old and still has 10 million players?
I would just rather they keep those players on a seperate server... so they can all play together and have an dandy old time. I personally like a little more excitement and stress in my MMO's... i like having to deal with people and their shitty habits... if i didn't then i wouldn't play multiplayer games....
"Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month"
I wasn't sure if I was going to reply or not. Seems to me like you are picking a fight, and I'm not interested. Like I wouldn't be in the game unless, I feel like it.
So, you have 2 choices. Accept a (temporary enemy flag) system like the one that was in SWG, and "sometimes" fight people who usually does not wanna PvP, or, get stuck on a pure PvP server where eventually, people will leave and you'll be fighting the same 50 ppl every day. What's your choice?
You mean a temporary flagging system like the one in that game that died years and years ago and people know point to as a shinning example of "what not to do in a video game".... or a seperate server system... like the one in WoW... where some of the highest population servers come with watching you back at all times in case of danger... you know... the game thats over 10 years old and still has 10 million players?
I would just rather they keep those players on a seperate server... so they can all play together and have an dandy old time. I personally like a little more excitement and stress in my MMO's... i like having to deal with people and their shitty habits... if i didn't then i wouldn't play multiplayer games....
LOL! Ok, I just have 3 questions.
1. How's the health of the "open world" PvP in WoW.
2. How long did it take until it ended up that way?
3. How long will a server with 50 ppl remain alive?
Because I'm a nice guy, I will give you a second chance to answer my question with these facts in mind. See how easy it is to find the right answer now?
I have to disagree. I've been playing on PvP servers almost exclusively for many years and I don't know anyone who runs around looking for "easy targets"
What PvP servers have you been playing on? Ganking, griefing and corpse camping lowbies is a pretty well known and long established practice and is why most PvE players don't like PvP servers.
Thats the appeal for those of us who enjoy PvP. I enjoy the danger and the constant anxiety of a possible attack. I don't know if everyone just forgot or if maybe myself and the other players on these forums who are all for open PvP are exclusive in this belief... but these games are NOT hard... like at all... i can hammer out quests/events/dungeons in pretty much any game without so much more as a ho hum... its child's play.... the added danger of having to watch out for the "big boys" while you are doing it actually makes it entertaining and at least partially challenging.
"Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month"
I wasn't sure if I was going to reply or not. Seems to me like you are picking a fight, and I'm not interested. Like I wouldn't be in the game unless, I feel like it.
So, you have 2 choices. Accept a (temporary enemy flag) system like the one that was in SWG, and "sometimes" fight people who usually does not wanna PvP, or, get stuck on a pure PvP server where eventually, people will leave and you'll be fighting the same 50 ppl every day. What's your choice?
You mean a temporary flagging system like the one in that game that died years and years ago and people know point to as a shinning example of "what not to do in a video game".... or a seperate server system... like the one in WoW... where some of the highest population servers come with watching you back at all times in case of danger... you know... the game thats over 10 years old and still has 10 million players?
I would just rather they keep those players on a seperate server... so they can all play together and have an dandy old time. I personally like a little more excitement and stress in my MMO's... i like having to deal with people and their shitty habits... if i didn't then i wouldn't play multiplayer games....
LOL! Ok, I just have 3 questions.
1. How's the health of the "open world" PvP in WoW.
2. How long did it take until it ended up that way?
3. How long will a server with 50 ppl remain alive?
Because I'm a nice guy, I will give you a second chance to answer my question with these facts in mind. See how easy it is to find the right answer now?
1. Open world PvP in WoW is still alive and kicking last time i played... you get ganked... or do the ganking and it usually turns into a huge "everyone log of and log onto your main" 3 hour slugfest in southshore... hella fun.
2. It's always been that way... since vanilla... again... southshore... the barrens.... stranglethorn vale...
3. I played on emerald dream... its RPPvP... its still max pop...so yeah... if anything PvP servers last longer than PvE because there is still something to do when you've gotten bored with the themepark content... its called other players... Hence the MM part of MMORPG
"Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month"
I find it amazing that all of these pro "forced non consensual" PvPers actually believe that SOE would decide to make Everquest, their most popular flagship title, a "forced non consensual" PvP game. The very definition of bad game design would be to have any type of "forced PvP" or "non consensual PvP" in a MMORPG involving PvE. What is there not to get about that?
In regard to this tweet, would any of you hardcore PvP geniuses like to take a guess as to what exactly he could have been referring to when he answered "we avoid bad game decisions" when specifically asked about concern regarding "forced non consensual PvP.?"
I mean, what else could he have been referring to if not "forced non consensual" PvP?
Comments
yup.....
I have to disagree. I've been playing on PvP servers almost exclusively for many years and I don't know anyone who runs around looking for "easy targets"
We play on PvP servers because it's a much more unpredictable and immersive experience when compared to the PvE server rule set.
Granted, it's certainly not for everyone but to say that PvP'ers only like open world PvP because they can gank "easy targets" is simply a false generalization.
I was upset to log in and see that the PVP in this game was "debunked."
Thankfully I read the OP and realized nothing at all has actually happened or been said!
I Never said PVP was debunked, I said Non Consent PvP was debunked, and it was, regardless of what anyone wants to believe the question was only in one context and the answer was only in the context of the question.
Your taking a leap in a direction that has no proof. What was said could be taken 100 ways.
True enough. Open world PvP is likely still on the table, but it would be kinda stupid of them to force people into it if they don't want it. They might have a PvP server for that, but it seems the genre has been sorta moving away from servers with alternate rule sets lately. Or maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention.
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box. ~ Italian proverb
You highlighted a section of the post but didn't answer or even make a point against what it was actually saying. You posted why you play on a pvp server not why you want pve players to be forced to be on that server with you. No one was ever questioning why people pick a pvp server. It's why do pve players HAVE to be on there with you.
No it does not. He said clearly that he specifically cannot comment on it and then made the general statement that they dont make bad design decisions.
That is typical PR BS that basically says nothing at all because there is no telling what they consider a bad design decisions. You can assume that he is referring to non consentual PvP but he has given him enough legroom to deny that later down the line.
My gaming blog
I know what you're getting at, and it's a valid criticism of many, but at the same time, to be fair, "tacked-on" PVP IS decidedly suckier than designed-in PVP.
For instance, ArcheAge is a game that both intends to have very little random ganking due to prohibitive punishment, yet PVP is built into the game to such an extent that a "PVE server" really wouldn't make any sense.
PVE players don't have their fun ruined by legal ganking, but by de facto ganking. Any system in which one is not constantly looking over their shoulder, regardless of why, should remain fun.
It's like you people think that in a FFA game everyone is running around killing everything.
It's not typical PR BS, it's actually the smart answer. The great unveiling is on Aug 2nd and any game cannot and will not comment on any design that will have people go raging all over the internet, and extreme n intense n ridiculous raging there will be when this hot topic is finally answered. No one isn't going to confirm nor deny any game mechanics until they do their press release or whatever PR event that they reveal it in.
Anyone else see the irony of a SOE Developer, famous for SWG and some others making the statement that they avoid making bad design decisions?
I'd say as a company they are right up there at the top in this department.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Not everyone does this but all or most players that solo or really don't know the game get harassed by the players that do. It comes back to that old saying of the few fuck it up for the rest.
You could also read it as "We avoid bad design decisions, but we know what we're doing and we don't believe this is one, so suck it up".
Anyway, I'd be disappointed if you're right.
The reason for the vagueness is simple. They are not going to confirm or deny anything that will have people raging until they make a press release and show the system the have going for EQN as it can hurt their marketing. It's really that simple.
What you just described is what I call PR BS, i.e. a statement that says everything but confirming nothing. A non statement.
It is like asking about X feature and get response:
We try not to make a bad game.
It is a useless answer because who in their right mind would consciously make a bad design decision? No one.
My gaming blog
What PvP servers have you been playing on? Ganking, griefing and corpse camping lowbies is a pretty well known and long established practice and is why most PvE players don't like PvP servers.
You mean a temporary flagging system like the one in that game that died years and years ago and people know point to as a shinning example of "what not to do in a video game".... or a seperate server system... like the one in WoW... where some of the highest population servers come with watching you back at all times in case of danger... you know... the game thats over 10 years old and still has 10 million players?
I would just rather they keep those players on a seperate server... so they can all play together and have an dandy old time. I personally like a little more excitement and stress in my MMO's... i like having to deal with people and their shitty habits... if i didn't then i wouldn't play multiplayer games....
"Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month"
LOL! Ok, I just have 3 questions.
1. How's the health of the "open world" PvP in WoW.
2. How long did it take until it ended up that way?
3. How long will a server with 50 ppl remain alive?
Because I'm a nice guy, I will give you a second chance to answer my question with these facts in mind. See how easy it is to find the right answer now?
Thats the appeal for those of us who enjoy PvP. I enjoy the danger and the constant anxiety of a possible attack. I don't know if everyone just forgot or if maybe myself and the other players on these forums who are all for open PvP are exclusive in this belief... but these games are NOT hard... like at all... i can hammer out quests/events/dungeons in pretty much any game without so much more as a ho hum... its child's play.... the added danger of having to watch out for the "big boys" while you are doing it actually makes it entertaining and at least partially challenging.
"Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month"
1. Open world PvP in WoW is still alive and kicking last time i played... you get ganked... or do the ganking and it usually turns into a huge "everyone log of and log onto your main" 3 hour slugfest in southshore... hella fun.
2. It's always been that way... since vanilla... again... southshore... the barrens.... stranglethorn vale...
3. I played on emerald dream... its RPPvP... its still max pop...so yeah... if anything PvP servers last longer than PvE because there is still something to do when you've gotten bored with the themepark content... its called other players... Hence the MM part of MMORPG
"Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month"
I find it amazing that all of these pro "forced non consensual" PvPers actually believe that SOE would decide to make Everquest, their most popular flagship title, a "forced non consensual" PvP game. The very definition of bad game design would be to have any type of "forced PvP" or "non consensual PvP" in a MMORPG involving PvE. What is there not to get about that?
In regard to this tweet, would any of you hardcore PvP geniuses like to take a guess as to what exactly he could have been referring to when he answered "we avoid bad game decisions" when specifically asked about concern regarding "forced non consensual PvP.?"
I mean, what else could he have been referring to if not "forced non consensual" PvP?
/roflmao