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!

Why does FFA PvP or Always On PvP need to be global?

TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member

This is something I've wondered about, but not really understood the logic of. It has definitely gotten a lot more attention recently with the pending release of EQN information.

I understand that PvP is more exciting, can add something akin to a political element to a game, and can even make items in the economy more valuable, but I've never understood the insistence that if there is FFA PvP in a game everyone must participate.

For example, if there are safe areas and unsafe areas, the unsafe areas must contain more valuable items. Why? To me this seems like a mechanic that arbitrarily limits the people who would want to play a game. It seems like the people who would want to PvP would hang out in the unsafe areas and the people who don't like PvP would hang out in the safe areas.

I've also gotten the impression, possibly wrongly, that people who like FFA, Always On PvP are against the idea of having two different server types, one with the PvP rule set and one with the PvP rule set. Why? It seems like a good idea for people who like PvP to be on one server and people who don't want PvP on all the time on another server.

So, what are your thoughts on this? Why must FFA or Always On PvP be universal or all encompassing?

I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

«1345

Comments

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon

    One word, Felucca.

    Some people cannot stand the idea that someone, somewhere, is having fun and they cannot ruin it.

    Some people cannot understand why PvP servers rarely have self sustaining populations and PvE servers almost always do. At least initially.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • TheMaahesTheMaahes Marlborough, MAPosts: 185Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    So, what are your thoughts on this? Why must FFA or Always On PvP be universal or all encompassing?

    Depends on the game, whether it is PvE or PvP focused. PvE games with PvP as an after thought (ex. RIFT) it shouldn't be universal (and isn't). In PvP games like WAR then absolutely.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by TheMaahes
    Originally posted by lizardbones So, what are your thoughts on this? Why must FFA or Always On PvP be universal or all encompassing?
    Depends on the game, whether it is PvE or PvP focused. PvE games with PvP as an after thought (ex. RIFT) it shouldn't be universal (and isn't). In PvP games like WAR then absolutely.


    What about games that don't exist yet, like EQN? Again, I could be wrong, but I really get the impression that the people who are interested in FFA or Always On PvP do not want there to be a separate server where the rule set is for optional PvP, regardless of the other mechanics in the game.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,772Member Uncommon
    Some people primarily want to attack people who don't want to be attacked.  But as a game mechanic, that really only works if the gankers make some major sacrifices to be built for combat, so that people who have no hope of killing the gankers can still feel like they're winning in other ways.
  • TheMaahesTheMaahes Marlborough, MAPosts: 185Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones


    What about games that don't exist yet, like EQN? Again, I could be wrong, but I really get the impression that the people who are interested in FFA or Always On PvP do not want there to be a separate server where the rule set is for optional PvP, regardless of the other mechanics in the game.

     

     

    Its simple, you tell those players no. This goes back to my original post a bit, companies need to stop catering to everybody and put their foot down on what they (as developers) want in a game. Stop trying to add everything in and focus on one aspect, then this discussion won't even exist.

    The moment you stop trying to please everyone, everything becomes easier.

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,501Member Uncommon

    I don't think that there is consensus among PvP gamers what they want.

    I like PvP that has areas where faction warfare is always allowed (DAoC, ArcheAge, etc...), and areas that are PvE only.

    I also like FFA PvP that punishes repeat griefers, corpse campers and those that gank lowbies with EXTREME penalties -the same as RL - death penalty and life sentences (makes their characters unplayable permanently). The more open FFA the harsher the rules for harassing gameplay.

    My 2c

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member

    People who like FFA PVP usually like open ended world simulations. By breaking everyone into safe zones and instances and different servers, you're taking people out of the mix.

     

    The fun of FFA PVP is that all people must participate in the world. It feels like the real world. Don't like fighting? Hire guards! Crafters need protection, as do harvesters. It adds to the gameplay.

     

    With just PvPers in a PvP zone... its wolves vs wolves and everything is always the same. aka, boring and unrealistic.

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,501Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DavisFlight

     

    With just PvPers in a PvP zone... its wolves vs wolves and everything is always the same. aka, boring and unrealistic.

    Its players who want to PvP, how is that boring? Its a win-win.

    Boring is a player who wants to PvE in peace being forced to PvP, its one sided and lame, wolves vs sheep is way more boring.

     

  • vveaver_onlinevveaver_online stockholmPosts: 273Member Uncommon

    it should be about looks, if you like the style of the pvp zone armor go there, if not go get the pve version.

     

    Stats on gear sucks. UO never had more than vanq quality, well maybe some minor magic enchantments but nothing extreme. its bs wow/eq crap.

  • KaraethonKaraethon Stockton, CAPosts: 33Member
    For me it is not about winning, or making someone else's time bad.  For me open world PvP adds so much more to a game.  I am tired of the theme park type games that are all about leveling and getting new gear.  I have always been a huge fan of Role playing and you can't have RP without full on open world pvp.  With the games that are pvp centric the gameplay is more about working towards a larger goal whether it be contributing to a guild in a meaningful way or being part of a realm or kingdom.  Focus needs to be taken off of the shinies and the levels and put more towards epic conflict and an immersive world.  The terrible villains of the world should not just be some AI creatures that spawn every 8 hours.  They should be killers and miscreants.
  • FusionFusion VaasaPosts: 1,391Member Uncommon

    Because "world simulation" is much more exciting that "hit that next level with chatbox"

    I can pit against monsters, farm xp and loot in thousands upon thousands of single-player / Co-Op games when need arises.

    Currently playing: -

    Waiting for: Class4.

    Dead and Buried: ESO, NWO, GW2, SWTOR, Darkfall, AO, AC2, Vanguard, CoH/V, EnB, EVE, Neocron, FE, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, FFXI, FFXIV, SWG, WoW, and billions of eastern junks!

  • hockeyplayrhockeyplayr Middlesex, NJPosts: 604Member Uncommon
    I've always admired runescape's take on this.  Lets give them a safe and unsafe area.  Say you want to mine the best possible ore to make money. It is possible in the safe zone, but there are more spawns in the unsafe zone.  Doesn't limit your play just rewards the risk a little more
  • klagmireklagmire fenton, MIPosts: 94Member

    Open world pvp is soo much better. There does not need to be FFA PVP. SWG had the best system IMO. They had factions and you could toggle yourself open to PVP or not open for PVP. Thers no need for different servers for PVP. PVP can happen anywhere(if your PVP toggled). If you dont want to PVP you dont have to, you can just watch, I found it got people who didnt usually PVP- into PVP.

    This is better than zones and PVP servers IMO. People who want tp PVP can in open world-People who dont want to pvp , dont have to. Its best for all concerned.

    Played:SWG(pre NGE/CU sucked)Yep its true, anyone who quit SWG because of the NGE/CU missed out on a much better combat system. DCUO, Fallen Earth, STO, The Secret World. Battlefield series. Planetside 2. Still playing SWG.

  • DrakynnDrakynn The Pas, MBPosts: 2,030Member
    Originally posted by Fusion

    Because "world simulation" is much more exciting that "hit that next level with chatbox"

    I can pit against monsters, farm xp and loot in thousands upon thousands of single-player / Co-Op games when need arises.

    World Simulation does not denote PvP,hitting that next level/skill point/whatever is the driving force for the RPG genre.

    If someone wants to PvP exclusively there are tousands of singleplayer/multiplayer games when the need arises.Works both ways.

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,262Member Uncommon
    FFA world with a PVE area full of quests and instances.  This will give the devs a lot of freedom to design something else.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Fusion
    Because "world simulation" is much more exciting that "hit that next level with chatbox"I can pit against monsters, farm xp and loot in thousands upon thousands of single-player / Co-Op games when need arises.

    That explains why you like PvP. You didn't say whether or not you thought it required everyone's participation though. If you do think it requires everyone's participation, why?

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • ZorgoZorgo Deepintheheartof, TXPosts: 2,226Member

    Why does 'universal' mean 'contains everything'?

    If it isn't global, it isn't free for everyone to engage in all the time.

    A better question would be, why does PVP need to be FFA?

    Otherwise you are kinda asking why it is light when the sun is out.

  • FusionFusion VaasaPosts: 1,391Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Drakynn
    Originally posted by Fusion

    Because "world simulation" is much more exciting that "hit that next level with chatbox"

    I can pit against monsters, farm xp and loot in thousands upon thousands of single-player / Co-Op games when need arises.

    If someone wants to PvP exclusively there are tousands of singleplayer/multiplayer games when the need arises.Works both ways.

    You miss interpreted my meaning.

    MMORPG's needs to have have BOTH un-instanced, to be a 'world simulation' of my meaning.

    DF:UW is a good example of what i mean. Yes, not greatly executed, but on the right tracks

    EVE is also a great example, tho lacking in entertaining combat mechanics and sub-par PVE.

    Currently playing: -

    Waiting for: Class4.

    Dead and Buried: ESO, NWO, GW2, SWTOR, Darkfall, AO, AC2, Vanguard, CoH/V, EnB, EVE, Neocron, FE, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, FFXI, FFXIV, SWG, WoW, and billions of eastern junks!

  • RateroRatero Tallassee, ALPosts: 337Member Uncommon

    One problem that does arise is that for the PvP'er you have access to the entire world and all the possible content that was created.  As a PvE'er you only have access to the PvE portion of the world.  Granted, the PvE'er could go and try to do the PvE content inside the PvP portion of the world, but then they would have to contend with looking over their shoulders while trying to craft or do quest content.  From a PvE'er point of view, they paid the same amount of money for the game as the PvP'er did but in a way they are limited on the content they have available to them unless they want to keep looking over their shoulder and avoid all the PvP'ers.

    In a way I agree with the PvP'ers.... Let the games have FFA PvP servers.  But allow no character transfers to different servers once that character is created.  Their server would be FFA Total Loot PvP with no rules at all.  But on the other hand, let the PvE'ers have their own server with total access to the entire game world in which there is NO PvP at all or perhaps allow only flagged PvP only.

    If you use ESO as an example from a PvE'er point of view then there is a quite a chunk of the game that we will never see unless we are willing to go into the PvP area to attempt the content.  So in a way, the PvE'er is paying for the same game as the PvP'er, but they could be getting less content depending on their playstyle.

    Ratero

  • fyerwallfyerwall Posts: 3,155Member Uncommon

    It doesn't need to be global. PvPers will claim it does, but it doesn't. The reason they claim it needs to be everywhere and part of everything is easily explained with UO. PvP was fun for Pvpers, specifically those of the ganking preference. When EA split the world, a majority moved to Trammel and played there, leaving the PvPers to do their own thing on Felucca. Trammel was full of life and players everywhere. Felucca was pretty much a ghost town.

    PvPers want PvP to be a part of a game for the simple fact that they know, given the option, most people will opt out to do something else until they *want* to PvP. This means PvPers end up feeling like they have no one to play with, or that their choice of gameplay is being ignored. It's pretty evident in a lot of the proponents posts - usually always coming down to 'because its fun for me'.

    Now a game can exist without PvP. But why should it? PvP needs to be an option in the gameplay. People should have the option to go kill each other or guilds should be able to war on each other. But again, the key word is optional. Make it mandatory and the PvE portion of the game becomes limited. Make it like EvE and PvE portion of the game becomes limited (In Eve thats fine, space looks like space looks like space. In a game world like EQ, too many different lands with unique POIs become locked out to the average PvE who does not wish to engage in any form of PvP)

    There are 3 types of people in the world.
    1.) Those who make things happen
    2.) Those who watch things happen
    3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"


    image

  • RateroRatero Tallassee, ALPosts: 337Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully
    FFA world with a PVE area full of quests and instances.  This will give the devs a lot of freedom to design something else.

    Yep... like a new game since all the PvE'ers will leave for greener pastures.

    Ratero.

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Fusion
    Originally posted by Drakynn
    Originally posted by Fusion

    Because "world simulation" is much more exciting that "hit that next level with chatbox"

    I can pit against monsters, farm xp and loot in thousands upon thousands of single-player / Co-Op games when need arises.

    If someone wants to PvP exclusively there are tousands of singleplayer/multiplayer games when the need arises.Works both ways.

    You miss interpreted my meaning.

    MMORPG's needs to have have BOTH un-instanced, to be a 'world simulation' of my meaning.

    DF:UW is a good example of what i mean. Yes, not greatly executed, but on the right tracks

    EVE is also a great example, tho lacking in entertaining combat mechanics and sub-par PVE.

    I do not play either EVE or DF:UW  ( I got charged for DF:UW for a couple of months after looking at in Beta and hating it, played EVE for about a month totally bored).

    I take it from your underlining that "world simulation" for you has some special meaning (wonderful gankfest perhaps) but one others do not share.  Kind of hard to argue about it if it is your own private code for something.

    However I propose a hypothetical for you:  EQ Next comes out with a PvE server and an OW FFA PvP server, after six months which do you think will have the most dynamic economy, largest buildings etc?

    IMHO it will be the PvE server with the PvP server being largely a collection of smoking ruins.

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Fusion
    Because "world simulation" is much more exciting that "hit that next level with chatbox"

     

    I can pit against monsters, farm xp and loot in thousands upon thousands of single-player / Co-Op games when need arises.



    That explains why you like PvP. You didn't say whether or not you thought it required everyone's participation though. If you do think it requires everyone's participation, why?

     

     

    I agree with the guy about the world simulation thing.  The why of it for me is that I want the sort of economy that comes from me being able to kill you and destroy your belongings.  I like the amount of jobs that opens up for crafters to craft more gear and people who protect crafters and people who kill people who protect crafters in that sort of economy.  If a crafter/gatherer is safe from pvp they do not need protection and i get mad at the developer because he took my jerb.

    I do not agree that everyone must play that game as I do though.  I think its fine if they have servers that people can pve on all day and not worry about pvp.  those servers can be run by Blizzard, EA, Trion, etc while i play on a server run by CCP or some other game developer who makes the sort of game I want.

    I think its great that there are all different types of games.  I want people to be happy playing games, whatever games they choose, but sometimes what I want just isn't going to be what you want and thats pretty much the long and short of it.  We cannot always agree.

     

     

  • NotimeforbsNotimeforbs Memphis, TNPosts: 346Member Common

    I don't think the problem is that people who don't like World FFA PvP don't like it because it is forced, necessarily.  I think the issue is that it is too easy to be forced into a situation you have absolutely no way of winning.  You don't even have a chance.

    Ganking.  Ganking occurs in two ways: either you are totally outnumbered or you are totally outleveled.

     

    1.  To me, this is the fundamental problem with World FFA PvP.  And it has to do with the Themepark nature of the game.  The areas are built around a specific array of levels.  But nothing stops higher level players from entering these areas and rolling face.  And given Themepark use of gear-based stats... the fact that they are higher level and would be more powerful anyway, the fact that their gear makes them a god in comparison to a low level player, no amount of zone-level comradery will matter.  In other words, a gank squad of level 10's of any amount will never bring down a single level 50 with tricked out gear.

    There are ways around this issue, but it would require a totally different design than what we are used to seeing.  I won't go too deep into it, but basically, you have to design the game for lateral progression instead of vertical progression.  But we will never see this, so it's a moot point.

     

    2.  Then there is the matter of a single 10th lvl guy being ganked by 15 10th level guys.  Again, the lone guy doesn't have a chance.  If this were a FPS like Call of Duty or something, this sort of thing happens all the time.  One guy could potentially take out the entire opposite team.  I've seen it happen before - a lot.  Hell, I've DONE it before.  But that was years ago when I was younger.  And besides that, it takes a player who really knows how to play the game well to pull off on a consistent basis.  And moreover, this is not something that a game should bank on happening by the bulk of its players in the first place.

    The thing is, the sort of game where these things happen revolves entirely on player skill.  MMO's do not revolve around player skill in any shape or form.  They revolve around statistics.  One lone player, even totally min-maxed, will never take out an entire team of equal level players, unless their class is OP (which is often the case), and even then... it won't happen.  The numbers will not support it.  They'll be dead before they take out one of the gankers.

    Add to all of this that it is very easy for these gankers to completely lock down an entire area to the point that many players can absolutely not do a single thing in the game until the gankers move on...  It's very easy to see how this can be frustrating.  I love open world FFA PvP, and even I can see this sucks.

     

     

    However, I am not bothered by the second issue too much, so long as the first issue has been solved.  The second one is a necessary evil in my mind, and it promotes grouping instead of soloing.  Safety in numbers.  But... people just won't do it.

    I've seen it progress for years - people are constantly not wanting to group in a multi-player game.  This is what baffles me.  I'm all for wanting to do what you want to do... but you first have to make sure what you want to do is even available in the game.  For instance, I don't play Skyrim and expect to drive cars.  I'm tired of MMO's being released that cater to people who are really just looking for a single player game with a chat box.

    I don't care what anyone says: if a Dev says their game is going to have World FFA PvP... if you don't like it... don't play it.  What you don't get to do is go into the game and start complaining and begging them to change it or add rules that previously did not exist, just so you don't have to deal with a part of the game that was designed to exist.  The game isn't for you.  You either accept that or go play a different game that is more to your liking.

    I think people who don't want a game where there is World FFA PvP really just want a Co-op RPG... with crafting.  Stop trying to make MMO's into that.  MMO's provide a different experience.  They provide experiences for all facets of gameplay.  If you don't like it - play something else.

    I'm not saying World PvP isn't without its issues.  I'm saying that getting rid of it and complaining you don't want it are not resolving those issues.

  • FusionFusion VaasaPosts: 1,391Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Fusion
    Originally posted by Drakynn
    Originally posted by Fusion

    Because "world simulation" is much more exciting that "hit that next level with chatbox"

    I can pit against monsters, farm xp and loot in thousands upon thousands of single-player / Co-Op games when need arises.

    If someone wants to PvP exclusively there are tousands of singleplayer/multiplayer games when the need arises.Works both ways.

    You miss interpreted my meaning.

    MMORPG's needs to have have BOTH un-instanced, to be a 'world simulation' of my meaning.

    DF:UW is a good example of what i mean. Yes, not greatly executed, but on the right tracks

    EVE is also a great example, tho lacking in entertaining combat mechanics and sub-par PVE.

    However I propose a hypothetical for you:  EQ Next comes out with a PvE server and an OW FFA PvP server, after six months which do you think will have the most dynamic economy, largest buildings etc?

    IMHO it will be the PvE server with the PvP server being largely a collection of smoking ruins.

    You meant, which will have an overbloated economy, where a pumpkin pie costs 1pp and a bronze dirk for level 6 will cost 15pp, have the largest houses filled with stuff that serves no purpose at the end of the day, because nothing can be "taken" from you? No risk, all reward.. i don't find that entertaining at all and that's what games are for after all, entertainment.

    I agree, it'll probably be the PVE server, where as the other server will have people working together to rebuild those smoking ruins.

    Currently playing: -

    Waiting for: Class4.

    Dead and Buried: ESO, NWO, GW2, SWTOR, Darkfall, AO, AC2, Vanguard, CoH/V, EnB, EVE, Neocron, FE, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, FFXI, FFXIV, SWG, WoW, and billions of eastern junks!

«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.