Yes... I know that's what the pve player wants. I'm saying it's dumb because it's not different than just turning off non-consensual pvp.
What does this ridiculous system accomplish that simply turning off non-consensual pvp wouldn't? It's another one of these "compromises" that simply gives you what you want and not what we want. There's 0 reason to have it, so it's a bad idea.
But it hasn't turned off non-consensual PvP. Make the dollar values $5 or $50 or $500. That's simply a matter of scale. My choice of $50 did make its point -- it drew a reaction.
The PvP game you want includes living targets. I can appreciate that. I even want that myself at times. But I don't want someone to be able to attack me when I'm at 30% health from fighting a mob, or I'm distracted with working on a complex crafting project, get tied up by the interface while I'm typing a long message to someone, or simply be afk for an extended period. The problem with safe zones is that they aren't where interesting things are. There are times I simply don't want to be a target. (And if DAoC taught me anything, I'm a target).
Look at it this way, a PvP player in an Open World, PvP environment can unilaterally impose their style of game play on the PvE player. The PvE player has no reciprocal method for imposing their game style on the PvP player. A payment is some compensation for this imposition.
What I've proposed is a method of bypassing all the limitations of in-game consequences. You can't log off, switch characters or turn your computer off to avoid it. And it is a tangible form of a consequence, not a 'murderer' flag or long in-game timers. They can simply be ignored while the killer gloats of their latest kill to their cronies.
You specifically said "nobody would kill anybody who hasn't flagged themself for pvp." That's what you said in your original post and that's why the system you proposed is pointless and idiotic.
The rest of your post is just more confused, uninformed, pointless dribble that I'm frankly tired of debunking with you people. You all claim to know so much about this issue, but you don't. You haven't played as many ffa pvp games as I have, and that's why all of your opinions/ideas are silly and miss the entire point. You guys are like the most annoying backseat drivers. You say that people can just bypass the limitations by logging off? What does that even mean? If they log off to avoid their punishment, then logging off IS the punishment. They obviously wanna play, so if something happens to them in-game that makes them not want to play, that's a punishment.
I have thought about in-game punishment quite a bit. This is the only mechanism that would actually solve the problem. But it certainly wouldn't be popular.
How on earth can you suggest an idea like you have and claim to have thought about this a lot? It's either going to cost so much that PKing will essentially be non-existant, so at that point you may as well just turn off non-consensual pvp. OR some people DO use it and then you just made the most retardedly broken "pay to win" situation ever. You've actually ENABLED griefers in a situation like that.
In an actual ffa pvp game, the griefer waiting in the bushes to ambush you when you're low on stats is at least at risk himself because somebody can see what he's doing and kill him before he does it. Or they can see what he's done and kill him after. With your system, you could be farming mobs and SEE the guy waiting for you in the bushes and there would be nothing you could do to stop him, because you don't want to spend the $ to attack him before he attacks you.
Another christmas list thread, but I wanted to get some opinions on this and to have some coding knowledgeables give me a reality check.
Basically I would like to see player controlled territory, but seeing how this is the "largest sandbox mmo" by territory I mean huge amounts of space. What I believe this would do, it would create PvE zones within PvP borders. I would also like these borders to be organic, so a neighboring faction could push your border back. In addition I think having NPC's controlled by the players would help. I think that if an enemy army wishes to take your castle it should take more than one battle. They could certainly win in one battle, if the make a lengthy push to eliminate all of your players/NPCs and finally lay siege upon your stronghold, but it would be more likely for the pushes to come in spurts. I hate the idea of sieges being limited to a window time, to me that makes no sense despite being beneficial to the casual players.
This could go a far way to strengthen the bond between PvP and PvE players. PvP players are protecting the lands of the PvE from their bloodthirsty adversaries, while PvE'ers are exploring/crafting/suppressing interior NPC mobs and also helping to provide the resources to keep a healthy NPC force.
So what do you guys think?
There is a bond??
When did this happen?? Did I miss the memo?
Oh yea I am very fond of the guy who wants to kill me and ruin my game experience.....
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
some of the pvpers envision this perfect sandbox world, filled with easy pray pvers victims, (crafters or cookie makers) that they can gank at ease every 4 steps. that's why they get frustrated when they see , pvers rather play something else. it is hard to adknowledge that the world isen't about what we want only.
a pver isen't only the typical squeeshy fearful crafter or the traditional barkeeper that hides behind the desk, that's a stereotype some people seem to have when they think of pvers, or carebears as some others like to use. you have a whole lot of different playing styles when you say pve, the sameway pvp isen't only about grief and pking.
casual players , raiders, explorers, crafters, socialisers, roleplayers. people who enjoys pvp and pve whenever they want, and not when little bob wants them to.
if a mmo wants to be financially very succesful and not just do ok, devs should consider them all. instead of going the , Eve online niche path only.
You really should read the thread.
There is a lot of good discussion on these topics you seem to have missed.
As for the pvpers getting upset that you want your own server, or wanting a sandbox world filled with PVE people just so they can gank them. Those people, if they exist, aren't really active within this thread.
Mostly though, I see you throwing some stereotypes at PVP enthusiasts (saying we look down on you or think you somehow inferior) and accusing us of stereotyping you. I do not think you are in any way inferior to me because of how you like to play your games and I really wish you would try to be more undestanding of us. We aren't here to try to ruin gaming for you or anyone who likes the things you like.
Most of us want you to be happy and have games that you enjoy. We just want you to understand that we also want that and we don't think this can be achieved with a game that has separate PVE and PVP servers any more than some of our friends here think they can have fun on a PVP server when they disdain all PVP.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
People who have never ever played a proper PvP game need to stop chiming in with their uneducated "fixes".
Good PvP needs to be baked in from the start, as a core part of the game. If its just a toggle you can turn on and off with no other changes, it's not PvP worth playing. This is probably the 90th time someone in this thread has said this so please, stop parading around this moronic "solution".
And the "PvE crowd" needs to stop acting holier than thou, you just come across as closed minded, incomprehensive elitists who don't understand game design or the wants of others.
Seriously people, do some MMO homework if you don't think the two can exist in the same game. And if done right, the two greatly benefit one another.
And when people ask for PvP, we're NOT ALL ASKING FOR AN OPEN RANGE TO GANK WHOEVER! So STOP USING IT AS A STRAW MAN.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
some of the pvpers envision this perfect sandbox world, filled with easy pray pvers victims, (crafters or cookie makers) that they can gank at ease every 4 steps. that's why they get frustrated when they see , pvers rather play something else. it is hard to adknowledge that the world isen't about what we want only.
You really should read the thread.
There is a lot of good discussion on these topics you seem to have missed.
As for the pvpers getting upset that you want your own server, or wanting a sandbox world filled with PVE people just so they can gank them. Those people, if they exist, aren't really active within this thread.
Mostly though, I see you throwing some stereotypes at PVP enthusiasts (saying we look down on you or think you somehow inferior) and accusing us of stereotyping you. I do not think you are in any way inferior to me because of how you like to play your games and I really wish you would try to be more undestanding of us. We aren't here to try to ruin gaming for you or anyone who likes the things you like.
Most of us want you to be happy and have games that you enjoy. We just want you to understand that we also want that and we don't think this can be achieved with a game that has separate PVE and PVP servers any more than some of our friends here think they can have fun on a PVP server when they disdain all PVP.
I have to disagree with you there Rama there is more than one ardent pro PvP poster who is obviously a dedicated care bear hunter. You should examine the posts of some of the other PvP supporters a little more closely.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
some of the pvpers envision this perfect sandbox world, filled with easy pray pvers victims, (crafters or cookie makers) that they can gank at ease every 4 steps. that's why they get frustrated when they see , pvers rather play something else. it is hard to adknowledge that the world isen't about what we want only.
You really should read the thread.
There is a lot of good discussion on these topics you seem to have missed.
As for the pvpers getting upset that you want your own server, or wanting a sandbox world filled with PVE people just so they can gank them. Those people, if they exist, aren't really active within this thread.
Mostly though, I see you throwing some stereotypes at PVP enthusiasts (saying we look down on you or think you somehow inferior) and accusing us of stereotyping you. I do not think you are in any way inferior to me because of how you like to play your games and I really wish you would try to be more undestanding of us. We aren't here to try to ruin gaming for you or anyone who likes the things you like.
Most of us want you to be happy and have games that you enjoy. We just want you to understand that we also want that and we don't think this can be achieved with a game that has separate PVE and PVP servers any more than some of our friends here think they can have fun on a PVP server when they disdain all PVP.
I have to disagree with you there Rama there is more than one ardent pro PvP poster who is obviously a dedicated care bear hunter. You should examine the posts of some of the other PvP supporters a little more closely.
Who is it and what did he say that makes you think that?
I have to disagree with you there Rama there is more than one ardent pro PvP poster who is obviously a dedicated care bear hunter. You should examine the posts of some of the other PvP supporters a little more closely.
What I mostly meant was from a game design perspective, most of the PVP advocates here aren't advocating a completely lawless free for all "no consequences for murdering innocents" type of game so we can just farm PVE players to our hearts content.
Rereading my post though I did not really convey that notion well or at all. The way I said it does seem inaccurate, as I agree with you that many players here will possibly gank an innocent or a new player here and there if given the opportunity.
I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
My concern isn't really with how harsh the anti-griefing system is, but just how it's executed. If it's like the PS2 anti-griefing system, that'll be a huge turn off for me. As far as I know, in PS2 if you shoot teammates too often, your gun gets locked down.... not very interesting.
Something else that's not been tried, a cash shop-type approach.
If one player kills another player without consent (a flag), the game automatically charges the killer's credit card for $50 and credits the victim for $45. If you want to kill someone, go right ahead. The consequences are resolved between the killer and Mr. Visa. There's no other consequence in-game that will work as consistently or as effectively. If that somehow doesn't stop Mr. Gates from slaughtering PvE players, simply have an escalating cost.
Novel, unique, and no one's going to kill someone without a consent flag. (Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it would be acceptable to the players).
That's a horrible idea. As you said, nobody's ever going to kill anybody without a "consent flag." How is that a good system? If you wanted a system that dropped PKing down to 0, then you'd just make it so nobody could attack anybody else unless they were flagged. The point of bounty hunting (and similar) systems is that it mitigates crimes, but doesn't outright get rid of them. That's the point of having risk/reward.
Dropping PKing to 0 is exactly what the PvE player wants. When they want to be safe, they are safe from other players. Anywhere. They still have to deal with the environment (factions, mobs, etc). If I'm willing to indulge in PvP, I simply turn the PvP flag on. Otherwise, you will pay the consequences.
It isn't a horrible system, especially if the PvP flag can be toggled only very infrequently. An hour since the last PvP action could keep the killer from escaping to 'safety', and you can still enact bounties. (Bounty hunting, like all other in-game consequences, doesn't work -- every PvP player is busy doing their own thing when there's a criminal to punish).
And note, I never said anything about not being able to kill a player who isn't currently PvP flagged; doing so just has a consequence that you find objectionable. This system does not prohibit the bad behavior or put any kind of restrictions on it.
Please note: This system requires a subscription, or at least a valid credit card to create / operate an account. To me, that's the worst part of this mechanism.
Yes... I know that's what the pve player wants. I'm saying it's dumb because it's not different than just turning off non-consensual pvp.
What does this ridiculous system accomplish that simply turning off non-consensual pvp wouldn't? It's another one of these "compromises" that simply gives you what you want and not what we want. There's 0 reason to have it, so it's a bad idea.
So why is it a bad idea to give those who want to be able to flag pvp off the ability to do so?
How does it impact those who will have pvp flagged on?
Point of fact is it does NOTHING to impact pvp playstyle aside from the fact pvpers cannot kill those who do not wish to pvp. It removes the option for people to gank others, simple as that. I have not heard one reason why its a bad idea other than "Because it ruins my fun" and its somehow a valid reason for pvpers. Yet when some states they want the flag because pvp ruins their fun, the reason is no longer valid.
Basically most of the pro-pvper seem to be of the 'hooray for me and the hell with you" mind set. The reason for this is because PvPers know, that when given the option, a lot of people will choose to play pvp flagged off, limiting their potential pool of targets. And pvpers do not like this idea.
As for your last statement, there is a reason to have the flag system - some people just don't like to pvp when they don't want to.
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?!"
Originally posted by cheyane I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
PvE players don't care if PvPers are in game or not. All PvE players want is the option to not have to PvP if they don't want to. A lot of PvPers don't like that idea because they want everyone to have to play their way without choice or options.
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?!"
So why is it a bad idea to give those who want to be able to flag pvp off the ability to do so?
How does it impact those who will have pvp flagged on?
Point of fact is it does NOTHING to impact pvp playstyle aside from the fact pvpers cannot kill those who do not wish to pvp. It removes the option for people to gank others, simple as that. I have not heard one reason why its a bad idea other than "Because it ruins my fun" and its somehow a valid reason for pvpers. Yet when some states they want the flag because pvp ruins their fun, the reason is no longer valid.
Basically most of the pro-pvper seem to be of the 'hooray for me and the hell with you" mind set. The reason for this is because PvPers know, that when given the option, a lot of people will choose to play pvp flagged off, limiting their potential pool of targets. And pvpers do not like this idea.
As for your last statement, there is a reason to have the flag system - some people just don't like to pvp when they don't want to.
The flag for pvp system isn't a bad idea at all. Most reasonable people will not claim it is a bad idea.
That is exactly how PVE servers work in World of Warcraft (or they did when I played it) and that game does absolutely fine!
It is not a bad idea at all, it just isn't the sort of game I personally will want to play.
Originally posted by cheyane I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
I don't really see anyone saying PvE players should be made to play with PvP players.
I see a lot of us saying we would like for them to play with us though. If you do not want to do so i'll never hold it against you.
Also, you have to bear in mind, there is a very large portion of the MMORPG gaming community that are PVE/PVP players and not just one type of player.
My concern isn't really with how harsh the anti-griefing system is, but just how it's executed. If it's like the PS2 anti-griefing system, that'll be a huge turn off for me. As far as I know, in PS2 if you shoot teammates too often, your gun gets locked down.... not very interesting.
Something else that's not been tried, a cash shop-type approach.
If one player kills another player without consent (a flag), the game automatically charges the killer's credit card for $50 and credits the victim for $45. If you want to kill someone, go right ahead. The consequences are resolved between the killer and Mr. Visa. There's no other consequence in-game that will work as consistently or as effectively. If that somehow doesn't stop Mr. Gates from slaughtering PvE players, simply have an escalating cost.
Novel, unique, and no one's going to kill someone without a consent flag. (Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it would be acceptable to the players).
That's a horrible idea. As you said, nobody's ever going to kill anybody without a "consent flag." How is that a good system? If you wanted a system that dropped PKing down to 0, then you'd just make it so nobody could attack anybody else unless they were flagged. The point of bounty hunting (and similar) systems is that it mitigates crimes, but doesn't outright get rid of them. That's the point of having risk/reward.
Dropping PKing to 0 is exactly what the PvE player wants. When they want to be safe, they are safe from other players. Anywhere. They still have to deal with the environment (factions, mobs, etc). If I'm willing to indulge in PvP, I simply turn the PvP flag on. Otherwise, you will pay the consequences.
It isn't a horrible system, especially if the PvP flag can be toggled only very infrequently. An hour since the last PvP action could keep the killer from escaping to 'safety', and you can still enact bounties. (Bounty hunting, like all other in-game consequences, doesn't work -- every PvP player is busy doing their own thing when there's a criminal to punish).
And note, I never said anything about not being able to kill a player who isn't currently PvP flagged; doing so just has a consequence that you find objectionable. This system does not prohibit the bad behavior or put any kind of restrictions on it.
Please note: This system requires a subscription, or at least a valid credit card to create / operate an account. To me, that's the worst part of this mechanism.
Yes... I know that's what the pve player wants. I'm saying it's dumb because it's not different than just turning off non-consensual pvp.
What does this ridiculous system accomplish that simply turning off non-consensual pvp wouldn't? It's another one of these "compromises" that simply gives you what you want and not what we want. There's 0 reason to have it, so it's a bad idea.
So why is it a bad idea to give those who want to be able to flag pvp off the ability to do so?
The discussion you're entering wasn't about that being a bad idea. The bad idea was making the penalty for killing somebody a REAL CASH penalty. That's a bad idea for a number of different reasons. PvP flag systems can't inherently be bad or good ideas because you haven't presented any premise. Bad idea for what? I personally think pvp flagging systems are boring because they take the thrill of danger out of the game, at least in part.
How does it impact those who will have pvp flagged on?
Point of fact is it does NOTHING to impact pvp playstyle aside from the fact pvpers cannot kill those who do not wish to pvp. It removes the option for people to gank others, simple as that. I have not heard one reason why its a bad idea other than "Because it ruins my fun" and its somehow a valid reason for pvpers. Yet when some states they want the flag because pvp ruins their fun, the reason is no longer valid.
Good job for asking a question and then answering it yourself (unfairly). Just because YOU don't know how it affects the entire game (and therefore the "pvp players"... whatever that means) doesn't mean there's no effect.... so I'd suggest you stop being so arrogant about it. There's 50+ pages of why you're wrong.
OW PvP creates a sense of danger, risk/reward and immersion that is effectively ruined by pvp zones, servers, flagging systems, etc. You haven't given me a specific system, so I'm not sure what you're looking for from me. The perfect game for me would involve open world pvp and full loot. It's far more satisfying to build up cache of resources/gold if you've done it in a dangerous way. It forces you to play safer. These aren't hard concepts to grasp.
That's fun for me. You say it's not fun for the non-pvp crowd... ok. They don't have to want the same game I want. However, YOU'RE the one telling me that I should be ok with something that I'm not ok with - nebulous, vague, non-specific "pvp flag system". I'm not telling YOU that you should like an ow pvp game.
Basically most of the pro-pvper seem to be of the 'hooray for me and the hell with you" mind set. The reason for this is because PvPers know, that when given the option, a lot of people will choose to play pvp flagged off, limiting their potential pool of targets. And pvpers do not like this idea.
Yeah except I know way more of those people than you do and I say you're wrong. SOME people are pricks who just want to kill other people and grief them, that is true. Just like SOME non-pvp players are carebears who would cry if somebody killed them and took their pixels.
Yes, if the option is given to people in-game to press a button to become invulnerable, a lot of people would do it. What's your point? That's like saying if you gave somebody the option to receive unlimited gold, would they accept it? Of course they would, that doesn't mean it's good gameplay.
As for your last statement, there is a reason to have the flag system - some people just don't like to pvp when they don't want to.
Again, you're just misunderstanding the conversation you're interjecting yourself into. I was saying there's 0 reason to have a CASH penalty system for murderers.
Originally posted by cheyane I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
They shouldn't. I actively don't WANT the "nonpvp" crowd in any game I play.
BTW, don't lump everybody into either pvp or pve. I enjoy pvp, and I also enjoy pve. It's very silly to say "pvp players want pve players in their game."
Originally posted by cheyane I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
PvE players don't care if PvPers are in game or not. All PvE players want is the option to not have to PvP if they don't want to. A lot of PvPers don't like that idea because they want everyone to have to play their way without choice or options.
It's not that I want to force PvP on anyone; but if a game is built on PvP then you should not have consensual PvP flags. By logging into the game you have already given your consent. If a crafter is out harvesting, but I know that particular crafter makes gear for an enemy, why should I allow that crafter to live? It's not about ganking or greifing, it's about protecting my guild. Without out a way to PvP that crafter my choices are limited. So why does it matter that I am able to PvP that crafter; it comes back to the type of combat I prefer, which is asset destruction and territory control. Anything that tears away at an enemy guild will build up my guild, and seen through that light, killing the crafter is a valid way to build my guild. If the crafter needs more protection then he should join a guild that can adequately protect him.
So, if EQN is built as a PvP game, there should be no flag system or battle grounds etc. and it should be a non-consensual PvP game. If non-PvP players don't like that then they don't have to play the game, but I for one would be sad that a lot of the depth of the game would be missing, meaning the non-PvP players.
If EQN is built as a PvE game, then by all means have a flagged system and separate servers. The issue here is yet again PvP players have been put to the background and another AAA is put into play without looking at the PvP playerbase.
So when will a AAA company make a game that is at the heart a PvP game, that's tacks on PvE? I know it's bad business if you are trying to dethrone WoW; but EvE has already proven an open world PvP can be profitable.
Originally posted by cheyane I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
I don't really see anyone saying PvE players should be made to play with PvP players.
I see a lot of us saying we would like for them to play with us though. If you do not want to do so i'll never hold it against you.
Also, you have to bear in mind, there is a very large portion of the MMORPG gaming community that are PVE/PVP players and not just one type of player.
Large portion is PvE/PvP you say but is that because they can choose to play it when they want to. How many would be if there was no choice ? Wouldn't only PvP MMORPG games be more popular then like Darkfall ?
I just got called silly lol okay nvm I am out of this thread.
Originally posted by cheyane I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
I don't really see anyone saying PvE players should be made to play with PvP players.
I see a lot of us saying we would like for them to play with us though. If you do not want to do so i'll never hold it against you.
Also, you have to bear in mind, there is a very large portion of the MMORPG gaming community that are PVE/PVP players and not just one type of player.
Large portion is PvE/PvP you say but is that because they can choose to play it when they want to. How many would be if there was no choice ? Wouldn't only PvP MMORPG games be more popular then like Darkfall ?
Games like Darkfall are more action oriented games with full loot. Looting rights/drops are a big issue as I've read and talked with players over the years. A game that can limit what drops, by leaving equipped items alone would do better than full loot games. Also the combat mechanics in DF are manual aim, where I personally like tab targeting. For players that like tab-targeting there is no fantasy open world PvP game on the market. The last one I knew of was Shadowbane. Actually SB spoiled me to all other games; it had no questing and was based on city conquest. One of the greatest games I've ever played. EvE is a close second, only because it's based in space.
PvP games are even more niche that mmoRPG games, so yeah they are a very small part of the market. It's one of the reasons that so far only indie companies have tried to do an open world PvP game.
Originally posted by cheyane I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
I don't really see anyone saying PvE players should be made to play with PvP players.
I see a lot of us saying we would like for them to play with us though. If you do not want to do so i'll never hold it against you.
Also, you have to bear in mind, there is a very large portion of the MMORPG gaming community that are PVE/PVP players and not just one type of player.
Large portion is PvE/PvP you say but is that because they can choose to play it when they want to. How many would be if there was no choice ? Wouldn't only PvP MMORPG games be more popular then like Darkfall ?
Games like Darkfall are more action oriented games with full loot. Looting rights/drops are a big issue as I've read and talked with players over the years. A game that can limit what drops, by leaving equipped items alone would do better than full loot games. Also the combat mechanics in DF are manual aim, where I personally like tab targeting. For players that like tab-targeting there is no fantasy open world PvP game on the market. The last one I knew of was Shadowbane. Actually SB spoiled me to all other games; it had no questing and was based on city conquest. One of the greatest games I've ever played. EvE is a close second, only because it's based in space.
PvP games are even more niche that mmoRPG games, so yeah they are a very small part of the market. It's one of the reasons that so far only indie companies have tried to do an open world PvP game.
Darkfall isn't sandbox enough to be the game that a lot of us want. Don't get me wrong, I play and enjoy darkfall, but that's because it happens to be the closest thing to what I want, not 100% what i want.
There are also technical problems involved with the game. But mainly my only real problem with the game is lack of options. Everybody is either a crafter, or some kind of fighter. There aren't any interesting pve professions like there were in UO. No tamers, bards, etc. Not enough variety in professions/roles and the crafting leaves a little to be desired.
Originally posted by cheyane I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
I don't really see anyone saying PvE players should be made to play with PvP players.
I see a lot of us saying we would like for them to play with us though. If you do not want to do so i'll never hold it against you.
Also, you have to bear in mind, there is a very large portion of the MMORPG gaming community that are PVE/PVP players and not just one type of player.
Large portion is PvE/PvP you say but is that because they can choose to play it when they want to. How many would be if there was no choice ? Wouldn't only PvP MMORPG games be more popular then like Darkfall ?
Games like Darkfall are more action oriented games with full loot. Looting rights/drops are a big issue as I've read and talked with players over the years. A game that can limit what drops, by leaving equipped items alone would do better than full loot games. Also the combat mechanics in DF are manual aim, where I personally like tab targeting. For players that like tab-targeting there is no fantasy open world PvP game on the market. The last one I knew of was Shadowbane. Actually SB spoiled me to all other games; it had no questing and was based on city conquest. One of the greatest games I've ever played. EvE is a close second, only because it's based in space.
PvP games are even more niche that mmoRPG games, so yeah they are a very small part of the market. It's one of the reasons that so far only indie companies have tried to do an open world PvP game.
Not necessarily. DAoC, a PvP MMO, was the second most popular MMO of its time. Eve, FFA PVP MMO, is the second most popular western MMO of today.
There's a huge market for PvP, else LoL wouldn't be the most played game in the world.
Problem is, making a good MMO is hard, making a good MMO with PvE and PvP is even harder. It takes talent and good design, something most studios lack, and just clone WoW instead.
"This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."
Hopefully they know what they are doing. While I didn't read the million and one pages of "discussion," I feel a compromise is fairly easy to implement where almost everyone is happy or pretty dang close.
While I'm all for a FFA PVP system that strongly encourages and rewards PVP and has harsh punishments for those that grief/gank, I don't see how it fits into EQ.
Unless they force us to join a side (Faction, Deity, Race, Alignment, etc) and fight against people that I have to hate because they selected a different side, I don't feel PVP fully works in Norrath.
Sure we can fight over land, resources, cities, dungeons, but why would a halfling kill another halfling for a field of crops?
Most PVP games have some eternal struggle, where is it in EQN? It's easy to just "sandbox" but sandbox is a very very loose term and doesn't mean we have to kill each other.
I think PVP works well in PVP games. If they don't make PVP the central theme of the game, but include it, I think they will have problems down the road.
I'm hoping for one server with a SWG type flag system that rewards those that take risks, yet leaves those that don't want to play along, to still have a good time.
Going along with the sandbox idea, I would love to see some sort of realistic system in place where PVE types can gather resources, build cities, craft and do what they do and PVP types can go attack said resources/cities. Get people to band together and not be PVE or PVP players, but EQN players enjoying the game.
Originally posted by cheyane I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
They shouldn't. I actively don't WANT the "nonpvp" crowd in any game I play.
BTW, don't lump everybody into either pvp or pve. I enjoy pvp, and I also enjoy pve. It's very silly to say "pvp players want pve players in their game."
PvP and PvE are used with two different meaning in this thread. They are used as both content and game types.
Content wise PvP mean player-vs-player be it duel, FFA, battlegrounds, RvR, etc. While PvE mean player vs environment like raids, quests, etc.
Game wise, PvP game type is where the player has limited to no control on where, who and when the PvP activities happens. While PvE game type has no or really few PvP activities and when they exist the player control where, who and when they happen.
A PvP game can have PvE content, but the players are still PvP players because that activity cannot be avoided.
A PvE game can have PvP content, the majority of players are PvE-only, some will be PvP-only (and on the wrong server/game) and some will do both content.
A FFA PvP game will never have PvE player (as in game type), but they can have people who like PvE content., but these people are still PvP players, because that content is "always on".
Originally posted by cheyane I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
They shouldn't. I actively don't WANT the "nonpvp" crowd in any game I play.
BTW, don't lump everybody into either pvp or pve. I enjoy pvp, and I also enjoy pve. It's very silly to say "pvp players want pve players in their game."
PvP and PvE are used with two different meaning in this thread. They are used as both content and game types.
Content wise PvP mean player-vs-player be it duel, FFA, battlegrounds, RvR, etc. While PvE mean player vs environment like raids, quests, etc.
Game wise, PvP game type is where the player has limited to no control on where, who and when the PvP activities happens. While PvE game type has no or really few PvP activities and when they exist the player control where, who and when they happen.
A PvP game can have PvE content, but the players are still PvP players because that activity cannot be avoided.
A PvE game can have PvP content, the majority of players are PvE-only, some will be PvP-only (and on the wrong server/game) and some will do both content.
A FFA PvP game will never have PvE player (as in game type), but they can have people who like PvE content., but these people are still PvP players, because that content is "always on".
If that's how the person I was responding to meant it, then they're just wrong. Pvp players don't necessarily want pve players to play their games.
Originally posted by cheyane I notice that PvP players want PvE players in their game but the reverse is not always so. What I cannot understand is why should the PvE players be made to play with PvP players .
I don't really see anyone saying PvE players should be made to play with PvP players.
I see a lot of us saying we would like for them to play with us though. If you do not want to do so i'll never hold it against you.
Also, you have to bear in mind, there is a very large portion of the MMORPG gaming community that are PVE/PVP players and not just one type of player.
Large portion is PvE/PvP you say but is that because they can choose to play it when they want to. How many would be if there was no choice ? Wouldn't only PvP MMORPG games be more popular then like Darkfall ?
Games like Darkfall are more action oriented games with full loot. Looting rights/drops are a big issue as I've read and talked with players over the years. A game that can limit what drops, by leaving equipped items alone would do better than full loot games. Also the combat mechanics in DF are manual aim, where I personally like tab targeting. For players that like tab-targeting there is no fantasy open world PvP game on the market. The last one I knew of was Shadowbane. Actually SB spoiled me to all other games; it had no questing and was based on city conquest. One of the greatest games I've ever played. EvE is a close second, only because it's based in space.
PvP games are even more niche that mmoRPG games, so yeah they are a very small part of the market. It's one of the reasons that so far only indie companies have tried to do an open world PvP game.
Not necessarily. DAoC, a PvP MMO, was the second most popular MMO of its time. Eve, FFA PVP MMO, is the second most popular western MMO of today.
There's a huge market for PvP, else LoL wouldn't be the most played game in the world.
Problem is, making a good MMO is hard, making a good MMO with PvE and PvP is even harder. It takes talent and good design, something most studios lack, and just clone WoW instead.
FFA PVP failed sadly in DAoC. It became obvious that people couldn't handle PVE and PVP at the same time. While the end game was RvR/PVP, getting there was a different story. Very similar to WoW or any other game, just instead of 2v2, 40vs40 battlegrounds, we had a huge map to fight over when we made it there.
EVE works due to the game/world design. Norrath isn't exactly the same thing and would be harder to mirror, but would be interesting.
There is a huge market for PVP (I know I love it), but when given the chance/choice, most people don't want FFA PVP or PVP not on their terms.
I agree making an MMO with a good balance of PVE and PVP is one of the hardest things a dev can do and is why so many have failed or went with the PVE/PVP server route. A real open world, sandbox type game that is also successful has to have a lot of great foundation and systems in place to keep the world moving. Much like real life. Laws can suck, but without them, life would suck even more. Laws are also a slippery slope when it comes to this whole "sandbox" ideal as well.
Comments
You specifically said "nobody would kill anybody who hasn't flagged themself for pvp." That's what you said in your original post and that's why the system you proposed is pointless and idiotic.
The rest of your post is just more confused, uninformed, pointless dribble that I'm frankly tired of debunking with you people. You all claim to know so much about this issue, but you don't. You haven't played as many ffa pvp games as I have, and that's why all of your opinions/ideas are silly and miss the entire point. You guys are like the most annoying backseat drivers. You say that people can just bypass the limitations by logging off? What does that even mean? If they log off to avoid their punishment, then logging off IS the punishment. They obviously wanna play, so if something happens to them in-game that makes them not want to play, that's a punishment.
How on earth can you suggest an idea like you have and claim to have thought about this a lot? It's either going to cost so much that PKing will essentially be non-existant, so at that point you may as well just turn off non-consensual pvp. OR some people DO use it and then you just made the most retardedly broken "pay to win" situation ever. You've actually ENABLED griefers in a situation like that.
In an actual ffa pvp game, the griefer waiting in the bushes to ambush you when you're low on stats is at least at risk himself because somebody can see what he's doing and kill him before he does it. Or they can see what he's done and kill him after. With your system, you could be farming mobs and SEE the guy waiting for you in the bushes and there would be nothing you could do to stop him, because you don't want to spend the $ to attack him before he attacks you.
There is a bond??
When did this happen?? Did I miss the memo?
Oh yea I am very fond of the guy who wants to kill me and ruin my game experience.....
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
One side has the President of SOE that loves EVE, regrets the changes of SWG and hates Themeparks.
Which side do you think is going to be disappointed August 2nd? I wonder...
I hope you're right. I just feel like it's too good to be true, ya know? I can't imagine having a good sandbox game with the budget of a AAA mmo.
You really should read the thread.
There is a lot of good discussion on these topics you seem to have missed.
As for the pvpers getting upset that you want your own server, or wanting a sandbox world filled with PVE people just so they can gank them. Those people, if they exist, aren't really active within this thread.
Mostly though, I see you throwing some stereotypes at PVP enthusiasts (saying we look down on you or think you somehow inferior) and accusing us of stereotyping you. I do not think you are in any way inferior to me because of how you like to play your games and I really wish you would try to be more undestanding of us. We aren't here to try to ruin gaming for you or anyone who likes the things you like.
Most of us want you to be happy and have games that you enjoy. We just want you to understand that we also want that and we don't think this can be achieved with a game that has separate PVE and PVP servers any more than some of our friends here think they can have fun on a PVP server when they disdain all PVP.
People who have never ever played a proper PvP game need to stop chiming in with their uneducated "fixes".
Good PvP needs to be baked in from the start, as a core part of the game. If its just a toggle you can turn on and off with no other changes, it's not PvP worth playing. This is probably the 90th time someone in this thread has said this so please, stop parading around this moronic "solution".
And the "PvE crowd" needs to stop acting holier than thou, you just come across as closed minded, incomprehensive elitists who don't understand game design or the wants of others.
Seriously people, do some MMO homework if you don't think the two can exist in the same game. And if done right, the two greatly benefit one another.
And when people ask for PvP, we're NOT ALL ASKING FOR AN OPEN RANGE TO GANK WHOEVER! So STOP USING IT AS A STRAW MAN.
I have to disagree with you there Rama there is more than one ardent pro PvP poster who is obviously a dedicated care bear hunter. You should examine the posts of some of the other PvP supporters a little more closely.
Who is it and what did he say that makes you think that?
What I mostly meant was from a game design perspective, most of the PVP advocates here aren't advocating a completely lawless free for all "no consequences for murdering innocents" type of game so we can just farm PVE players to our hearts content.
Rereading my post though I did not really convey that notion well or at all. The way I said it does seem inaccurate, as I agree with you that many players here will possibly gank an innocent or a new player here and there if given the opportunity.
So why is it a bad idea to give those who want to be able to flag pvp off the ability to do so?
How does it impact those who will have pvp flagged on?
Point of fact is it does NOTHING to impact pvp playstyle aside from the fact pvpers cannot kill those who do not wish to pvp. It removes the option for people to gank others, simple as that. I have not heard one reason why its a bad idea other than "Because it ruins my fun" and its somehow a valid reason for pvpers. Yet when some states they want the flag because pvp ruins their fun, the reason is no longer valid.
Basically most of the pro-pvper seem to be of the 'hooray for me and the hell with you" mind set. The reason for this is because PvPers know, that when given the option, a lot of people will choose to play pvp flagged off, limiting their potential pool of targets. And pvpers do not like this idea.
As for your last statement, there is a reason to have the flag system - some people just don't like to pvp when they don't want to.
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?!"
PvE players don't care if PvPers are in game or not. All PvE players want is the option to not have to PvP if they don't want to. A lot of PvPers don't like that idea because they want everyone to have to play their way without choice or options.
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?!"
The flag for pvp system isn't a bad idea at all. Most reasonable people will not claim it is a bad idea.
That is exactly how PVE servers work in World of Warcraft (or they did when I played it) and that game does absolutely fine!
It is not a bad idea at all, it just isn't the sort of game I personally will want to play.
I don't really see anyone saying PvE players should be made to play with PvP players.
I see a lot of us saying we would like for them to play with us though. If you do not want to do so i'll never hold it against you.
Also, you have to bear in mind, there is a very large portion of the MMORPG gaming community that are PVE/PVP players and not just one type of player.
The discussion you're entering wasn't about that being a bad idea. The bad idea was making the penalty for killing somebody a REAL CASH penalty. That's a bad idea for a number of different reasons. PvP flag systems can't inherently be bad or good ideas because you haven't presented any premise. Bad idea for what? I personally think pvp flagging systems are boring because they take the thrill of danger out of the game, at least in part.
Good job for asking a question and then answering it yourself (unfairly). Just because YOU don't know how it affects the entire game (and therefore the "pvp players"... whatever that means) doesn't mean there's no effect.... so I'd suggest you stop being so arrogant about it. There's 50+ pages of why you're wrong.
OW PvP creates a sense of danger, risk/reward and immersion that is effectively ruined by pvp zones, servers, flagging systems, etc. You haven't given me a specific system, so I'm not sure what you're looking for from me. The perfect game for me would involve open world pvp and full loot. It's far more satisfying to build up cache of resources/gold if you've done it in a dangerous way. It forces you to play safer. These aren't hard concepts to grasp.
That's fun for me. You say it's not fun for the non-pvp crowd... ok. They don't have to want the same game I want. However, YOU'RE the one telling me that I should be ok with something that I'm not ok with - nebulous, vague, non-specific "pvp flag system". I'm not telling YOU that you should like an ow pvp game.
Yeah except I know way more of those people than you do and I say you're wrong. SOME people are pricks who just want to kill other people and grief them, that is true. Just like SOME non-pvp players are carebears who would cry if somebody killed them and took their pixels.
Yes, if the option is given to people in-game to press a button to become invulnerable, a lot of people would do it. What's your point? That's like saying if you gave somebody the option to receive unlimited gold, would they accept it? Of course they would, that doesn't mean it's good gameplay.
Again, you're just misunderstanding the conversation you're interjecting yourself into. I was saying there's 0 reason to have a CASH penalty system for murderers.
They shouldn't. I actively don't WANT the "nonpvp" crowd in any game I play.
BTW, don't lump everybody into either pvp or pve. I enjoy pvp, and I also enjoy pve. It's very silly to say "pvp players want pve players in their game."
It's not that I want to force PvP on anyone; but if a game is built on PvP then you should not have consensual PvP flags. By logging into the game you have already given your consent. If a crafter is out harvesting, but I know that particular crafter makes gear for an enemy, why should I allow that crafter to live? It's not about ganking or greifing, it's about protecting my guild. Without out a way to PvP that crafter my choices are limited. So why does it matter that I am able to PvP that crafter; it comes back to the type of combat I prefer, which is asset destruction and territory control. Anything that tears away at an enemy guild will build up my guild, and seen through that light, killing the crafter is a valid way to build my guild. If the crafter needs more protection then he should join a guild that can adequately protect him.
So, if EQN is built as a PvP game, there should be no flag system or battle grounds etc. and it should be a non-consensual PvP game. If non-PvP players don't like that then they don't have to play the game, but I for one would be sad that a lot of the depth of the game would be missing, meaning the non-PvP players.
If EQN is built as a PvE game, then by all means have a flagged system and separate servers. The issue here is yet again PvP players have been put to the background and another AAA is put into play without looking at the PvP playerbase.
So when will a AAA company make a game that is at the heart a PvP game, that's tacks on PvE? I know it's bad business if you are trying to dethrone WoW; but EvE has already proven an open world PvP can be profitable.
Large portion is PvE/PvP you say but is that because they can choose to play it when they want to. How many would be if there was no choice ? Wouldn't only PvP MMORPG games be more popular then like Darkfall ?
I just got called silly lol okay nvm I am out of this thread.
Games like Darkfall are more action oriented games with full loot. Looting rights/drops are a big issue as I've read and talked with players over the years. A game that can limit what drops, by leaving equipped items alone would do better than full loot games. Also the combat mechanics in DF are manual aim, where I personally like tab targeting. For players that like tab-targeting there is no fantasy open world PvP game on the market. The last one I knew of was Shadowbane. Actually SB spoiled me to all other games; it had no questing and was based on city conquest. One of the greatest games I've ever played. EvE is a close second, only because it's based in space.
PvP games are even more niche that mmoRPG games, so yeah they are a very small part of the market. It's one of the reasons that so far only indie companies have tried to do an open world PvP game.
Darkfall isn't sandbox enough to be the game that a lot of us want. Don't get me wrong, I play and enjoy darkfall, but that's because it happens to be the closest thing to what I want, not 100% what i want.
There are also technical problems involved with the game. But mainly my only real problem with the game is lack of options. Everybody is either a crafter, or some kind of fighter. There aren't any interesting pve professions like there were in UO. No tamers, bards, etc. Not enough variety in professions/roles and the crafting leaves a little to be desired.
Not necessarily. DAoC, a PvP MMO, was the second most popular MMO of its time. Eve, FFA PVP MMO, is the second most popular western MMO of today.
There's a huge market for PvP, else LoL wouldn't be the most played game in the world.
Problem is, making a good MMO is hard, making a good MMO with PvE and PvP is even harder. It takes talent and good design, something most studios lack, and just clone WoW instead.
"This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/
Hopefully they know what they are doing. While I didn't read the million and one pages of "discussion," I feel a compromise is fairly easy to implement where almost everyone is happy or pretty dang close.
While I'm all for a FFA PVP system that strongly encourages and rewards PVP and has harsh punishments for those that grief/gank, I don't see how it fits into EQ.
Unless they force us to join a side (Faction, Deity, Race, Alignment, etc) and fight against people that I have to hate because they selected a different side, I don't feel PVP fully works in Norrath.
Sure we can fight over land, resources, cities, dungeons, but why would a halfling kill another halfling for a field of crops?
Most PVP games have some eternal struggle, where is it in EQN? It's easy to just "sandbox" but sandbox is a very very loose term and doesn't mean we have to kill each other.
I think PVP works well in PVP games. If they don't make PVP the central theme of the game, but include it, I think they will have problems down the road.
I'm hoping for one server with a SWG type flag system that rewards those that take risks, yet leaves those that don't want to play along, to still have a good time.
Going along with the sandbox idea, I would love to see some sort of realistic system in place where PVE types can gather resources, build cities, craft and do what they do and PVP types can go attack said resources/cities. Get people to band together and not be PVE or PVP players, but EQN players enjoying the game.
PvP and PvE are used with two different meaning in this thread. They are used as both content and game types.
Content wise PvP mean player-vs-player be it duel, FFA, battlegrounds, RvR, etc. While PvE mean player vs environment like raids, quests, etc.
Game wise, PvP game type is where the player has limited to no control on where, who and when the PvP activities happens. While PvE game type has no or really few PvP activities and when they exist the player control where, who and when they happen.
A PvP game can have PvE content, but the players are still PvP players because that activity cannot be avoided.
A PvE game can have PvP content, the majority of players are PvE-only, some will be PvP-only (and on the wrong server/game) and some will do both content.
A FFA PvP game will never have PvE player (as in game type), but they can have people who like PvE content., but these people are still PvP players, because that content is "always on".
If that's how the person I was responding to meant it, then they're just wrong. Pvp players don't necessarily want pve players to play their games.
FFA PVP failed sadly in DAoC. It became obvious that people couldn't handle PVE and PVP at the same time. While the end game was RvR/PVP, getting there was a different story. Very similar to WoW or any other game, just instead of 2v2, 40vs40 battlegrounds, we had a huge map to fight over when we made it there.
EVE works due to the game/world design. Norrath isn't exactly the same thing and would be harder to mirror, but would be interesting.
There is a huge market for PVP (I know I love it), but when given the chance/choice, most people don't want FFA PVP or PVP not on their terms.
I agree making an MMO with a good balance of PVE and PVP is one of the hardest things a dev can do and is why so many have failed or went with the PVE/PVP server route. A real open world, sandbox type game that is also successful has to have a lot of great foundation and systems in place to keep the world moving. Much like real life. Laws can suck, but without them, life would suck even more. Laws are also a slippery slope when it comes to this whole "sandbox" ideal as well.
Aug 2nd....come quicker!