Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The one thing that could 'kill' this game's mass appeal in the West...

VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,908

....is the open world PvP, IMO.

I say this loving what it offers and being personally willing to stomach it in order to play- it needs to offer PvE servers as an option if it is going to be bigger then a niche title.

What I mean by 'PvE Server' is PvP only allowed on the 3rd island and in the BGs on them.

The truth is that open world PvP just dosent work for the mainstream Western player base- they obviously like their MMORPGs to be PvE with OPTIONAL PvP... even Aion had to nerf their open world PvP here in the West to stop the flood of sub cancellations. It's just a fact that open world PvP games have limited appeal here.

While I personally don't care about a bit of grind and can handle PKs, but this game is obviously already struggling against the grindfest/ gankfest stereotype, so not making it clear that it will cater for fully for the optional PvP crowd is going to limit it's market hugely I think.

 

And for those of you that say it isnt going to be an issue on the 2 controlled islands, well as things stand now remember other factions (inc the outlaws) are not punished for killing you on them, and it isnt sensible to think that all the PKs will flock to the 3rd land to look for challenging fair fights... we all know from experience they don'tplay like this in the main. Most will form gank squads and roll over enemy factions farms etc constantly- It's just what a lot of people do in these games.

The modern PvPer always looks for the easiest fight with smallest risk of loss (no matter how much of a bad ass PK they sound like in a forum), and if that means repeatedly raping you while you are tending your crops, thats what they will do, especially when you can probably be looted for spoils (though many will do it just to grief you). We have all seen this again and again.

 

They have plenty of time, there is no panic right now, nothing is set in stone, but imo they would be stupid not to offer alternative rulesets when it comes here. Other games do and it works in spreading the games appeal to a whole new crowd that won't play it otherwise.

It dosent take away the open world PvP crowd's game after all, dosent impact them at all in fact, and it will broaden AA's appeal into the mainstream of gamers (which has to be a great thing for its continuing development and longevity) that won't play otherwise. It will make the difference I think of it being played in the long term by something like 100,000 subs or maybe as high a couple of million.

 

This is NOT a carebear vs PK  debate btw, both camps can be served happily I think for tiny additional investment.

 

(Also, I post this here after reading Ballista's post elsewhere on this siteand having a think on it all, and coming to the conclusion she is right. So apologies to her for not seeing it before)

«13456716

Comments

  • CoolWatersCoolWaters Member UncommonPosts: 104

    I couldn't disagree more.

     

    But then, I like open world PvP.  It's a virtual world ... you won'r really die.  I promise.

     

    Christ, make it a little exciting and suspenseful anyway.  If I'm not looking over my shoulder for a PK I'll be bored and quit in a month.

  • wazzap2121wazzap2121 Member Posts: 154

    I agree to some extent.  Some restrictions should be made to keep those safe who don't wish to partake.  Even though some might call this "carebear" play, the majority of mmo players are in nature, carebears.  Those so called "bad asses" who post on the forums every 5 minutes about their pvp escapades ganking helpless players who are minding their own businesses need to understand that by nature, you're destroying the game you love.  

  • mrcalhoumrcalhou Member UncommonPosts: 1,444

    I think the best way to do PvP rules is the way Eve did PvP rules. And that involves item destruction and all that. It's great for the in-game economy and it makes players think twice before trying to attack someone in high-sec.

    --------
    "Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"

    The most awesomest after school special T-shirt:
    Front: UNO Chemistry Club
    Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions

  • CelciusCelcius Member RarePosts: 1,865

    Open world PvP by itself does not scare us away. It is the idea of losing hours of playtime from getting killed by another player. Concepts like any kind of item loss when dying, or even rank loss, can scare anyone away pretty easily. The broad appeal goes out the window with painful death penalties in PvP. There has not really been a largely successful game that has this sort of concept in the West. There have been some mildly successful titles, but nothing that would be worth a developer's time to shoot for. The "suspense" that people look for in MMORPGs now a days is more just a way to look back at the more gritty death penalties in a nostalgic way.  Chances are that half the people who cry for more severe penalties for dying in PvP and more hardcore elements in MMORPGs would not even play a game that had those elements.

  • osc8rosc8r Member UncommonPosts: 688

    Disagree. The market is already saturated with PVE and PVP-lite MMO's... the dev's shouldn't be waisting their time and resources trying to cater to a crowd which is already well catered for, and which the game was never designed for.

    And for a thread that's supposedly a 'NON carebear vs PK debate', you sure spent a lot of time debating it.

    <3 UO, AC1, EVE.

  • BallistaBallista Member UncommonPosts: 120

    It's as simple as:

    Ultima Online more than doubled its population after introducing Trammel and it's popularity pinnacle would have never gotten anywhere near where it did without it.

    That's all I need to say really (for those that don't know - Trammel turned UO from a FFA game to a pvp optional game).

     

    In the end, I don't care what the developers do it's their game to design. But I don't think it'll be anywhere near as great as it could be if they made more space catering to pve'ers than "safe" areas that end around level 20. Look how that did for the pve crowd in Aion - it didn't help at all.

  • osc8rosc8r Member UncommonPosts: 688

    Originally posted by Ballista

    It's as simple as:

    Ultima Online more than doubled its population after introducing Trammel and it's popularity pinnacle would have never gotten anywhere near where it did without it.

    That's all I need to say really (for those that don't know - Trammel turned UO from a FFA game to a pvp optional game).

    No it didn't.

    Ultima Online had 150k player pre-trammel and was continually growing. It kept growing post trammel too, which proves nothing.

    At no stage did UO get over 300k players.

    So no.

    I'd also like to point out Eve online has more than 300,000 subs now (a niche flight sim). When I played WOW half the population were on world PVP servers, and was the case with Rift (a PVE marketted game). Darktide is also AC1's most popular server today. Hell, even AOC PVP servers were also more popular than it's PVE servers. -> There is a huge untapped market there: for a good, AAA PVP (sandbox) MMO.

  • ichimarunicoichimarunico Member Posts: 210

    Western market for FFA PVP games is a tiny fraction of what this game could do with some PvP optional servers, with the 3rd continent being FFA PvP and having the OPTION to set yourself as permanently PvP-enabled to all players.

    This won't be a popular idea on this particular forum, but this forum is mostly jaded UO/SWG/EVE players that want nothing other than a FFA full loot PvP sandbox... which is totally fine, and that's why I think there should be that option on the servers. But if ArcheAge wants to make money in North America, they need to make PvP optional for at least part of the playerbase, myself excluded.

  • DoomsDay01DoomsDay01 Member UncommonPosts: 783

    I really dont see what the big fuss is about. Why would the pvp folks mind if they made a pve server. They dont have to play on it, afterall. And please, dont even try to give the arguement that it would take away people from the pvp side. PVP here in the states has never been huge, Especially full loot pvp. There is no real consequences for people that want to do nothing but gank folks. Even EvE's penalties for ganking in high sec space is virtually nothing when they will allow the game to pay the player their insurance for the ship even though they were breaking high sec space rules. You want a true pvp game, then make the rules for player ganking harsh enough that there are very real consequences for murdering another player in a game.

    Chances are, if there was not a pve server option, those players would probably not even play the game in the first place. The OP is right on this one. The PVP games that are out there already, show that pvp is not a big market. If the developers want to make only a pvp game and not want to make a pve server, then it is their right and I would respect that, But I personally feel that they are going to limit themselves in their playerbase. Again, thats cool if that is what they want to do. I just dont see why all the hatred for people wanting a pve server. Surely you realize that if people dont like pvp, they simply wont buy the game anyways or if they do, will quit vey shortly after they spend a few hours being repeatedly ganked. So again, why are you so opposed to it?

  • CheriseCherise Member Posts: 232

    I have to agree with the OP.  Not having PvE servers will most definitely affect subscription numbers in the West.  But as the previous poster said, it's their game and maybe they're fine with a smaller market.  If when the time comes they do offer PvE servers, I'd definitely give it a try based on what I've read and seen so far.  But  considering the developer, don't think that will happen.

  • KenFisherKenFisher Member UncommonPosts: 5,035

    From what I've read, it doesn't sound like the intent is mass appeal.  It's a niche game and from the looks of the videos I've seen so far, it's easily the best built PVP Sandbox so far.

     

    Maybe with any luck it won't be WoW-ized prior to release.


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  When I don't understand, I ask.  Such is not intended as criticism.
  • BallistaBallista Member UncommonPosts: 120

    Originally posted by osc8r

    Originally posted by Ballista

    It's as simple as:

    Ultima Online more than doubled its population after introducing Trammel and it's popularity pinnacle would have never gotten anywhere near where it did without it.

    That's all I need to say really (for those that don't know - Trammel turned UO from a FFA game to a pvp optional game).

    No it didn't.

    Ultima Online had 150k player pre-trammel and was continually growing. It kept growing post trammel too, which proves nothing.

    At no stage did UO get over 300k players.

    So no.

    Actually it did. So yes. There is actually a great analysis on the subject already available on the internet that actually uses *gasp* data!

    And by the way, your argument just says, population was X pre trammel and never reached 2X, therefore the game did not reach it's population pinnacle after introduction of trammel. Do you see the problem there? You're not actually arguing against the population reaching a pinnacle post trammel. Just wanted to point that out... Instead, your whole argument hinges on that the population size wasn't doubled (which it actually was).

    If you need to me to find the analysis blog for you I can in about 1 hour when I come back to my apartment. : )

    In summary: providing more space and content for players who wanted to avoid pvp at their own freedom did actually contribute greatly to UO's success (success in terms of players paying for subscriptions).

  • David99David99 Member Posts: 224

    Plenty of MMO's have tried to do that whole copy wow / mass appeal crap and look how they turned out.

    Hopefully they stick with their guns & do something different.

  • osc8rosc8r Member UncommonPosts: 688

    Originally posted by Ballista

    Originally posted by osc8r


    Originally posted by Ballista

    It's as simple as:

    Ultima Online more than doubled its population after introducing Trammel and it's popularity pinnacle would have never gotten anywhere near where it did without it.

    That's all I need to say really (for those that don't know - Trammel turned UO from a FFA game to a pvp optional game).

    No it didn't.

    Ultima Online had 150k player pre-trammel and was continually growing. It kept growing post trammel too, which proves nothing.

    At no stage did UO get over 300k players.

    So no.

    Actually it did. So yes. There is actually a great analysis on the subject already available on the internet that actually uses *gasp* data!

    And by the way, your argument just says, population was X pre trammel and never reached 2X, therefore the game did not reach it's population pinnacle after introduction of trammel. Do you see the problem there? You're not actually arguing against the population reaching a pinnacle post trammel. Just wanted to point that out... Instead, your whole argument hinges on that the population size wasn't doubled (which it actually was).

    If you need to me to find the analysis blog for you I can in about 1 hour when I come back to my apartment. : )

    In summary: providing more space and content for players who wanted to avoid pvp at their own freedom did actually contribute greatly to UO's success (success in terms of players paying for subscriptions).

    1. Actually, no. You claimed that UO more than doubled it's population post trammel. Now, considering UO had 150k subs pre trammel and never ever went over 300k (i believe it peaked at 250k subs after AOS expansion in 03), please explain how that's possible.

    2. UO was consistently growing pre-trammel. It continued growing post trammel. Now feel free to prove your second claim of ''it's popularity pinnacle would have never gotten anywhere near where it did without trammel'. Yes, evidence would be great (one with factual data, and not just some guys personal blog).

    Don't get me wrong, I think trammel helped increase subs, but no where close to the scale which you're insinuating.

  • SabbathSMCSabbathSMC Member Posts: 226

    I have to agree with the OP,while i do enjoy pvp most of my friends prefer it be optional. The proof is already out there in sub numbers for games that have pve with optional pvp vs the full pvp games.

    While it is up to the makers the bottom line on all these games is to make money and they definately will make more money with a optional pvp. I hope they make both full pvp and pve optional pvp servers.

    I guess we will know by the time it releases here.

    I was there when uo brought in trammel,while i hated it,there was no doubt the sub numbers went back up. And even once trammel was there they still had optional pvp which helped.

    played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek
    and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.

  • LydarSynnLydarSynn Member UncommonPosts: 181

    The problem with FFA PVP is a symptom of several issues that all MMOs have that stem from attempting to remove all realism from the world:

    1) No consequences- no death penalties so griefers don't care if they die. I would happily have a character die permanently if the griefer found his character hanging from a gallows.

    2) No attempt to include other 'senses'- there is little peripheral vision and hearing clues don't exist. It's way too easy in most games to sneak up on people.

    3) Instant travel- goes along with the rest- griefer kills, ports or dies, respawns, kills again

     

    There is no strategy, RP or any reason involved in most MMO PVP- it is a simple gankfest in most games and thats why most people hate it. If Archeage allows this kind of gameplay then it probably will not do well in the Western markets.

  • 69Cuda69Cuda Member Posts: 251

    Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

    From what I've read, it doesn't sound like the intent is mass appeal.  It's a niche game and from the looks of the videos I've seen so far, it's easily the best built PVP Sandbox so far.

     

    Maybe with any luck it won't be WoW-ized prior to release.

     Amen.

  • zephermarkuszephermarkus Member Posts: 201

    I think if it has that asian grinder feelin it will kill it fast like aion westerners do not like to grind mobs it is boring i rather quest grind even if it's a grind with quest it feels like it has a purpose without quest it feels pointless.

  • BallistaBallista Member UncommonPosts: 120

    Originally posted by osc8r

    Originally posted by Ballista


    Originally posted by osc8r


    Originally posted by Ballista

    It's as simple as:

    Ultima Online more than doubled its population after introducing Trammel and it's popularity pinnacle would have never gotten anywhere near where it did without it.

    That's all I need to say really (for those that don't know - Trammel turned UO from a FFA game to a pvp optional game).

    No it didn't.

    Ultima Online had 150k player pre-trammel and was continually growing. It kept growing post trammel too, which proves nothing.

    At no stage did UO get over 300k players.

    So no.

    Actually it did. So yes. There is actually a great analysis on the subject already available on the internet that actually uses *gasp* data!

    And by the way, your argument just says, population was X pre trammel and never reached 2X, therefore the game did not reach it's population pinnacle after introduction of trammel. Do you see the problem there? You're not actually arguing against the population reaching a pinnacle post trammel. Just wanted to point that out... Instead, your whole argument hinges on that the population size wasn't doubled (which it actually was).

    If you need to me to find the analysis blog for you I can in about 1 hour when I come back to my apartment. : )

    In summary: providing more space and content for players who wanted to avoid pvp at their own freedom did actually contribute greatly to UO's success (success in terms of players paying for subscriptions).

    1. Actually, no. You claimed that UO more than doubled it's population post trammel. Now, considering UO had 150k subs pre trammel and never ever went over 300k (i believe it peaked at 250k subs after AOS expansion in 03), please explain how that's possible.

    2. UO was consistently growing pre-trammel. It continued growing post trammel. Now feel free to prove your second claim of ''it's popularity pinnacle would have never gotten anywhere near where it did without trammel'. Yes, evidence would be great (one with factual data, and not just some guys personal blog).

    Don't get me wrong, I think trammel helped increase subs, but no where close to the scale which you're insinuating.

    UO launched in 1997. Trammel came out in spring 2000 (3 years later). The population cap happened in 2003 (3 years post trammel, 6 years post launch). You want to continue arguing that the the highest population the game had ever seen occuring 3 years following the release of trammel wasn't monumentally derived from trammel, fine. The game launched in 1997 and had a very small population 3 years later right before trammel was released. The fact that in the same time span (3 years) UO became a big hit only after trammel was released speaks volumes.

    Also it wasn't consistently climbing as you suggest when Trammel was released, that big climb in subscription numbers happened in the 3 years after the trammel patch.

    It was a huge factor regardless of whether or not you wish acknowledge it. If you look at the first 3 years, then the next 3, there is a huge difference and the one thing dividing those brackets of time was trammel patch.

    Anyways this is getting offtopic and specific and we can continue this is private msg - I will track down that post for you I said I would.

  • ichimarunicoichimarunico Member Posts: 210

    The fact of the matter is that a PvP Optional server, with only the 3rd continent being FFA, will create more revenue for them to design/implement new things with absolutely zero negative impact on the game. If you want FFA PvP, play on a FFA PvP server. IF you don't, don't.

    It's a much more intelligent stance for a game company than "If you want a FFA PvP game, buy ours. If you don't, don't pay us $50 +$15/month."

    Your personal feelings are irrelevant to the fact that PvP Optional servers will be better for the game overall, 100% of the way.

  • LordRelicLordRelic Member Posts: 281

    My thought is look at the past few years at the "hardcore" (games with full loot and the like) games that have been released and witch of those games would you call sucessful?  Mortal online?... Nope  Darkfall?.. No   They have all attracted that tiny niche grop of gakers and the like   and if the past is any sort of example this game would grow no larger then the rest of its genre.

  • David99David99 Member Posts: 224

    Originally posted by Ballista

    The game launched in 1997 and had a very small population 3 years later right before trammel was released.

    It had more than 150,000 subs & this first MMO ever to hit 100k. Hardly what i'd call small considering how niche the MMO genre was back then. Its subs even dwarf a lot of generic WOW clones today. Not bad for a fail niche market as you guys claim.

    The fact that in the same time span (3 years) UO became a big hit only after trammel was released speaks volumes.

    No it doesnt. Its already been pointed out that the game was already growing at a steady rate pre trammel. Do you have evidence to show how much of this continued growth was solely due to trammel? If not, then your entire argument is moot. And even if ALL growth (lol) post tram was due solely 4 tram, that's still only 60k subs out of a total of 250k.

    Also it wasn't consistently climbing as you suggest when Trammel was released, that big climb in subscription numbers happened in the 3 years after the trammel patch.

    http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html

    Fail. 190k+ growth in 3 years pre tram vs 60k growth in 3 years post tram (remembering tram came out in may 2000, not jan). Therefore, the biggest growth in numbers was prior to trammel and by a WHOPPING 130k subs!!!

    In addition to this you also need to keep in mind that in 2000 UO also expanded to other regions which would also have quite a positive impact on subs. Also of note is that the peak subs were hit when Age of Shadows expansion was released, not tram.

    It was a huge factor regardless of whether or not you wish acknowledge it. If you look at the first 3 years, then the next 3, there is a huge difference and the one thing dividing those brackets of time was trammel patch.

    Actually, you are right, but not in the way you think you are:

    Pre tram: average growth over 3 years of 63,000 subs per year.

    Post tram: average growth over 3 years of only 20,000 subs per year.

    So, going off actual evidence, it would seem that tram greatly hindered UO's growth.

    In conclusion: UO is just one example of how succesful FFA PVP sandbox games can be. Eve is yet another.

  • David99David99 Member Posts: 224

    Originally posted by LordRelic

    My thought is look at the past few years at the "hardcore" (games with full loot and the like) games that have been released and witch of those games would you call sucessful?  Mortal online?... Nope  Darkfall?.. No   They have all attracted that tiny niche grop of gakers and the like   and if the past is any sort of example this game would grow no larger then the rest of its genre.

    Darkfall was/is succesful - remembering it didn't have a 100 million budget & thus doesn't require 1million subs to brake even.

    What past are you referring to exactly? There's many more examples of  failed PVE/PVP lite MMO's & with much bigger budgets to boot.

    Show me a AAA sandbox MMO with item loot that's failed. Eve? Nope. UO? Nope.

  • ichimarunicoichimarunico Member Posts: 210

    Originally posted by David99

    Originally posted by LordRelic

    My thought is look at the past few years at the "hardcore" (games with full loot and the like) games that have been released and witch of those games would you call sucessful?  Mortal online?... Nope  Darkfall?.. No   They have all attracted that tiny niche grop of gakers and the like   and if the past is any sort of example this game would grow no larger then the rest of its genre.

    Darkfall was/is succesful - remembering it didn't have a 100 million budget & thus doesn't require 1million subs to brake even.

    What past are you referring to exactly? There's many more examples of  failed PVE/PVP lite MMO's & with much bigger budgets to boot.

    Show me a AAA sandbox MMO with item loot that's failed. Eve? Nope. UO? Nope.

    "Success" and "Failure" is subjective. In my eyes, Darkfall had potential but majorly flopped. Mortal was bad in general. Eve is really the only current success story on the FFA PVP page and is one of only a few that lasts any amount of time.

  • CoolWatersCoolWaters Member UncommonPosts: 104

    Originally posted by David99

    Originally posted by Ballista



    The game launched in 1997 and had a very small population 3 years later right before trammel was released.

    It had more than 150,000 subs & this first MMO ever to hit 100k. Hardly what i'd call small considering how niche the MMO genre was back then. Its subs even dwarf a lot of generic WOW clones today. Not bad for a fail niche market as you guys claim.

    The fact that in the same time span (3 years) UO became a big hit only after trammel was released speaks volumes.

    No it doesnt. Its already been pointed out that the game was already growing at a steady rate pre trammel. Do you have evidence to show how much of this continued growth was solely due to trammel? If not, then your entire argument is moot. And even if ALL growth (lol) post tram was due solely 4 tram, that's still only 60k subs out of a total of 250k.

    Also it wasn't consistently climbing as you suggest when Trammel was released, that big climb in subscription numbers happened in the 3 years after the trammel patch.

    http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html

    Fail. 190k+ growth in 3 years pre tram vs 60k growth in 3 years post tram (remembering tram came out in may 2000, not jan). Therefore, the biggest growth in numbers was prior to trammel and by more than 130k subs.

    Give it a rest. Your original claims have already been proven false and now you are simply clutching at straws.

    As you're the only one who has posted any actual stats and a source, after multiple posts from each of you, I declare you the winner.

     

    Grats.  

Sign In or Register to comment.