Howdy, Stranger!

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

Care Bears Can Kill (If PVP was Fair and Competitive)

1246

Comments

  • HarikenHariken Member RarePosts: 2,324

    skadad said:

    "real" open world pvp players do not want to pvp, they want to gank, gank alot. With advantages such as gear or multiple people against one. There is no wonder open world pvp games are not as popular as others.


    This 100%
    PVPer's also are always trying to sell their BS about this not being a problem. Open world PVP games will never be popular. I bet most people would be ok with pvp if they could only be attacked by someone of the same lvl But this never happens. 
  • General-ZodGeneral-Zod Member UncommonPosts: 868
    edited April 2017







    Asheram said:
















    Asheram said:











    I think the ultimate FFA PvP setting would involve permanent-death or some very, very significant penalties for dying.
    And would you still feel the same after getting mowed down by a zerg and having to start from scratch?







    I don't know as I've never played a PvP game like that.  My guess is that there would be less random killing and much more socialization. 

























    My guess is if there was perma death there would be even more zergs because less likely to die when in a group? 






    Valid guess... but mine is that people would be forced to actually engage and negotiate to avoid the penalty of dying. 

    Hope to be able to test that some day.





    Guys the game is called Salem: The Crafting MMO.

    Not only could a player kill you permanently but could also destroy all of your house/buildings thus completely wiping you from the game as if you never existed. The only safe area was the starter city which you could not build on so if you had anything to call your own it could be raided/destroyed.

    Would you attempt a game like this
    Asheram ?

    image
  • ZionBaneZionBane Member UncommonPosts: 328




    ZionBane said:


    I will have to admit that "Open PvP" unless it is the selling point of the game, can kill the attraction of a game. While most Carebear players are more then willing to kill another player, (I have seen this and even lead the charge, many times in WvW in GW2), in fact, PvP, can be a fun addition to a game, if handled right, but carebear players want PvP to be on their terms, they want to know what they are walking into. getting ganked while crafting, or selling, simply put, sucks balls.

    To those that like that game style. Rock on.. but.. rock on.. on your own.




    It's not for everyone, but if done right, I do believe that a truly fair and competitive open world PvP system would enable the creation of an mmorpg that was actually a true role-playing game.  And it would make every other mmorpg in existence seem like child's play.


    Before this can be claimed, we would first need to define what is "Truly fair and Competitive"... i am sure if we asked 100 gamers to define this, we would get all kinds of answers, and some being very much at odd with each other.

    And therein lies the problem.
  • XodicXodic Member RarePosts: 945
    edited April 2017



    Hariken said:







    skadad said:




    "real" open world pvp players do not want to pvp, they want to gank, gank alot. With advantages such as gear or multiple people against one. There is no wonder open world pvp games are not as popular as others.








    This 100%
    PVPer's also are always trying to sell their BS about this not being a problem. Open world PVP games will never be popular. I bet most people would be ok with pvp if they could only be attacked by someone of the same lvl But this never happens. 






    If you don't apply any and all advantages within a game, then it's safe to say that you suck at playing that game.

    People who suck at a game usually don't like playing it.

    That's fine, some people prefer a game that allows them to wander out clueless, in search of opportunities to smash keys and be mesmerized by pixels.

    I'm sure that you look up the best rotation for your WoW character, or how to beat that raid boss, or what gear you should use, or the fastest way to level, or where to get that quest - but when the strategy and tactics of an open world PvP game most always involve playing with a good guild or a good group of friends, it's reduced to a bunch of gankers who don't even like to PvP.

    To say that someone beat you with an advantage.. wtf? Think about what you're saying.
  • ZionBaneZionBane Member UncommonPosts: 328

    Hariken said:



    skadad said:


    "real" open world pvp players do not want to pvp, they want to gank, gank alot. With advantages such as gear or multiple people against one. There is no wonder open world pvp games are not as popular as others.




    This 100%
    PVPer's also are always trying to sell their BS about this not being a problem. Open world PVP games will never be popular. I bet most people would be ok with pvp if they could only be attacked by someone of the same lvl But this never happens. 


    Open PvP games will never be as popular as games that build co-op play, simply because Co-Op play (Often PvE, or some kind of Structured PvP) draws people into the game, to work together and share in the rewards, were Open-PvP, is simply is an environment where the stronger players prey upon the weaker til they are driven out.
  • NycteliosNyctelios Member EpicPosts: 3,395
    Someone besides me plays Salem. What a crazy and small world.

    Whats next? Sacred players showing up?
    Steam ID Discord ID: Night # 6102 - GoG ID - 

    "There is a fine line between consideration and hesitation. The former is wisdom, the latter is fear." Izaro Phrecius, Holy Emperor of the Eternal Empire, Last of Royal Phrecius Family.
  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member UncommonPosts: 1,062
    You know how unpopular games like UO, Mortal online, darkfall are?

    Developers don't make much mmorpg like that.

    Now a mmorpg where people can freely gank people but have reprocusion or penalty is even more unpopular in my opinion.  Interesting idea but I don't know if any developer will make a pvp focused game like that.
  • ZionBaneZionBane Member UncommonPosts: 328

    Xodic said:





    Hariken said:









    skadad said:





    "real" open world pvp players do not want to pvp, they want to gank, gank alot. With advantages such as gear or multiple people against one. There is no wonder open world pvp games are not as popular as others.










    This 100%
    PVPer's also are always trying to sell their BS about this not being a problem. Open world PVP games will never be popular. I bet most people would be ok with pvp if they could only be attacked by someone of the same lvl But this never happens. 








    If you don't apply any and all advantages within a game, then it's safe to say that you suck at playing that game.

    People who suck at a game usually don't like playing it.

    That's fine, some people prefer a game that allows them to wander out clueless, in search of opportunities to smash keys and be mesmerized by pixels.

    I'm sure that you look up the best rotation for your WoW character, or how to beat that raid boss, or what gear you should use, or the fastest way to level, or where to get that quest - but when the strategy and tactics of an open world PvP game most always involve playing with a good guild or a good group of friends, it's reduced to a bunch of gankers who don't even like to PvP.

    To say that someone beat you with an advantage.. wtf? Think about what you're saying.


    They are not talking about someone playing a slight edge, or simply having an optimal build of equal level, and facing off, What they are saying is that, in Open-World PvP games, players won't attack you, unless they vastly overpower you with either far superior gear, levels, and abilities, or in pure numbers, in the same context as 100th level character running a level 20 dungeon, or 3 people ganging up on one.


  • NycteliosNyctelios Member EpicPosts: 3,395

    ZionBane said:



    Xodic said:







    Hariken said:











    skadad said:






    "real" open world pvp players do not want to pvp, they want to gank, gank alot. With advantages such as gear or multiple people against one. There is no wonder open world pvp games are not as popular as others.












    This 100%
    PVPer's also are always trying to sell their BS about this not being a problem. Open world PVP games will never be popular. I bet most people would be ok with pvp if they could only be attacked by someone of the same lvl But this never happens. 










    If you don't apply any and all advantages within a game, then it's safe to say that you suck at playing that game.

    People who suck at a game usually don't like playing it.

    That's fine, some people prefer a game that allows them to wander out clueless, in search of opportunities to smash keys and be mesmerized by pixels.

    I'm sure that you look up the best rotation for your WoW character, or how to beat that raid boss, or what gear you should use, or the fastest way to level, or where to get that quest - but when the strategy and tactics of an open world PvP game most always involve playing with a good guild or a good group of friends, it's reduced to a bunch of gankers who don't even like to PvP.

    To say that someone beat you with an advantage.. wtf? Think about what you're saying.




    They are not talking about someone playing a slight edge, or simply having an optimal build of equal level, and facing off, What they are saying is that, in Open-World PvP games, players won't attack you, unless they vastly overpower you with either far superior gear, levels, and abilities, or in pure numbers, in the same context as 100th level character running a level 20 dungeon, or 3 people ganging up on one.




    You can find all solutions to that on Salem.
    Steam ID Discord ID: Night # 6102 - GoG ID - 

    "There is a fine line between consideration and hesitation. The former is wisdom, the latter is fear." Izaro Phrecius, Holy Emperor of the Eternal Empire, Last of Royal Phrecius Family.
  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017
    @General-Zod - By gankers, I mean those who aren't really looking for a challenge in PvP and just want to prey on weaklings and noobs.  Or people that will repeatedly kill the same player-character for no reason other than that they're there.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,951







    Well, that's the point of most MMORPGs as they are currently made.  But even in pencil-and-paper Dungeons & Dragons (first released in 1974), upon which most of these games are based, the whole point was actually being able to experience what it was like to live to in a fantasy world (in D&D's case, similar to that of Tolkien's novels).  The player role-played by talking and acting how his or her character would talk or act according to said character's history and personality.  Most importantly, the character could effect and even change the game world based on his or her words or deeds.  All the stats, equipment, adventures, dungeons and campaigns were just a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves. 


    Oh I dunno about that... when my Paladin got his Holy Avenger Sword it was kind of a big deal.   Even in pen and paper I loved collecting stuff.  I loved seeing my character develop...

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017


    AAAMEOW said:


    You know how unpopular games like UO, Mortal online, darkfall are?

    Developers don't make much mmorpg like that.

    Now a mmorpg where people can freely gank people but have reprocusion or penalty is even more unpopular in my opinion.  Interesting idea but I don't know if any developer will make a pvp focused game like that.




    I didn't say they could freely gank people.  I wouldn't have the ability to become a god-like character in the game.  Basically, you would have a chance of getting killed in any battle you started.  Backstabbing from the shadows or sniping with an arrow from the distance might be some of the few ways you could possibly assassinate someone without the possibility of getting killed yourself.  Even ganging up on someone doesn't make you completely safe.  Only six people can realistically attack someone at the same time.  But for that, they'd have to be very-skilled fighters who can coordinate well together.  That means basically all their skill points would have to be put into combat, so they wouldn't be good at anything else.  And they would have to have fought together for awhile.  Even then, it's possible to take one down at least before they kill you.

    I don't like stat, level, or gear progression.  Throw it away.  It's stupid.  A human can train certain skills and actions by training or repetition, but there are definite limits.  And if you train one thing, that means you usually don't have time to train another.  Why body-builders normally aren't rocket scientists.

    Also, if you kill someone that belongs to a certain kingdom, you're basically declaring war on their entire kingdom.  Might be in your interest if you wanted to start a war between your kingdom and theirs.  Maybe not always the best idea if you're just a gang of bandits.
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    edited April 2017
    I think there is an interesting paradox in the PvP community as a whole. Let's call it "The Trammel Paradox."

    The Trammel Paradox is this:

    Many PvPers: "UO was ruined when they split it into a PvP and a PvE server."

    Same PvPers: "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game! We can't let the carebears dumb this game down!"

    In simple the idea of the Trammel Paradox is the idea that you want everyone who plays the game to be subjected to whatever forms of abuse you wish to inflict on them, and that you despise carebears. But on the same hand you feel something was lost from UO when the community was separated.

    In 2017 there are many MMOs. Most of them are catered primarily to PvEers. So if you believe that Trammel was a mistake and there shouldn't be separation it is logically inconsistent to despise carebears and want them driven from your games. They will simply say "**** this ****!" and return to carebear games continuing the divide between between PvErs and PvPers personified by the Trammel split.

    So which is it:

    A. Did the Trammel split not harm the PvP community and was it in-fact a good move?

    B. Did we lose something when we lost the carebears/crafters/PvErs?

    I am a firm believer in B. If you also believe in B, then this a situation we need solutions to. We need to find ways to curb the behaviors that drive them away and allow them to comfortably exist in our community, and we need to give actual draws to our games most PvE games can't offer.

  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 6,999


    Might be wrong but I thought UO increased in population after the split.


    It did but I think the PVPers hated that they couldnt just kill noobs all day
  • XodicXodic Member RarePosts: 945
    edited April 2017


    Eldurian said:


    I think there is an interesting paradox in the PvP community as a whole. Let's call it "The Trammel Paradox."

    The Trammel Paradox is this:

    Many PvPers: "UO was ruined when they split it into a PvP and a PvE server."

    Same PvPers: "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game! We can't let the carebears dumb this game down!"

    In simple the idea of the Trammel Paradox is the idea that you want everyone who plays the game to be subjected to whatever forms of abuse you wish to inflict on them, and that you despise carebears. But on the same hand you feel something was lost from UO when the community was separated.

    In 2017 there are many MMOs. Most of them are catered primarily to PvEers. So if you believe that Trammel was a mistake and there shouldn't be separation it is logically inconsistent to despise carebears and want them driven from your games. They will simply say "**** this ****!" and return to carebear games continuing the divide between between PvErs and PvPers personified by the Trammel split.

    So which is it:

    A. Did the Trammel split not harm the PvP community and was it in-fact a good move?

    B. Did we lose something when we lost the carebears/crafters/PvErs?

    I am a firm believer in B. If you also believe in B, then this a situation we need solutions to. We need to find ways to curb the behaviors that drive them away and allow them to comfortably exist in our community, and we need to give actual draws to our games most PvE games can't offer.





    I can agree with 'B'. However, the 'Trammel Paradox" was more than what you're making it out to be. It wasn't just about PvPers / PKers, it fundamentally changed the entire game, 3 years after release. It was Star Wars NGE. Some of the key features of the game were nullified in one fell swoop. It didn't hurt PvP, at all, in fact it made Chaos and Order fights as well as guild wars a hell of a lot more fun. What it changed was how the world felt to both carebears AND avid PKers.

    It wasn't as much as "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game!" as it was "don't change the game, change games". However, I have to admit that a solution for both types of players living in one free world sounds appealing, although seemingly impossible.
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 9,731

    Xodic said:




    Eldurian said:



    I think there is an interesting paradox in the PvP community as a whole. Let's call it "The Trammel Paradox."

    The Trammel Paradox is this:

    Many PvPers: "UO was ruined when they split it into a PvP and a PvE server."

    Same PvPers: "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game! We can't let the carebears dumb this game down!"

    In simple the idea of the Trammel Paradox is the idea that you want everyone who plays the game to be subjected to whatever forms of abuse you wish to inflict on them, and that you despise carebears. But on the same hand you feel something was lost from UO when the community was separated.

    In 2017 there are many MMOs. Most of them are catered primarily to PvEers. So if you believe that Trammel was a mistake and there shouldn't be separation it is logically inconsistent to despise carebears and want them driven from your games. They will simply say "**** this ****!" and return to carebear games continuing the divide between between PvErs and PvPers personified by the Trammel split.

    So which is it:

    A. Did the Trammel split not harm the PvP community and was it in-fact a good move?

    B. Did we lose something when we lost the carebears/crafters/PvErs?

    I am a firm believer in B. If you also believe in B, then this a situation we need solutions to. We need to find ways to curb the behaviors that drive them away and allow them to comfortably exist in our community, and we need to give actual draws to our games most PvE games can't offer.







    I can agree with 'B'. However, the 'Trammel Paradox" was more than what you're making it out to be. It wasn't just about PvPers / PKers, it fundamentally changed the entire game, 3 years after release. It was Star Wars NGE. Some of the key features of the game were nullified in one fell swoop. It didn't hurt PvP, at all, in fact it made Chaos and Order fights as well as guild wars a hell of a lot more fun. What it changed was how the world felt to both carebears AND avid PKers.

    It wasn't as much as "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game!" as it was "don't change the game, change games". However, I have to admit that a solution for both types of players living in one free world sounds appealing, although seemingly impossible.


    There just games. It's ok if you dont win every time...
  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621





    Vardahoth said:



    In Lineage 2, I was called a carebear nonstop (because I wouldn't accept a challenge of 1vs100). But I was also called a raid boss, osama bin laden, best pvper, and many other hardcore crap I didn't care for.

    Carebear was a term used for people who would not be willing to defend themselves or their friends, when they actually had the power to do so. Then it became a term for people who didn't want to pvp at all. Not even sure it's a term used these days (since ever game is so god damn protective).

    Most people who used this term were trolls and griefers trying to get an emotional rise out of another player (who was always at an unfair disadvantage).






    This isn't directed toward you personally, but I added this to my original post:

    EDIT:  Unless it is in self-defense, in the line of duty for a police officer (except in cases where the perpetrator is unarmed or not fighting back), or occurs during legal warfare, killing people is generally considered a crime.  I do believe games should reflect this principle.  But, "oh, come on, it's just a game", someone may say?  That may very well be, but if that's a person's attitude, he or she (usually he) shouldn't expect me or most other reasonable people to want to participate in the psychotic, predatory fantasies of the gankers.

    I am tired of being coddled in virtual worlds, that's why I want to make pvp actually work in a way that's fun for the majority of people.



    Are you saying that women are less likly to be a ganker? I am confused as to why you would think that.
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    edited April 2017
    He is saying most gankers and griefers are male which is a pretty true statement. Just doing a quick inventory of people who I know who fit that description who's gender I can positively identify (Having heard their voice in videos or on TS) about 90% are male. In fact I can only think of two females I've known who fit the description and one of them was part of a husband/wife team.

    Most of the females I can think of that have played villainous roles in video games tend toward the use of lies, propaganda, and manipulating others to do their bidding. Griefers / gankers are generally tools for such people to use. They inhabit the same guilds but play very different roles. Infact even one of the two females I listed as a ganker was more of a manipulator than a soldier. She just did both.
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 1,960
    In a PVP game where one can kill other but other can't kill back then it failed as a PVP game .
  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017



















    Well, that's the point of most MMORPGs as they are currently made.  But even in pencil-and-paper Dungeons & Dragons (first released in 1974), upon which most of these games are based, the whole point was actually being able to experience what it was like to live to in a fantasy world (in D&D's case, similar to that of Tolkien's novels).  The player role-played by talking and acting how his or her character would talk or act according to said character's history and personality.  Most importantly, the character could effect and even change the game world based on his or her words or deeds.  All the stats, equipment, adventures, dungeons and campaigns were just a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves. 






    Oh I dunno about that... when my Paladin got his Holy Avenger Sword it was kind of a big deal.   Even in pen and paper I loved collecting stuff.  I loved seeing my character develop...





    But would is it really a big deal if all you can ever do with your paladin in a game world is follow orders (do quests), raid dungeons, or kill another player-character?  If you never need to defend your kingdom against another kingdom or monster/undead horde?  If you never have a chance of becoming a lord with his own castle or leading an army in battle?  If your chosen deity never interrupts your day and commands you to go on a specific quest to defeat evil somewhere in some far off realm or plane?
    Post edited by cantankerousmage on
  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992

    Eldurian said:

    I think there is an interesting paradox in the PvP community as a whole. Let's call it "The Trammel Paradox."

    The Trammel Paradox is this:

    Many PvPers: "UO was ruined when they split it into a PvP and a PvE server."

    Same PvPers: "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game! We can't let the carebears dumb this game down!"

    In simple the idea of the Trammel Paradox is the idea that you want everyone who plays the game to be subjected to whatever forms of abuse you wish to inflict on them, and that you despise carebears. But on the same hand you feel something was lost from UO when the community was separated.

    In 2017 there are many MMOs. Most of them are catered primarily to PvEers. So if you believe that Trammel was a mistake and there shouldn't be separation it is logically inconsistent to despise carebears and want them driven from your games. They will simply say "**** this ****!" and return to carebear games continuing the divide between between PvErs and PvPers personified by the Trammel split.

    So which is it:

    A. Did the Trammel split not harm the PvP community and was it in-fact a good move?

    B. Did we lose something when we lost the carebears/crafters/PvErs?

    I am a firm believer in B. If you also believe in B, then this a situation we need solutions to. We need to find ways to curb the behaviors that drive them away and allow them to comfortably exist in our community, and we need to give actual draws to our games most PvE games can't offer.


    Finding ways to draw people into PvP games and creating a true role-playing game without the need for incredibly advanced AI or VR is what I am after.
  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017





    iixviiiix said:





    In a PVP game where one can kill other but other can't kill back then it failed as a PVP game .





    That's a true statement in general.

    Btw, I edited my original post again.  This is what I added:

    EDIT #2:  My definition of Ganker - Those who aren't really looking for a challenge in PvP and just want to prey on weaklings and noobs (or someone who has zero chance of defeating them in any case - and usually the person won't have much opportunity for revenge in the near future).  Or people that will repeatedly kill the same player-character for no reason other than that they're there.  I think killing should have a purpose beyond the pure enjoyment of killing.  But maybe that's just me.

    My definition of Unfair in MMORPG PvP: 
    Losing to someone just because they've played longer, played more hours, or paid more money and have thus become far more powerful than I can hope to be without playing for months or years or paying an equal amount of money.  I can compete with people's wallets all day long in the real world if I like.  If I haven't played a sport as long as someone else, I probably won't be placed in the same league as them.  Unless I am sort of genius or prodigy.

    Now if someone outsmarts me or outnumbers me*, fine, that can happen.  Wandering out in the wilderness alone is not the greatest idea most of the time.

    *Or maneuvers better or plans better, whatever.  Basically I want things like wits and skill, tactics and teamwork to play a larger part in PvP than anything else.

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    Putting in more work deserves payoffs but I think what payoffs is something that needs to be more carefully considered.

    Things I am ok with:

    1. Economically stronger players and nations being able to produce better gear more easily.
    2. Diplomatically savvy nations having more allies / less enemies.
    3. Groups that entrench themselves in an area and put resources and time into fortifications being exceptionally hard to push out.
    4. Ending up in an unwinnable fight because you made bad tactical decisions.

    Things I am not ok with:

    1. Things that give you massive stat advantages you don't lose when you die.
    2. Cities/territory that give your group a huge advantage that you can't lose because the game mechanics won't allow it to be sieged or taken by any means.
    3. Ending up in unwinnable fights because the other player simply can't be beaten by someone your level. 
  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017




    Eldurian said:




    Putting in more work deserves payoffs but I think what payoffs is something that needs to be more carefully considered.

    Things I am ok with:

    1. Economically stronger players and nations being able to produce better gear more easily.
    2. Diplomatically savvy nations having more allies / less enemies.
    3. Groups that entrench themselves in an area and put resources and time into fortifications being exceptionally hard to push out.
    4. Ending up in an unwinnable fight because you made bad tactical decisions.

    Things I am not ok with:

    1. Things that give you massive stat advantages you don't lose when you die.
    2. Cities/territory that give your group a huge advantage that you can't lose because the game mechanics won't allow it to be sieged or taken by any means.
    3. Ending up in unwinnable fights because the other player simply can't be beaten by someone your level. 








    Absolutely.

    I added this to my Edit #2: 
    There are advantages one might gain by spending more time with any particular activity, just like in the real world, but they shouldn't make a person unbeatable.  I should have a chance of moving up from the Minor Leagues to the Major Leagues rapidly if I have the talent and the skill.  Baseball players aren't allowed to use corked bats in games, and they certainly wouldn't be able to use a magical bat that always hit a home run every time they swung at a pitch. 

    And this: 
    EDIT #3:  My goal with this thread is exploring the possibilities of how an mmorpg could be made into a true role-playing game similar to pencil-and-paper rpgs, without the need for incredibly advanced artificial intelligence or virtual reality.  I believe open world PvP is an essential element in doing so.  Realm vs Realm as opposed to a free-for-all (though the community a player belongs to doesn't necessarily need to be a kingdom, there can be smaller and larger units), but people could choose to leave their community as well.  There are more details and ideas in my other posts. And in the posts of others.
  • anemoanemo Member RarePosts: 1,721
    If you're trying to add open PvPer to a "World of Everclone" game you might as well toss money somewhere else.

    ___________

    Safezone mechanics, banking, auction houses, flagging, and all those other mechanics.   Do more to help PvPers than they do to help PvEers.

    open world PvPer MMOs that I've enjoyed (Haven and Hearth, WurmOnline PvPer/beta servers, and screeps).  Are all set up to be very 'hardcore' complete with severe skill loss, map removals, no safe banking and similar.   The thing is that you don't find random PvPers since the risks are just too high for them (they don't don't have safe zones, they don't have banks, and best of all you can't really log off to protect yourself/stuff).  

    When a world is properly set up a being a random PvPer just doesn't work.   You'll need some combination of a social network to keep yourself supplied, to safely store items, to even find targets, and protect you from bigger fish.

    Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.

    "At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."

Sign In or Register to comment.