Knowing how to listen to players is not easy. Separating the wheat from the chaff is not easy. My first mmo was UO and I still have flashbacks of being looted. Frankly I think full loot games serve a purpose. It gets investors to piss away their money on developers who don't know how to make a product that makes money, and sustains a substantial amount of players .
Mark Jacobs is one of the few who understand how to have great pvp without upsetting players with a full loot game .
I also think the small fraction of players who want full loot pvp tend to give the impression that their numbers are greater than they really are. They fool investors and developers into chasing an illusion.
Yes the players who want full loot PVP really do think their numbers are greater than they are. If their numbers were so great why dont private UO servers ever have more than 1K players on them, or games like MO ever work well. PVP full loot games just plain suck and these players dont realize they are not a large enough audience to make money on.
Name one high budget or high quality PVP game. Sometimes games just suck. I hate that PVP players are supposed to play shit shows just because they are PVP.
I'm actually pretty satisfied with the PvP-intensive MMORPG I'm playing. Yes, it's rough around the edges (*cough*UI*cough*) but it really, really nails the PvP in all the ways that matter to me. You don't end up with these huge, level-based power gaps (although taking on a cap ship in a fighter may be a dubious proposition), there are very few "magic barriers", and it is highly sensitive to player skill.
There are thirteen factions, each of which can range in attitude towards you from wanting to kill you on sight to protecting you with their very finest and everything in between. Pretty close to what @Amaranthar is describing, really.
It's great that you enjoy it. Just people who tell us to PVP games that wouldn't play those same games if they were PVE are annoying.
Camelot Unchained on the other hand has its own hook, giant battles. That hasn't been done well yet either. I'm not as up to date on this game, but I am keeping an eye on it. If they manage to provide a stable mass battle game, that is fun to play, players will show up. Even if it is niche.
Yes, I agree that CU isn't part of the trend toward full loot pvp games.
CU exists because of Mark Jacobs and his history and love for RvR. From Daoc through Warhammer, the RvR concept was attempted but never perfected. CU would likely exist regardless of these specific industry trends, because it's the much larger trends within the greater industry that directed Mark back to the concept.
I want full loot for the sake of realism vs. artificial barriers. But I also want a Justice System that punishes repeated "crime" and a wide scope of Factions.
I think there's a huge market-in-waiting for a game that doesn't have rampant PKing, but does have freedom and the ability to play it out without artificial barriers.
People'll just whine if they are punished for pking and looting people.
Some would. Tough shjt. If you're going to lose players, lose the ones that will keep that downward spiral going. And all games lose players. The question is how many.
It's just my experience playing this type of game. Anytime the developer put punishment for gankers, the forum is full of whining on the forum.
That being said, I heard numerous times GW2 is too easy on this forum. But all I hear is QQing on GW2 forum that the expansion is too hard.
But what kind of punishment you have in mind for gankers in FFA full loot game?
I want full loot for the sake of realism vs. artificial barriers. But I also want a Justice System that punishes repeated "crime" and a wide scope of Factions.
I think there's a huge market-in-waiting for a game that doesn't have rampant PKing, but does have freedom and the ability to play it out without artificial barriers.
People'll just whine if they are punished for pking and looting people.
Some would. Tough shjt. If you're going to lose players, lose the ones that will keep that downward spiral going. And all games lose players. The question is how many.
It's just my experience playing this type of game. Anytime the developer put punishment for gankers, the forum is full of whining on the forum.
That being said, I heard numerous times GW2 is too easy on this forum. But all I hear is QQing on GW2 forum that the expansion is too hard.
But what kind of punishment you have in mind for gankers in FFA full loot game?
A Justice System that starts out with very small penalties that wear off, and very quickly expands with continued PKing to larger and heavier penalties that can become permanent. The penalties only are applied by being "caught" and killed. The worst would be heavy loss of skills and stats, which if goes into negative then it means Perma-Death. This would be for the worst kind of offenders, the gankers who spend their time destroying the game on a constant basis.
Now understand that there should also be a very robust social interactions through player built cities that make use of guild alliances, independent citizen voting, land and resource control, world trade, etc. A deep social system that gives said cities an incentive to protect their citizens (who don't have to be in a guild) for retention of members and economic reasons.
There would be sanctioned warfare, freely declared but at a cost and risk. Only military enlisted players are in the PvP of warfare. Same for Factions outside of the natural enmity listed below. All other members of cities and guilds (non-military and non-enmity) are protected by this Justice System.
Factions would be those cities, plus guilds, plus a set of factions based on deity worship, cults, nature worship, races, undeath, and historical societies and the like. And some of these would have a natural enmity towards others.
Factions would be free roving and part of the politics of cities and the game world. Cities would have the power to banish. Secrets would abound. Disguise would be in play. The world would turn and the unpredictable story deep. And often obscure.
Well for one thing a when someone acting in the name of the military dies (read doing a quest), there should be pretty heavy penalties. You literally just killed an agent of the kingdom, interfered with politics, and further supported whatever disruption that player was investigating.
That should have very long term consequences for the character that killed them. Assuming that the person who was killed is willing to investigate the murder of that agent before taking on their old duties.
__________________________
You're not assuming a role, if it's just a 20 minute red skull flag that you wait out.
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."
PK and justice, this is RP, it is not actual gaming. Literally you assume that you will feel happier if the players who are better/stronger than you are punished. You will not, as you also aim to be better and stronger.
Also you assume that punishment will give you safer environment. It will not as we are talking about RP. The PKer accepts the punishment.
The only way to avoid the PK is instanced map or instanced rule - so you change the rules for the PKer and he always lose much more. But that simply makes the game instanced. So you can forget for any OW competition.
The result is in general pointless game. You will have solo character progression for the progression, no win, no loss. You probably will have some cooperative instance - the fun thing, that actually has some point and consequences as it affects the solo progression, and at the same time gives interaction with other people - so drama, compassion, shared feelings - endorphins in general.
And completely pointless competition that affects nothing. You could delusional experience it like fun - by thinking the other players try hard, but in fact they do not. Without the danger of loss, there is not real win and real competition. So the most important source of endorphins, the feeling of win - will not exist in the game.
I'm replying to the bolded part. That's not true at all. I witnessed it first hand in UO. Every time the Devs came out with a "harsher" flag/Justice system, the PKers would literally disappear for 2 days to a week, until they found the work-arounds that were constantly crippling the systems.
Also, the typical OW PvP game used to start with a bunch of PvP happy gamers, all talking trash, until the game started and the most organized PvPers took control. Most of the others quit when they realized they were losing more than they won. These days, everyone knows that already except for newer gamers, so those games don't get that beginning boost of excited, soon to be losers. That happened in Shadowbane, AC's Dark Tide server, and every other MMO that had actual characters to play. EVE was a different story, but I don't know why (I didn't play it). I do think that a game where your avatar is a ship is different than one with character avatars in the personal feeling of "losing" a battle. But there had to be more involved about EVE and gear/banked loot, I think, for the scenario above to have not happened to the same extreme as other PvP games.
PK and justice, this is RP, it is not actual gaming. Literally you assume that you will feel happier if the players who are better/stronger than you are punished. You will not, as you also aim to be better and stronger.
Also you assume that punishment will give you safer environment. It will not as we are talking about RP. The PKer accepts the punishment.
The only way to avoid the PK is instanced map or instanced rule - so you change the rules for the PKer and he always lose much more. But that simply makes the game instanced. So you can forget for any OW competition.
The result is in general pointless game. You will have solo character progression for the progression, no win, no loss. You probably will have some cooperative instance - the fun thing, that actually has some point and consequences as it affects the solo progression, and at the same time gives interaction with other people - so drama, compassion, shared feelings - endorphins in general.
And completely pointless competition that affects nothing. You could delusional experience it like fun - by thinking the other players try hard, but in fact they do not. Without the danger of loss, there is not real win and real competition. So the most important source of endorphins, the feeling of win - will not exist in the game.
I'm replying to the bolded part. That's not true at all. I witnessed it first hand in UO. Every time the Devs came out with a "harsher" flag/Justice system, the PKers would literally disappear for 2 days to a week, until they found the work-arounds that were constantly crippling the systems.
Also, the typical OW PvP game used to start with a bunch of PvP happy gamers, all talking trash, until the game started and the most organized PvPers took control. Most of the others quit when they realized they were losing more than they won. These days, everyone knows that already except for newer gamers, so those games don't get that beginning boost of excited, soon to be losers. That happened in Shadowbane, AC's Dark Tide server, and every other MMO that had actual characters to play. EVE was a different story, but I don't know why (I didn't play it). I do think that a game where your avatar is a ship is different than one with character avatars in the personal feeling of "losing" a battle. But there had to be more involved about EVE and gear/banked loot, I think, for the scenario above to have not happened to the same extreme as other PvP games.
I say - they accept the consequences. Your example is irrelevant to what you claim. As when you change the rules, the consequences, they cannot accept them before they learn about. So in fact you prove my point. It is completely consequent. They do not find a way to "work-around", they just learn the new rules.
Talking trash is RP outside of the game. I do not know why you even point it.
EVE is OW PvP, L2 was OW PvP too, well with instanced towns, but in general that did not matter, as you could not progress in a town. Both did not fail. In fact L2 failed when NCSoft implemented real instances - where you can progress.
Your opinion is simply wrong. There are many examples for battles in EVE where players lose ships equal to months or even years of gameplay. And this is a rational choice. They attack a base or a fleet realizing they will lose their ships. Imagine if you lose all of your gear in WoW or GW2. It is much worse in EVE. It seems to me you simply cannot accept the idea of game with consequences. As you automatically put yourself into the role of the loser, of the victim. But it is a game - there are not victims, there are losers and winners. That is how the competitive games work. And when you choose the role of the loser, that has nothing with the games, but this is your personal problem.
The boosts in the games you are talking about are result from the power gaps caused by the vertical progression, they have nothing with player's opinions. In general OW PvP is impossible in a game with vertical progression. L2 made an exclusion, that proves the point. As OW PvP worked in L2 for the groups - party vs party, clan vs clan, and did not work in 1vs1 fights, when there were huge power gaps.
You are getting harder and harder to understand. I am not talking about games with huge vertical progression. I've said that the last time you brought that up. Why are you insisting that we're only talking about vertical progression of the like in Themepark games? I'm even talking about UO, the complete reverse of a Themepark game.
And why are you bringing up instances when we're talking about Open World PvP?
The Strawmen are getting tired. Give them a rest.
The fact is that in a Sandbox game, or anything that doesn't have the big power gaps of the typical Themepark game, PKers care about their character's ability too. Punishment does work if it's enough, and there aren't work-arounds to avoid the punishment. The only proof is at the times when such work-arounds weren't known, but it's extensive and obvious. It also stands to reason, it's just common sense.
Personally i think full loot pvp mmorpgs can work pretty well with small niche communities vs the appeal to all themeparks...and again related to the small population base interested in mmorpgs.
Its, imo, easier to get a small dedicated fanbase, which develops into stronger small communities, that caters well to a very small population base. This is why the survival sandbox private server games work well and is a solid genre thats thriving.
The pve based themeparks need to supplement what is created naturally in these pvp games with expensive developed content, which doesnt work well in the current mmorpg landscape where populations are too small to support such expenditures.
Which leads me to my fears with camelot unchained, a game built for massive pvp in a landscape where massive populations reside in very few locations, and are unlikely to leave.
Theres just something about a full loot enviroment that can support a small crowd which becomes very dedicated to the game, that doesnt require expensive continual high budget pve content development, which is suited well to the indy developer.
Like it or not, its just better suited for the low population out there looking for indy mmorpgs...which is why you keep seeing them and not seeing themeparks or pve focused mmorpgs.
Personally i think full loot pvp mmorpgs can work pretty well with small niche communities vs the appeal to all themeparks...and again related to the small population base interested in mmorpgs.
Its, imo, easier to get a small dedicated fanbase, which develops into stronger small communities, that caters well to a very small population base. This is why the survival sandbox private server games work well and is a solid genre thats thriving.
The pve based themeparks need to supplement what is created naturally in these pvp games with expensive developed content, which doesnt work well in the current mmorpg landscape where populations are too small to support such expenditures.
Which leads me to my fears with camelot unchained, a game built for massive pvp in a landscape where massive populations reside in very few locations, and are unlikely to leave.
Theres just something about a full loot enviroment that can support a small crowd which becomes very dedicated to the game, that doesnt require expensive continual high budget pve content development, which is suited well to the indy developer.
Like it or not, its just better suited for the low population out there looking for indy mmorpgs...which is why you keep seeing them and not seeing themeparks or pve focused mmorpgs.
Small populations can’t support an mmo though which is why not many survive long.
You are getting harder and harder to understand. I am not talking about games with huge vertical progression. I've said that the last time you brought that up. Why are you insisting that we're only talking about vertical progression of the like in Themepark games? I'm even talking about UO, the complete reverse of a Themepark game.
And why are you bringing up instances when we're talking about Open World PvP?
The Strawmen are getting tired. Give them a rest.
The fact is that in a Sandbox game, or anything that doesn't have the big power gaps of the typical Themepark game, PKers care about their character's ability too. Punishment does work if it's enough, and there aren't work-arounds to avoid the punishment. The only proof is at the times when such work-arounds weren't known, but it's extensive and obvious. It also stands to reason, it's just common sense.
Common sense is the worst argument ever. ....(Deleted because it has no affect on the PKer vs. Justice System debate.)
I can see you have an issue with common sense. lol
If PKers, gankers, and general player killer "criminals" killing outside of warfare and Faction rivalries, etc., know they are going to end up crippling their characters, they aren't going to do it. With the exception of a very, very few who at some point WILL have their character crippled.
Nothing else matters in this specific debate about the effectiveness of a true Justice System.
In the meantime, another one of those pvp mmos, Albion, goes on life support F2P mode...
Pretty harsh thing to say consider almost every mmorpg is F2P
When you see some of the arguments here... Mmos fail because they are wow clones, give us sandbox ffa pvp games ! And then such a game arrives... And fails. Amusing.
Tried Albion and I'm not the target (Screeps/EvE/Worlds Adrift were/are better for me), though it is probably the best around for its targeted audience.
IMO the game is amazing for people who love grind. Given enough time grinding a player can make vanilla T3 gear feel like T6. Crafting is purposefully mindless so that grinding it feels less suicide worthy. Even ridiculous things like 5v5 determining the fate of territory control gives social power to the best grinders in guilds.
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."
If PKers, gankers, and general player killer "criminals" killing outside of warfare and Faction rivalries, etc., know they are going to end up crippling their characters, they aren't going to do it. With the exception of a very, very few who at some point WILL have their character crippled.
Nothing else matters in this specific debate about the effectiveness of a true Justice System.
Deleted - really? And you choose what matters? I'm often ignorant, but now you won the top prize
You take a specific scenario, which is not OW game, and start to debate, ignoring everything else. This is not how the debates work.
I'm not Deleted. And I didn't take a specific scenario of any game in particular. If you think I'm Deleted, posting under another name, then I can understand your confusing posts and counters (but still not your arguments) to my simple, basic claim that a true Justice System (as I explained it) would work to remove grief PKing.
I think best punishment for PK aka red player is send them off to a isolated sub server special for red players .
Honestly i did some red hunting in past and most of those red like rats , they hide well and take a lots time and work just to take them down , but they come back in no time .
90% or red are trolls with only few red have honor to be respected
I play open world FFA PVP full loot MMORPGs and would play another, but I know they cannot work. They will not survive. The costs to run an MMO are much higher than the small number of players willing to pay to keep it going.
We already discussed why people keep trying, because they want it to work.
I play open world FFA PVP full loot MMORPGs and would play another, but I know they cannot work. They will not survive. The costs to run an MMO are much higher than the small number of players willing to pay to keep it going.
We already discussed why people keep trying, because they want it to work.
End of discussion.
So all the F2P MMOs should fail, but they do not.
You fail to realize the serious flaws in your comparison.
I think best punishment for PK aka red player is send them off to a isolated sub server special for red players .
Honestly i did some red hunting in past and most of those red like rats , they hide well and take a lots time and work just to take them down , but they come back in no time .
90% or red are trolls with only few red have honor to be respected
If there is going to be an extreme punishment like that then developers can just very well not include the system and leave it at that. There isn't a point to put in/develop a system so that players can use it and then banish them.
I like the suggested idea of increasing penalties that people mentioned where a player gets more and more penalties, maybe even sent to a jail for alternate game play, and then they have to deal with harsh consequences as an outlaw.
I do think that there needs to be a way for a player to redeem themselves.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
And I didn't take a specific scenario of any game in particular. If you think I'm Deleted, posting under another name, then I can understand your confusing posts and counters (but still not your arguments) to my simple, basic claim that a true Justice System (as I explained it) would work to remove grief PKing.
I mean you deleted the part you do not like And yes, you take a very specific scenario. You keep thinking about RP. Justice systems simply do not work in games. Never. As the players are immortal, immoral, and simply can change the game. There is not justice in the games - there are rules. If you allow the non-consensual PvP so FFA PvP, you cannot punish the players for attacking each other. In fact you cannot punish them really. What you can do, is to make the game bad for them. So to push them play another game. Which is literally stupid.
What you call justice is in fact slowing the progression of a player so putting a competitive disadvantage into the game. So if a player starts direct competition with another player, and the second one refuses to compete, the first one loses part of his character progression or in general time. This is what you suggest if we remove the illusion of the RP thinking.
I think imprisoning players and disabling them to select other character is justice. Players are immortal but time is time. If it gives players who are trying to do other things outside of combat a reprieve then it works. Most players have issues with bankers being relentless or higher level.
If I made an OW PvP I would set rules so those that want to fight can and those who don't get justice. Remove power gaps. You also build a world with space so players can't just casually grief without spending time to travel. Respawning could only be done at friendly places which could be huge distances. Players able to create relative safe zones with NPC guards at towns and businesses. NPC bounty hunters to bring players in. Then you imprison them forcing them to use another account or wait it out.
And I didn't take a specific scenario of any game in particular. If you think I'm Deleted, posting under another name, then I can understand your confusing posts and counters (but still not your arguments) to my simple, basic claim that a true Justice System (as I explained it) would work to remove grief PKing.
I mean you deleted the part you do not like And yes, you take a very specific scenario. You keep thinking about RP. Justice systems simply do not work in games. Never. As the players are immortal, immoral, and simply can change the game. There is not justice in the games - there are rules. If you allow the non-consensual PvP so FFA PvP, you cannot punish the players for attacking each other. In fact you cannot punish them really. What you can do, is to make the game bad for them. So to push them play another game. Which is literally stupid.
What you call justice is in fact slowing the progression of a player so putting a competitive disadvantage into the game. So if a player starts direct competition with another player, and the second one refuses to compete, the first one loses part of his character progression or in general time. This is what you suggest if we remove the illusion of the RP thinking.
"What you call justice is in fact slowing the progression of a player so
putting a competitive disadvantage into the game. So if a player starts
direct competition with another player, and the second one refuses to
compete, the first one loses part of his character progression or in
general time."
What are you saying here? That if a PKer can't harvest hours of effort from another player then the PKer is losing play time?
It's called a Justice System for a reason. (And of course it has to be meaningful in order to work.)
And I didn't take a specific scenario of any game in particular. If you think I'm Deleted, posting under another name, then I can understand your confusing posts and counters (but still not your arguments) to my simple, basic claim that a true Justice System (as I explained it) would work to remove grief PKing.
I mean you deleted the part you do not like And yes, you take a very specific scenario. You keep thinking about RP. Justice systems simply do not work in games. Never. As the players are immortal, immoral, and simply can change the game. There is not justice in the games - there are rules. If you allow the non-consensual PvP so FFA PvP, you cannot punish the players for attacking each other.
You are not punished for attacking each other. You are punished for getting killed. Usually the gankers have far more kill to death ratio. So they risk far less. So make sense they loss more per death.
And UO have stats loss. So it is already done.
But your argument precisely shows why full loot game fail. Even the gankers are carebare and don't want to loss things(stats).
I think imprisoning players and disabling them to select other character is justice. Players are immortal but time is time. If it gives players who are trying to do other things outside of combat a reprieve then it works. Most players have issues with bankers being relentless or higher level.
If I made an OW PvP I would set rules so those that want to fight can and those who don't get justice. Remove power gaps. You also build a world with space so players can't just casually grief without spending time to travel. Respawning could only be done at friendly places which could be huge distances. Players able to create relative safe zones with NPC guards at towns and businesses. NPC bounty hunters to bring players in. Then you imprison them forcing them to use another account or wait it out.
If you think so, we are not talking about games, but for some stage play. Players always can change the game if you put competitive disadvantage to them. [b]So the rules have to be equal to all. You cannot change the rules to protect certain kind of players. [/b]And this is a very wrong approach in many games. And it does not work well in any of them.
What prevented the chaotic PK in L2? The karma rules? No. It was the clan system. To punish PK is simply stupid. You have to prevent it. And that means to make any competition - including the combats, meaningful.
But the rule wasn't the same to start with. The wolf are free to kill anyone they want. The sheep don't fight back unless attacked.
If things are really equal. The wolf should have same kill/death ratio. But usually they kill far more than death.
Don't L2 make chaotic people drop item if they pk too often? UO have stats loss for red players. So that kind of system is already there.
I think imprisoning players and disabling them to select other character is justice. Players are immortal but time is time. If it gives players who are trying to do other things outside of combat a reprieve then it works. Most players have issues with bankers being relentless or higher level.
If I made an OW PvP I would set rules so those that want to fight can and those who don't get justice. Remove power gaps. You also build a world with space so players can't just casually grief without spending time to travel. Respawning could only be done at friendly places which could be huge distances. Players able to create relative safe zones with NPC guards at towns and businesses. NPC bounty hunters to bring players in. Then you imprison them forcing them to use another account or wait it out.
If you think so, we are not talking about games, but for some stage play. Players always can change the game if you put competitive disadvantage to them. So the rules have to be equal to all. You cannot change the rules to protect certain kind of players. And this is a very wrong approach in many games. And it does not work well in any of them.
What prevented the chaotic PK in L2? The karma rules? No. It was the clan system. To punish PK is simply stupid. You have to prevent it. And that means to make any competition - including the combats, meaningful.
Why should PVP be the playstyle to have no rules or punishments? PVP is the most powerful playstyle. PVE nor crafting isn't going to interrupt PVP. PVP does disrupt other play styles. PVP isn't accountable to anyone else but other PVP.
PVP should be a playstyle equivalent to raiding. The difficulty should be there. I swear most PVP like PVP only because they dictate game play and only punished by PVP and largely in rules that don't bother them. While having harsh rules for victims because it interrupts their whole play session.
Why should PVP be the playstyle to have no rules or punishments? PVP is the most powerful playstyle. PVE nor crafting isn't going to interrupt PVP. PVP does disrupt other play styles. PVP isn't accountable to anyone else but other PVP.
PVP should be a playstyle equivalent to raiding. The difficulty should be there. I swear most PVP like PVP only because they dictate game play and only punished by PVP and largely in rules that don't bother them. While having harsh rules for victims because it interrupts their whole play session.
You assume that there are PvE players and PvP players. This is simply wrong. Very, very wrong. If you were right, then the OW games are impossible. EVE is impossible. L2 is impossible, Fortnite is impossible.
PvP disrupts nothing. In an OW game you do not have instance for competition, instance for cooperation, instance for solo play. All happens in the same game, with the same rules. When you start the game you accept there will be FFA competition and cooperation. Can I attack you anywhere in EVE? I can. Does that happen? Rarely. In fact most players grind solo even in the high risk areas. All that victimizing - this is RP. There are not victims. You simply lose. It is a game - there are winners and losers. The thinking of most people here is so deviant that I'm kind of shocked.
You start from the point there are players who will only grind, and they need safe environment. Then you assume there will be some evil gangsters who will disrupt the play of the peaceful PvEers. So that gangs must be punished. And the presumption is PvEers must go into direct competition only when they decide. PvPers should compete constantly, but away from the PvErs, and the new players, who are victims - by presumption.
You simply take WoW or everything wrong with the MMOs and take it as fundamental truth that must be the starting point for any MMO. This is so wrong.
Yes there are player types. Players who favor one playstyle or another. I favor kingdom building, clan PVP and exploration. I have little interest in PVE with questline. We all have preferences.
The reason why players attack less in Eve is because most play in high security zones where PvP is difficult. If you followed anything I write here I am not a WoW or bust. I am stating from experience going back to 1996 in MMORPG PVP that...
1. PVP disrupts other play styles. If I am mining or killing a monster for loot and you kill me from behind. Once you kill and loot me my time has been disturbed. I have lost what work I have completed. My activity has stopped. It's not a hard concept. Even if I win and you come right back my activity has been taken over by PVP.
2. Everyone plays under the same rules. PVP just has rules in game to match rules that regulate all player behavior in games. PVP only want external forces to regulate them, other players. Those players generally can give little accountability or one sided where a large group dominates.
Just like in PVE you have hard limit on ninja looting or kill stealing. The purpose of punishing or rewarding PVP is to influence player behavior.
Comments
CU exists because of Mark Jacobs and his history and love for RvR. From Daoc through Warhammer, the RvR concept was attempted but never perfected. CU would likely exist regardless of these specific industry trends, because it's the much larger trends within the greater industry that directed Mark back to the concept.
It's nothing close to full loot pvp either.
You stay sassy!
That being said, I heard numerous times GW2 is too easy on this forum. But all I hear is QQing on GW2 forum that the expansion is too hard.
But what kind of punishment you have in mind for gankers in FFA full loot game?
The penalties only are applied by being "caught" and killed.
The worst would be heavy loss of skills and stats, which if goes into negative then it means Perma-Death. This would be for the worst kind of offenders, the gankers who spend their time destroying the game on a constant basis.
Now understand that there should also be a very robust social interactions through player built cities that make use of guild alliances, independent citizen voting, land and resource control, world trade, etc. A deep social system that gives said cities an incentive to protect their citizens (who don't have to be in a guild) for retention of members and economic reasons.
There would be sanctioned warfare, freely declared but at a cost and risk.
Only military enlisted players are in the PvP of warfare. Same for Factions outside of the natural enmity listed below. All other members of cities and guilds (non-military and non-enmity) are protected by this Justice System.
Factions would be those cities, plus guilds, plus a set of factions based on deity worship, cults, nature worship, races, undeath, and historical societies and the like. And some of these would have a natural enmity towards others.
Factions would be free roving and part of the politics of cities and the game world.
Cities would have the power to banish. Secrets would abound. Disguise would be in play.
The world would turn and the unpredictable story deep. And often obscure.
Once upon a time....
You're not assuming a role, if it's just a 20 minute red skull flag that you wait out.
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."
That's not true at all.
I witnessed it first hand in UO. Every time the Devs came out with a "harsher" flag/Justice system, the PKers would literally disappear for 2 days to a week, until they found the work-arounds that were constantly crippling the systems.
Also, the typical OW PvP game used to start with a bunch of PvP happy gamers, all talking trash, until the game started and the most organized PvPers took control. Most of the others quit when they realized they were losing more than they won.
These days, everyone knows that already except for newer gamers, so those games don't get that beginning boost of excited, soon to be losers.
That happened in Shadowbane, AC's Dark Tide server, and every other MMO that had actual characters to play.
EVE was a different story, but I don't know why (I didn't play it). I do think that a game where your avatar is a ship is different than one with character avatars in the personal feeling of "losing" a battle.
But there had to be more involved about EVE and gear/banked loot, I think, for the scenario above to have not happened to the same extreme as other PvP games.
Once upon a time....
I am not talking about games with huge vertical progression. I've said that the last time you brought that up.
Why are you insisting that we're only talking about vertical progression of the like in Themepark games?
I'm even talking about UO, the complete reverse of a Themepark game.
And why are you bringing up instances when we're talking about Open World PvP?
The Strawmen are getting tired. Give them a rest.
The fact is that in a Sandbox game, or anything that doesn't have the big power gaps of the typical Themepark game, PKers care about their character's ability too. Punishment does work if it's enough, and there aren't work-arounds to avoid the punishment. The only proof is at the times when such work-arounds weren't known, but it's extensive and obvious.
It also stands to reason, it's just common sense.
Once upon a time....
Its, imo, easier to get a small dedicated fanbase, which develops into stronger small communities, that caters well to a very small population base. This is why the survival sandbox private server games work well and is a solid genre thats thriving.
The pve based themeparks need to supplement what is created naturally in these pvp games with expensive developed content, which doesnt work well in the current mmorpg landscape where populations are too small to support such expenditures.
Which leads me to my fears with camelot unchained, a game built for massive pvp in a landscape where massive populations reside in very few locations, and are unlikely to leave.
Theres just something about a full loot enviroment that can support a small crowd which becomes very dedicated to the game, that doesnt require expensive continual high budget pve content development, which is suited well to the indy developer.
Like it or not, its just better suited for the low population out there looking for indy mmorpgs...which is why you keep seeing them and not seeing themeparks or pve focused mmorpgs.
If PKers, gankers, and general player killer "criminals" killing outside of warfare and Faction rivalries, etc., know they are going to end up crippling their characters, they aren't going to do it. With the exception of a very, very few who at some point WILL have their character crippled.
Nothing else matters in this specific debate about the effectiveness of a true Justice System.
Once upon a time....
IMO the game is amazing for people who love grind. Given enough time grinding a player can make vanilla T3 gear feel like T6. Crafting is purposefully mindless so that grinding it feels less suicide worthy. Even ridiculous things like 5v5 determining the fate of territory control gives social power to the best grinders in guilds.
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."
And I didn't take a specific scenario of any game in particular.
If you think I'm Deleted, posting under another name, then I can understand your confusing posts and counters (but still not your arguments) to my simple, basic claim that a true Justice System (as I explained it) would work to remove grief PKing.
Once upon a time....
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If I made an OW PvP I would set rules so those that want to fight can and those who don't get justice. Remove power gaps. You also build a world with space so players can't just casually grief without spending time to travel. Respawning could only be done at friendly places which could be huge distances. Players able to create relative safe zones with NPC guards at towns and businesses. NPC bounty hunters to bring players in. Then you imprison them forcing them to use another account or wait it out.
What are you saying here?
That if a PKer can't harvest hours of effort from another player then the PKer is losing play time?
It's called a Justice System for a reason. (And of course it has to be meaningful in order to work.)
Once upon a time....
And UO have stats loss. So it is already done.
But your argument precisely shows why full loot game fail. Even the gankers are carebare and don't want to loss things(stats).
If things are really equal. The wolf should have same kill/death ratio. But usually they kill far more than death.
Don't L2 make chaotic people drop item if they pk too often? UO have stats loss for red players. So that kind of system is already there.
PVP should be a playstyle equivalent to raiding. The difficulty should be there. I swear most PVP like PVP only because they dictate game play and only punished by PVP and largely in rules that don't bother them. While having harsh rules for victims because it interrupts their whole play session.
The reason why players attack less in Eve is because most play in high security zones where PvP is difficult. If you followed anything I write here I am not a WoW or bust. I am stating from experience going back to 1996 in MMORPG PVP that...
1. PVP disrupts other play styles. If I am mining or killing a monster for loot and you kill me from behind. Once you kill and loot me my time has been disturbed. I have lost what work I have completed. My activity has stopped. It's not a hard concept. Even if I win and you come right back my activity has been taken over by PVP.
2. Everyone plays under the same rules. PVP just has rules in game to match rules that regulate all player behavior in games. PVP only want external forces to regulate them, other players. Those players generally can give little accountability or one sided where a large group dominates.
Just like in PVE you have hard limit on ninja looting or kill stealing. The purpose of punishing or rewarding PVP is to influence player behavior.