Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The latest devblog. Forced PvP is gone.

13468914

Comments

  • NycteliosNyctelios Member EpicPosts: 3,808
    This issue reminds me of Blade and Soul faction pvp fiasco.

    If you die, and don't pick the option to remove the gear which makes your pvp open, you'll respawn in a non protected zone and people can kill you while you load the game because the character is already spawn in the world while the game shows you the loading splash art.

    It seems a issue they created themselves and, even with almost infinite options to fix it they chose the most lazy route: Remove it altogether.
    bcbully
    Steam ID Discord ID: Night # 6102 - GoG ID - 

    Current playing: 
    Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn - Shadowbringers; EvE Online

    "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.
  • ultimateduckultimateduck Member RarePosts: 752
    Nyctelios said:
    This issue reminds me of Blade and Soul faction pvp fiasco.

    If you die, and don't pick the option to remove the gear which makes your pvp open, you'll respawn in a non protected zone and people can kill you while you load the game because the character is already spawn in the world while the game shows you the loading splash art.

    It seems a issue they created themselves and, even with almost infinite options to fix it they chose the most lazy route: Remove it altogether.

    They didn't remove PvP altogether. They put PvP on a toggle. I'm not saying this is any better but a person who wants the thrill can always leave it on.

    Mendelbcbully
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,814
    Nyctelios said:
    This issue reminds me of Blade and Soul faction pvp fiasco.

    If you die, and don't pick the option to remove the gear which makes your pvp open, you'll respawn in a non protected zone and people can kill you while you load the game because the character is already spawn in the world while the game shows you the loading splash art.

    It seems a issue they created themselves and, even with almost infinite options to fix it they chose the most lazy route: Remove it altogether.

    They didn't remove PvP altogether. They put PvP on a toggle. I'm not saying this is any better but a person who wants the thrill can always leave it on.


    My concerns about the flag is on the other side of the coin.  What happens to the PvE player who wants to leave the flag always Off?  Will they be able to progress?  Will they be able to own property?  What meaningful roles will they be able to occupy in the game and maintain the Off flag?  Is the Always Off going to be an equal and satisfying experience?

    There were hints of the PvE being tied tightly to the PvP system from the initial 'focus change' announcement.  I really think this has a chance to disappoint both PvE and PvP players because AGS hasn't thought about ramifications of the game.  If they wanted to make an OWFFAPvP game, own that, but think it through and do it right.

    Stick to your guns, AGS!  Changing horses mid-stream is just going to get everyone wet.



    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • NycteliosNyctelios Member EpicPosts: 3,808
    Nyctelios said:
    This issue reminds me of Blade and Soul faction pvp fiasco.

    If you die, and don't pick the option to remove the gear which makes your pvp open, you'll respawn in a non protected zone and people can kill you while you load the game because the character is already spawn in the world while the game shows you the loading splash art.

    It seems a issue they created themselves and, even with almost infinite options to fix it they chose the most lazy route: Remove it altogether.

    They didn't remove PvP altogether. They put PvP on a toggle. I'm not saying this is any better but a person who wants the thrill can always leave it on.

    It's the same thing.

    The "fix" for Blade and Soul is to opt out of the PvP removing the gear which turns it on.

    But ask yourself this: Is it a fix if you turn a mechanic off?
    Steam ID Discord ID: Night # 6102 - GoG ID - 

    Current playing: 
    Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn - Shadowbringers; EvE Online

    "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.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,119
    Nyctelios said:
    Nyctelios said:
    This issue reminds me of Blade and Soul faction pvp fiasco.

    If you die, and don't pick the option to remove the gear which makes your pvp open, you'll respawn in a non protected zone and people can kill you while you load the game because the character is already spawn in the world while the game shows you the loading splash art.

    It seems a issue they created themselves and, even with almost infinite options to fix it they chose the most lazy route: Remove it altogether.

    They didn't remove PvP altogether. They put PvP on a toggle. I'm not saying this is any better but a person who wants the thrill can always leave it on.

    It's the same thing.

    The "fix" for Blade and Soul is to opt out of the PvP removing the gear which turns it on.

    But ask yourself this: Is it a fix if you turn a mechanic off?
    Sure it is.

    No different than making PvP Servers and Non-PvP Servers, which have been around for over 20 years now.

    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • kitaradkitarad Member EpicPosts: 5,834
    Nyctelios said:
    Nyctelios said:
    This issue reminds me of Blade and Soul faction pvp fiasco.

    If you die, and don't pick the option to remove the gear which makes your pvp open, you'll respawn in a non protected zone and people can kill you while you load the game because the character is already spawn in the world while the game shows you the loading splash art.

    It seems a issue they created themselves and, even with almost infinite options to fix it they chose the most lazy route: Remove it altogether.

    They didn't remove PvP altogether. They put PvP on a toggle. I'm not saying this is any better but a person who wants the thrill can always leave it on.

    It's the same thing.

    The "fix" for Blade and Soul is to opt out of the PvP removing the gear which turns it on.

    But ask yourself this: Is it a fix if you turn a mechanic off?
    It's a fix for the people who do not want to PvP and only want to when they wish it. No fix works for everyone .

  • ultimateduckultimateduck Member RarePosts: 752
    Some of you seem so preoccupied with what other people are going to do or get away with.

    If they don't flag, they don't flag. You don't get to gank them and take their shit. Life goes on.

    That doesn't keep you from keeping your PvP flag on. Since the "OWFLPvP" group claims that open world PvP is the best because it creates and element of danger that you never know when it's coming... you get to keep that unknown element of danger. The only thing that a PvP toggle stops is you ganking people who don't want to PvP, which most of you claim isn't what PvP is about.
    bcbullyRhoklaw
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,827
    edited March 5
    Some of you seem so preoccupied with what other people are going to do or get away with.

    If they don't flag, they don't flag. You don't get to gank them and take their shit. Life goes on.

    That doesn't keep you from keeping your PvP flag on. Since the "OWFLPvP" group claims that open world PvP is the best because it creates and element of danger that you never know when it's coming... you get to keep that unknown element of danger. The only thing that a PvP toggle stops is you ganking people who don't want to PvP, which most of you claim isn't what PvP is about.
    You guys have to stop thinking so shallow. This is no different than quest indicators telling you where to go or mobile games that have an auto pilot feature. People always say the same thing, "BUT IT'S OPTIONAL!", but in reality that's not the same thing, not even close. Everyone being on the same level playing field in regards to choice heightens the experience. If everyone has the option to toggle on or off quest indicators, even if you don't like them, you will use them. Why? Because it's an advantage. I tried to voice my opinion to EQ when they introduced the magical quest guide, but in the end I lost and moved on. I lost my love for the game when they tried transitioning WOW components into it. I just didn't like what the game was becoming.

    It's fine if you don't like PVP and don't want to be "forced" to pvp, but that means not playing an open world pvp game. Just like I don't play games that have auto pilot.

    When people get excited for a product like New World that is centered around PVP and then they make changes this drastic do you seriously expect people not to complain? Really?! Don't be ridiculous.

    While I am a fan of open world FFA pvp, I also understand that the few gankers out there ruin it for everyone. Not because they do kill "noobs", but because they grief them. That's why I prefer a system like Eve, DAOC, or Albion, where there are clearly marked areas and rules that limit, reduce, or prevent griefing. Where players can play all they want without worry and only venture into the "danger" zones if and when they feel the desire to pvp.

    A toggle is most contrived way it could have been handled and by and far removes so much immersion that it's just not exciting to me anymore.

    You can blame it on my need to "gank", but you couldn't be further from the truth. You just refuse to try to understand it.

    TLDR: The bottom line is having a toggle for anything that provides an advantage is not truly an option.
    ultimateduckbcbullySovrath
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • ultimateduckultimateduck Member RarePosts: 752
    Some of you seem so preoccupied with what other people are going to do or get away with.

    If they don't flag, they don't flag. You don't get to gank them and take their shit. Life goes on.

    That doesn't keep you from keeping your PvP flag on. Since the "OWFLPvP" group claims that open world PvP is the best because it creates and element of danger that you never know when it's coming... you get to keep that unknown element of danger. The only thing that a PvP toggle stops is you ganking people who don't want to PvP, which most of you claim isn't what PvP is about.
    You guys have to stop thinking so shallow. This is no different than quest indicators telling you where to go or mobile games that have an auto pilot feature. People always say the same thing, "BUT IT'S OPTIONAL!", but in reality that's not the same thing, not even close. Everyone being on the same level playing field in regards to choice heightens the experience. If everyone has the option to toggle on or off quest indicators, even if you don't like them, you will use them. Why? Because it's an advantage. I tried to voice my opinion to EQ when they introduced the magical quest guide, but in the end I lost and moved on. I lost my love for the game when they tried transitioning WOW components into it. I just didn't like what the game was becoming.

    It's fine if you don't like PVP and don't want to be "forced" to pvp, but that means not playing an open world pvp game. Just like I don't play games that have auto pilot.

    When people get excited for a product like New World that is centered around PVP and then they make changes this drastic do you seriously expect people not to complain? Really?! Don't be ridiculous.

    While I am a fan of open world FFA pvp, I also understand that the few gankers out there ruin it for everyone. Not because they do kill "noobs", but because they grief them. That's why I prefer a system like Eve, DAOC, or Albion, where there are clearly marked areas and rules that limit, reduce, or prevent griefing. Where players can play all they want without worry and only venture into the "danger" zones if and when they feel the desire to pvp.

    A toggle is most contrived way it could have been handled and by and far removes so much immersion that it's just not exciting to me anymore.

    You can blame it on my need to "gank", but you couldn't be further from the truth. You just refuse to try to understand it.

    TLDR: The bottom line is having a toggle for anything that provides an advantage is not truly an option.

    I agree. I think the toggle is a lame half step that propably did more harm than good since the game wasn't originally designed for PvE and the focus was changed so severely without adjusting the release date to make up for the change.

    I also disagree. OWPvP isn't about everyone being on the same level playing field. If it were, there wouldn't have been a change. The change wasn't made because people lost a fair fight. The change was made because PvP was being forced on to them by high level gank groups killing them over and over... hence the term "forced PvP".

    Now, the OWPvP "purists" say OWPvP is great because it adds an element of danger above and beyond what NPCs can provide. But that isn't really the truth, is it? Those people can still have that element of danger, so if that's all there is to it there is no problem.

    That only leaves one possible reason. OWPvP fans are upset that they don't get to *BE* that element of danger for everyone else. So in reality, OWPvP people are upset because you don't get to gank other people. That is the only element that is taken away with a toggle and that is the exact reason a toggle was implemented.
    cheyaneIselinbcbullyMendelRhoklaw
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,827
    Some of you seem so preoccupied with what other people are going to do or get away with.

    If they don't flag, they don't flag. You don't get to gank them and take their shit. Life goes on.

    That doesn't keep you from keeping your PvP flag on. Since the "OWFLPvP" group claims that open world PvP is the best because it creates and element of danger that you never know when it's coming... you get to keep that unknown element of danger. The only thing that a PvP toggle stops is you ganking people who don't want to PvP, which most of you claim isn't what PvP is about.
    You guys have to stop thinking so shallow. This is no different than quest indicators telling you where to go or mobile games that have an auto pilot feature. People always say the same thing, "BUT IT'S OPTIONAL!", but in reality that's not the same thing, not even close. Everyone being on the same level playing field in regards to choice heightens the experience. If everyone has the option to toggle on or off quest indicators, even if you don't like them, you will use them. Why? Because it's an advantage. I tried to voice my opinion to EQ when they introduced the magical quest guide, but in the end I lost and moved on. I lost my love for the game when they tried transitioning WOW components into it. I just didn't like what the game was becoming.

    It's fine if you don't like PVP and don't want to be "forced" to pvp, but that means not playing an open world pvp game. Just like I don't play games that have auto pilot.

    When people get excited for a product like New World that is centered around PVP and then they make changes this drastic do you seriously expect people not to complain? Really?! Don't be ridiculous.

    While I am a fan of open world FFA pvp, I also understand that the few gankers out there ruin it for everyone. Not because they do kill "noobs", but because they grief them. That's why I prefer a system like Eve, DAOC, or Albion, where there are clearly marked areas and rules that limit, reduce, or prevent griefing. Where players can play all they want without worry and only venture into the "danger" zones if and when they feel the desire to pvp.

    A toggle is most contrived way it could have been handled and by and far removes so much immersion that it's just not exciting to me anymore.

    You can blame it on my need to "gank", but you couldn't be further from the truth. You just refuse to try to understand it.

    TLDR: The bottom line is having a toggle for anything that provides an advantage is not truly an option.

    I agree. I think the toggle is a lame half step that propably did more harm than good since the game wasn't originally designed for PvE and the focus was changed so severely without adjusting the release date to make up for the change.

    I also disagree. OWPvP isn't about everyone being on the same level playing field. If it were, there wouldn't have been a change. The change wasn't made because people lost a fair fight. The change was made because PvP was being forced on to them by high level gank groups killing them over and over... hence the term "forced PvP".

    You're just thinking of the wrong thing and that's probably my fault. It's not about being on an even playing field as far as skill goes, it's about being on an even playing field for risk. The risk of getting attacked by other players. It's like if you choose to toggle of your quest indicator so it's more challenging and all the other players around you leaving you behind. When you look around at the other players you know most of them are gliding through the quests while you're still trying to solve the problem. This puts you at a huge disadvantage. The toggle removes the equality of risk or challenge.
    Now, the OWPvP "purists" say OWPvP is great because it adds an element of danger above and beyond what NPCs can provide. But that isn't really the truth, is it? Those people can still have that element of danger, so if that's all there is to it there is no problem.

    That only leaves one possible reason. OWPvP fans are upset that they don't get to *BE* that element of danger for everyone else. So in reality, OWPvP people are upset because you don't get to gank other people. That is the only element that is taken away with a toggle and that is the exact reason a toggle was implemented.
    No, this isn't it at all. The thrill of the risk is just as good and often more powerful than the thrill of finding a target.

    You're only thinking of less than 1% of PVPers. People that PVPers say are not real PVPers at all. You're so focused on the douchebags you ignore everyone else. 

    I love OWPVP and have never griefed in any OWPVP mmo I've ever played. Even when I waged war against mining corps in Eve we didn't punish them repeatedly and usually ended up as friends in the end.

    The change was made because PvP was being forced on to them...
    Nope.
    high level gank groups killing them over and over
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    ultimateduck
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,301
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    ultimateduckRhoklaw
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • ultimateduckultimateduck Member RarePosts: 752
    Some of you seem so preoccupied with what other people are going to do or get away with.

    If they don't flag, they don't flag. You don't get to gank them and take their shit. Life goes on.

    That doesn't keep you from keeping your PvP flag on. Since the "OWFLPvP" group claims that open world PvP is the best because it creates and element of danger that you never know when it's coming... you get to keep that unknown element of danger. The only thing that a PvP toggle stops is you ganking people who don't want to PvP, which most of you claim isn't what PvP is about.
    You guys have to stop thinking so shallow. This is no different than quest indicators telling you where to go or mobile games that have an auto pilot feature. People always say the same thing, "BUT IT'S OPTIONAL!", but in reality that's not the same thing, not even close. Everyone being on the same level playing field in regards to choice heightens the experience. If everyone has the option to toggle on or off quest indicators, even if you don't like them, you will use them. Why? Because it's an advantage. I tried to voice my opinion to EQ when they introduced the magical quest guide, but in the end I lost and moved on. I lost my love for the game when they tried transitioning WOW components into it. I just didn't like what the game was becoming.

    It's fine if you don't like PVP and don't want to be "forced" to pvp, but that means not playing an open world pvp game. Just like I don't play games that have auto pilot.

    When people get excited for a product like New World that is centered around PVP and then they make changes this drastic do you seriously expect people not to complain? Really?! Don't be ridiculous.

    While I am a fan of open world FFA pvp, I also understand that the few gankers out there ruin it for everyone. Not because they do kill "noobs", but because they grief them. That's why I prefer a system like Eve, DAOC, or Albion, where there are clearly marked areas and rules that limit, reduce, or prevent griefing. Where players can play all they want without worry and only venture into the "danger" zones if and when they feel the desire to pvp.

    A toggle is most contrived way it could have been handled and by and far removes so much immersion that it's just not exciting to me anymore.

    You can blame it on my need to "gank", but you couldn't be further from the truth. You just refuse to try to understand it.

    TLDR: The bottom line is having a toggle for anything that provides an advantage is not truly an option.

    I agree. I think the toggle is a lame half step that propably did more harm than good since the game wasn't originally designed for PvE and the focus was changed so severely without adjusting the release date to make up for the change.

    I also disagree. OWPvP isn't about everyone being on the same level playing field. If it were, there wouldn't have been a change. The change wasn't made because people lost a fair fight. The change was made because PvP was being forced on to them by high level gank groups killing them over and over... hence the term "forced PvP".

    You're just thinking of the wrong thing and that's probably my fault. It's not about being on an even playing field as far as skill goes, it's about being on an even playing field for risk. The risk of getting attacked by other players. It's like if you choose to toggle of your quest indicator so it's more challenging and all the other players around you leaving you behind. When you look around at the other players you know most of them are gliding through the quests while you're still trying to solve the problem. This puts you at a huge disadvantage. The toggle removes the equality of risk or challenge.
    Now, the OWPvP "purists" say OWPvP is great because it adds an element of danger above and beyond what NPCs can provide. But that isn't really the truth, is it? Those people can still have that element of danger, so if that's all there is to it there is no problem.

    That only leaves one possible reason. OWPvP fans are upset that they don't get to *BE* that element of danger for everyone else. So in reality, OWPvP people are upset because you don't get to gank other people. That is the only element that is taken away with a toggle and that is the exact reason a toggle was implemented.
    No, this isn't it at all. The thrill of the risk is just as good and often more powerful than the thrill of finding a target.

    You're only thinking of less than 1% of PVPers. People that PVPers say are not real PVPers at all. You're so focused on the douchebags you ignore everyone else. 

    I love OWPVP and have never griefed in any OWPVP mmo I've ever played. Even when I waged war against mining corps in Eve we didn't punish them repeatedly and usually ended up as friends in the end.

    The change was made because PvP was being forced on to them...
    Nope.
    high level gank groups killing them over and over
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.

    Sadly, the 1% douchebagers can cause an amazing amount of damage to a game in a very short period of time. Perhaps the other 99% of real PvPers didn't police the douchebags enough.

    I know one of my favorite things to do in DAoC was to hunt down and kill the guy ganking noobs that were leveling in the frontiers (exp bonus in the PvP zones). I would also like to kill a noob or two with the hopes that it would draw out someone to help them so I could kill them as well...but I never farmed them, just kill them once and /wave from the distance when they came back so they knew I was there. If no one came, I would let the noobs kill me for a quick port back.


    It was fun, but too many people abuse it... or a handful of people abuse it too much and aren't kept in check.
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,827
    Iselin said:
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    You just mentioned zones yourself :P that’s a perfectly viable solution and it’s far less contrived because you can easily tie a zone to law while a toggle is... well fake. I mentioned in one of my previous posts games like eve, daoc, Albion. They’re not perfect, but no game of any kind ever will be. 
    ultimateduck
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 7,100
    edited March 6
    It is completely true that if a game has open PvP and as a player who doesn't want that, they should stay away. Unfortunately developers are trying to get these PvE players to play the game otherwise they wouldn't bother changing their games to cater to the PvE players. Your beef is with the developers who change their games.

    Over and over again I see PvP players blaming the PvE players for ruining their games but that is simply untrue. Developers aren't happy with the PvP players only they want the PvE players because they will bring them more money. When something like what happened in New World chases players away or has the possibility of making players leave they changed the game. How do you reconcile this with the idea that developers are content with a smaller population for these types of games. The obvious answer is no they aren't. They are chasing the bigger populations and they are aware that this type of harassment is going to reduce the population.

    The developers are not prepared to spend the necessary time to develop good systems to govern and deal with the issues, they prefer to simply add a toggle. This problem should be laid squarely at the feet of that small percentage of players who are bent on ruining it for all the other PvP players. There should be a way to weed them out and keep them away from these types of games that offer them an opportunity to be dicks.

    PvP players are not prepared to police their own community. They prefer to complain and call the players who leave as cowards and dickless wonders. Then they just wallow and whine about how another game that was supposed to be developed for them was once again ruined by the PvE players. 1% shouldn't be able to ruin it for the 99% and yet they do.
    ultimateduck
    Crichton: 'If he masters wormhole technology, what will he use it for?'
    Scorpius: 'Faster delivery of pizzas.'

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,642
    Remember when a certain someone tried to tell us he was only testing the cash shop idea in EQ2,then a couple months later the entire operation was all cash shop.

    The he tried to sell people on Landmark...lol,then again with EQ Next,then after he got fired by Daybreak he tried to sell us some absolute pile of crap low budget game made with some kids lunch money.

    Guess who also sold out his fellow employees among the many that lost their jobs once Daybreak took over.

    Guess who is also lurking around Amazon game studios,yep Mr.Smedley.

    I noticed he talked about everyone making money,the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now,people that will endorse games they couldn't care less about because they are getting paid.As well i guess there is no definitive law surrounding the term "influencer"so yeah that is the new gringo being used.
    I mean i am sure most realize by now the whole YELP scandal and how now Amazon has purchased Twitch TV.

    Yep you can bet Amazon already has several big name Twitch streamers ready to "influence" the New World watchers,tell everyone how great it  is.
    Mendelultimateduck

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,301
    Wizardry said:

    I noticed he talked about everyone making money,the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now,people that will endorse games they couldn't care less about because they are getting paid.

    So good I added it to my sig. Gave you credit too :)
    TimukasMendel
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member EpicPosts: 4,266
    Iselin said:
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    You just mentioned zones yourself :P that’s a perfectly viable solution and it’s far less contrived because you can easily tie a zone to law while a toggle is... well fake. I mentioned in one of my previous posts games like eve, daoc, Albion. They’re not perfect, but no game of any kind ever will be. 
    That has never been a good solution for me. There's ALWAYS incentives to go in the pvp zones, they're not optional.

  • ultimateduckultimateduck Member RarePosts: 752
    Bloodaxes said:
    Iselin said:
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    You just mentioned zones yourself :P that’s a perfectly viable solution and it’s far less contrived because you can easily tie a zone to law while a toggle is... well fake. I mentioned in one of my previous posts games like eve, daoc, Albion. They’re not perfect, but no game of any kind ever will be. 
    That has never been a good solution for me. There's ALWAYS incentives to go in the pvp zones, they're not optional.

    The incentives to go into the frontiers in DAoC was an exp bonus for leveling. All artifacts leveled in the frontiers as well. Everything could be done in the main lands where there was no PvP. There was no forced reason to go there, only convenience.

    Now, there were relics and dungeons accessible through PvP, but again they were incentives, not requirements.

    DAoC did it right. New World dropped the ball.
  • UtinniUtinni Member EpicPosts: 1,886
    Bloodaxes said:
    Iselin said:
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    You just mentioned zones yourself :P that’s a perfectly viable solution and it’s far less contrived because you can easily tie a zone to law while a toggle is... well fake. I mentioned in one of my previous posts games like eve, daoc, Albion. They’re not perfect, but no game of any kind ever will be. 
    That has never been a good solution for me. There's ALWAYS incentives to go in the pvp zones, they're not optional.

    The incentives to go into the frontiers in DAoC was an exp bonus for leveling. All artifacts leveled in the frontiers as well. Everything could be done in the main lands where there was no PvP. There was no forced reason to go there, only convenience.

    Now, there were relics and dungeons accessible through PvP, but again they were incentives, not requirements.

    DAoC did it right. New World dropped the ball.
    New World hasn't released yet btw
    Mendel
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,814
    Utinni said:
    Bloodaxes said:
    Iselin said:
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    You just mentioned zones yourself :P that’s a perfectly viable solution and it’s far less contrived because you can easily tie a zone to law while a toggle is... well fake. I mentioned in one of my previous posts games like eve, daoc, Albion. They’re not perfect, but no game of any kind ever will be. 
    That has never been a good solution for me. There's ALWAYS incentives to go in the pvp zones, they're not optional.

    The incentives to go into the frontiers in DAoC was an exp bonus for leveling. All artifacts leveled in the frontiers as well. Everything could be done in the main lands where there was no PvP. There was no forced reason to go there, only convenience.

    Now, there were relics and dungeons accessible through PvP, but again they were incentives, not requirements.

    DAoC did it right. New World dropped the ball.
    New World hasn't released yet btw

    Yep.  We don't know if they have dropped the ball, or even if they only dropped a single ball.  Let's not give them the benefit of the doubt just yet.  There's plenty of time to botch several more decisions between now and release.

    New World's PvE additions have yet to be tested, and the PvE progression system hasn't been hinted at.  A bad progression system is a critical development sin to me.  That's what makes me most nervous about this game.



    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • UtinniUtinni Member EpicPosts: 1,886
    Mendel said:
    Utinni said:
    Bloodaxes said:
    Iselin said:
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    You just mentioned zones yourself :P that’s a perfectly viable solution and it’s far less contrived because you can easily tie a zone to law while a toggle is... well fake. I mentioned in one of my previous posts games like eve, daoc, Albion. They’re not perfect, but no game of any kind ever will be. 
    That has never been a good solution for me. There's ALWAYS incentives to go in the pvp zones, they're not optional.

    The incentives to go into the frontiers in DAoC was an exp bonus for leveling. All artifacts leveled in the frontiers as well. Everything could be done in the main lands where there was no PvP. There was no forced reason to go there, only convenience.

    Now, there were relics and dungeons accessible through PvP, but again they were incentives, not requirements.

    DAoC did it right. New World dropped the ball.
    New World hasn't released yet btw

    Yep.  We don't know if they have dropped the ball, or even if they only dropped a single ball.  Let's not give them the benefit of the doubt just yet.  There's plenty of time to botch several more decisions between now and release.

    New World's PvE additions have yet to be tested, and the PvE progression system hasn't been hinted at.  A bad progression system is a critical development sin to me.  That's what makes me most nervous about this game.



    Yep. Just think it's odd to compare a fantasy MMORPG from 2001 to a survival game that hasn't even launched yet. Street Fighter has less PvE than Path of Exile too!
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,827
    Bloodaxes said:
    Iselin said:
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    You just mentioned zones yourself :P that’s a perfectly viable solution and it’s far less contrived because you can easily tie a zone to law while a toggle is... well fake. I mentioned in one of my previous posts games like eve, daoc, Albion. They’re not perfect, but no game of any kind ever will be. 
    That has never been a good solution for me. There's ALWAYS incentives to go in the pvp zones, they're not optional.
    Then the game wouldn’t be for you. 
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • xD_GamingxD_Gaming Member EpicPosts: 2,566
    This game is seriously out to flop. How many times has an mmorpg changed course and bowed to the masses only to be crap ? To many . Changing scope while in production is a death null imho.
    NorseGod
    There is a multiverse inside our minds which millions live.
    Twitter : @xD_Gaming_Merch
    xD Merch : https://bit.ly/2v13MT8
    "Dragons are tilly folly !"
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 7,021
    xD_Gaming said:
    This game is seriously out to flop. How many times has an mmorpg changed course and bowed to the masses only to be crap ? To many . Changing scope while in production is a death null imho.
    While this was a huge change in direction, it can and SHOULD happen if the current direction WILL fail. Why continue working towards a dead end? Some game companies will simply shut the entire development down and scrap it. At least this game is still in the works and if need be, they can delay the launch. There's no law that says it has to launch on time, lol.

    So many drama queens.
    bcbully

  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member EpicPosts: 4,266
    Bloodaxes said:
    Iselin said:
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    You just mentioned zones yourself :P that’s a perfectly viable solution and it’s far less contrived because you can easily tie a zone to law while a toggle is... well fake. I mentioned in one of my previous posts games like eve, daoc, Albion. They’re not perfect, but no game of any kind ever will be. 
    That has never been a good solution for me. There's ALWAYS incentives to go in the pvp zones, they're not optional.
    Then the game wouldn’t be for you. 
    Then your suggestion means squat. If you're not going to offer a solution that benefits both equally what's the point in having both playstyles?

Sign In or Register to comment.