Isn't required pvp the same as forced? You are barely even playing the game and getting nowhere without pvp.Well your alternative is to join a powerful guild and be one of the few within that doesn't take part but then like i said,you will barely be playing the game at that point. I don't even know how their 50-50 is going to work,what if you don't have 50 players?What if your guild was fast and got a nice spot and don't want to pvp ...ever? The only term i have seen is the term "challenge"you can challenge another fort,that doesn't mean they must accept,or does it?
Since they are steadfast on the claim there is no FORCED pvp that means your guild/fort never have to accept a challenge ever,does it not?
When a territory is weakened it becomes vulnerable to attack. If another faction then declares war on that territory the defenders get to pick a time window for when the siege will take place, but they cannot simply ignore the challenge. An individual player or guild can of course choose not to participate in the fight for the territory.
The funny part is if your guild spends the day running faction missions to put a specific territory into a conflicted state so you can declare war... ANY company in your faction (even 1 man alt guilds from other factions) can sign up to declare war. Every company that signs up is put into a vanguard lottery where the company that actually gets to do the war declaration and siege is chosen completely random. The system is so broke.
Is there any benefit to being the vanguard other than just getting to choose/recruit who fights in the War?
The vanguard guild has 100% control over selecting the attacking roster and if they win they gain control over the settlement. That means they would set the taxes for crafting fees, housing rent etc as well as decide on any or what upgrades to go after or to provides settlement buffs etc.
On the surface at least, that sounds like it would significantly reduce the motivation for guilds to work at destabilizing the enemy faction. However, now that there is no pvp outside of the sieges is there anything else for guilds to do?
The question is not about giving an extra incentive/reward. The question is why does PVP Raiding NEED to have larger rewards than PVE. People wont do it without the bonuses which sounds like PVP Raiding is like alot like WORK to most people. You have to pay these people to go out to these areas.
FTFY.
I doubt many PVE'ers have issues with more difficult PVE content having higher rewards. In classic WOW right now, world bosses actually have some of the best loot. But either way its PVE.
What I do agree with however, is that you shouldn't require PVPers to RAID PVE dungeons for PVP gear or resources. Just like you shouldn't require PVE'ers to go to PVP zones to get their PVE gear/resources.
If a game is going offer both play-styles then they should have two types of resources and keep the best PVP gear in PVP zones and the resources to make that gear in PVP zones. They should also put the best PVE gear in PVE zones with the resources to make that in those zones.
You are still under the false assumption that this is typically done to lure PVP-averse players in PVP. Putting high value resources in PVP areas is typically a design decision that facilitates risk vs reward.
It is a one-sided risk based on play-style/preferences. Where is the risk for the PvP centric player?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It is a one-sided risk based on play-style/preferences. Where is the risk for the PvP centric player?
In well designed PVP games it is not one-sided:
1) He may be killed by another PVP player while hunting.
2) The gatherer may slip off if he is good (cat and mouse game, sometimes the mouse is faster/smarter and gets away with the cheese) and the PVP centric player ends up with nothing but wasted time. A good PVP game with resource gathering provides escape mechanisms and awareness tools for skilled/knowledgeable gatherers to balance things off and make them interesting.
3) The gatherer might be able to fight him off (I was sometimes doing this to pick fights in Albion Online, gathering in fighting gear and getting into scuffles with gankers).
4) He may be gathering in guild territory under the protection of his guild in exchange for part of his gathered mats, which in return get used so that the guild keeps holding the territory.
None of these are additional risks to what the player expects as part of that play style. With a PvE player, this is an additional risk beyond what they would normally expect.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It is a one-sided risk based on play-style/preferences. Where is the risk for the PvP centric player?
In well designed PVP games it is not one-sided:
1) He may be killed by another PVP player while hunting.
2) The gatherer may slip off if he is good (cat and mouse game, sometimes the mouse is faster/smarter and gets away with the cheese) and the PVP centric player ends up with nothing but wasted time. A good PVP game with resource gathering provides escape mechanisms and awareness tools for skilled/knowledgeable gatherers to balance things off and make them interesting.
3) The gatherer might be able to fight him off (I was sometimes doing this to pick fights in Albion Online, gathering in fighting gear and getting into scuffles with gankers).
4) He may be gathering in guild territory under the protection of his guild in exchange for part of his gathered mats, which in return get used so that the guild keeps holding the territory.
None of these are additional risks to what the player expects as part of that play style. With a PvE player, this is an additional risk beyond what they would normally expect.
If you don’t want to take those risks you have 2 options. find another way to get what you seek or don’t play the game.
It is a one-sided risk based on play-style/preferences. Where is the risk for the PvP centric player?
In well designed PVP games it is not one-sided:
1) He may be killed by another PVP player while hunting.
2) The gatherer may slip off if he is good (cat and mouse game, sometimes the mouse is faster/smarter and gets away with the cheese) and the PVP centric player ends up with nothing but wasted time. A good PVP game with resource gathering provides escape mechanisms and awareness tools for skilled/knowledgeable gatherers to balance things off and make them interesting.
3) The gatherer might be able to fight him off (I was sometimes doing this to pick fights in Albion Online, gathering in fighting gear and getting into scuffles with gankers).
4) He may be gathering in guild territory under the protection of his guild in exchange for part of his gathered mats, which in return get used so that the guild keeps holding the territory.
None of these are additional risks to what the player expects as part of that play style. With a PvE player, this is an additional risk beyond what they would normally expect.
If you don’t want to take those risks you have 2 options. find another way to get what you seek or don’t play the game.
Or 3: Stop playing mmos altogether. Sadly, that's 99% of the newly released games nowadays. Forcing both play styles to play together.
You must be flagged to pvp. So they added "arena's" for the pve player.These will require killing mobs until you find a special key,i think it's called a Spriggen key.
This is basically copying Atlas's treasure bottle idea,swapping a treasure map for a key.
Within this arena mode,i assume instanced,you will have the chance at likely the best loot in the game,so pve can sort of celebrate...or not.
The differences is perks and gem slots which require crafting.Crafting is a main proponent of the gear system,you NEED it.
However the yare going to give those that flag pvp rewards and more xp.Apparently the crafting system never ends,higher tiers,so i assume a never ending gear score system. I will assume that upgrading the defenses also involves the crafting/harvesting system,again tiers but don't quote me,i think the defense tiers may be locked at tier 3 but my memory is shotty so not certain on a locked tier or maybe defenses can be endless as well.
50 is the maximum so no one guild can load up with 500 players but in reality they can.They can just have several divisions so The Syndicate 1 ,The Syndicate 2,The Syndicate 3 ,you get the idea,each with 50 players.
IMO i find it very lame they are trying to incorporate Wow in to this with gear scores and gem slots,i actually consider it VERY lame.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
PVP in MMO's will never work in OWPVP. It relies on PVE'ers to be farmed. In PVE the AI can die 1000's or infinite times and never complain.
But for PVP to have 1000 kills requires someone to be killed 1000 times. If you look at the bell curve, where top tier hunters rarely die, that means low tier have to almost always die "Deer". PVE'ers dont want to be farmed. Those "Deer" will just leave. Then you have the mid range people that are the new farmed tier, who will now have no "Deer" to shoot, and are being farmed by the top, then the Mid range PVPers leave. That leaves the top hunters to fight each other, and they will just quit, because they dont want to die alot.
Top Tier PVPers dont fight eachother much in MMO's because there is not a big enough incentive for them to do so. They want to farm people. These MMO's rely on PVE'ers and low skill PVPers to be farmed and try to draw them into their MMO's with massive incentives in PVP areas.
Until these MMO's figure out a way to allow all skilled ranges of players to enjoy PVP and not just top tier, they will continue to fail.
PVP in MMO's will never work in OWPVP. It relies on PVE'ers to be farmed. In PVE the AI can die 1000's or infinite times and never complain.
But for PVP to have 1000 kills requires someone to be killed 1000 times. If you look at the bell curve, where top tier hunters rarely die, that means low tier have to almost always die "Deer". PVE'ers dont want to be farmed. Those "Deer" will just leave. Then you have the mid range people that are the new farmed tier, who will now have no "Deer" to shoot, and are being farmed by the top, then the Mid range PVPers leave. That leaves the top hunters to fight each other, and they will just quit, because they dont want to die alot.
Top Tier PVPers dont fight eachother much in MMO's because there is not a big enough incentive for them to do so. They want to farm people. These MMO's rely on PVE'ers and low skill PVPers to be farmed and try to draw them into their MMO's with massive incentives in PVP areas.
Until these MMO's figure out a way to allow all skilled ranges of players to enjoy PVP and not just top tier, they will continue to fail.
Complete crap. I personally don't like open-world free for all pvp games with player looting. But it is just plain stupid to go into that sort of a game and then complain about it. And it is absolute ignorant rubbish to claim that these sort of games rely on pve players to "farm".
Games like Albion put good resources in pvp areas to encourage players to fight over them. It is a catalyst for pvp, in a game that has a playerbase that went into the game wanting a full-loot pvp experience.
They seriously did pretty much outright copy Atlas's structure but used some different terminology. There is a LOT of hit n miss,like a LOT.
So they claim you can only be attacked if you have your pvp flag up,so pve players will not be ganked as many worry about.
They put a heavy restriction on learning trees to a max of 60 points,again same as Atlas only with fewer points.
rinse and repeat over and over mission runs to declare war.Once war is declared a random faction of the 2 will get to do the siege,the other can ummm go grab a snack lol.So one faction will be doing those missions basically for nothing.
I assume they are giving rewards to the pvp players because of obvious reasons.If some players are busy with sieges they would fall way behind the PVE players in advancement.
So what did they do for PVE players,well more than i assumed.You will need to get a drop "a KEY"that allows you to enter "arenas"where you can get apparently "some of the top loot in the game".Amazon was careful to use the term >>>SOME.
The problem areas in the design?
Once a faction is declared the attacker ,the governor picks the 50 players that get to take part and a handshake for participation to the rest lol.
Will there be enough of these "arenas"to appease PVE players?
How many are going to get angry when they run the missions and their faction gets left out?How many will get angry when they do those mission runs only find out they are not among the 50 picked?
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I should have mentioned that FACTIONS "3 of them"unless they add more is what ANY player can join.There is a governor "leader"but anyone can join these.
IMO 3 is not nearly enough and i stated this like 20 years ago already.
You can have your own individual housing "restrictions on that aspect,i have no idea".You will have to pay taxes to the owner of that zone.
There will obviously be strife within the factions and you can organize to overthrow the leader,how exactly idk.Reason is you might get for example The Syndicate voting in their player to lead the faction then that leader picks the same 50 Syndicate players to take part everytime leaving all others in the faction hung out to dry.
I feel like the way it is structured,you might see a few large real life guilds,like th Syndicate control the game,leaving all others with participation medals. This is why a game like this needs at minimum 20+ factions but of course they don't want to make gear for 20 different factions.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
PVP in MMO's will never work in OWPVP. It relies on PVE'ers to be farmed. In PVE the AI can die 1000's or infinite times and never complain.
But for PVP to have 1000 kills requires someone to be killed 1000 times. If you look at the bell curve, where top tier hunters rarely die, that means low tier have to almost always die "Deer". PVE'ers dont want to be farmed. Those "Deer" will just leave. Then you have the mid range people that are the new farmed tier, who will now have no "Deer" to shoot, and are being farmed by the top, then the Mid range PVPers leave. That leaves the top hunters to fight each other, and they will just quit, because they dont want to die alot.
Top Tier PVPers dont fight eachother much in MMO's because there is not a big enough incentive for them to do so. They want to farm people. These MMO's rely on PVE'ers and low skill PVPers to be farmed and try to draw them into their MMO's with massive incentives in PVP areas.
Until these MMO's figure out a way to allow all skilled ranges of players to enjoy PVP and not just top tier, they will continue to fail.
PVP in MMO's will never work in OWPVP. It relies on PVE'ers to be farmed. In PVE the AI can die 1000's or infinite times and never complain.
But for PVP to have 1000 kills requires someone to be killed 1000 times. If you look at the bell curve, where top tier hunters rarely die, that means low tier have to almost always die "Deer". PVE'ers dont want to be farmed. Those "Deer" will just leave. Then you have the mid range people that are the new farmed tier, who will now have no "Deer" to shoot, and are being farmed by the top, then the Mid range PVPers leave. That leaves the top hunters to fight each other, and they will just quit, because they dont want to die alot.
Top Tier PVPers dont fight eachother much in MMO's because there is not a big enough incentive for them to do so. They want to farm people. These MMO's rely on PVE'ers and low skill PVPers to be farmed and try to draw them into their MMO's with massive incentives in PVP areas.
Until these MMO's figure out a way to allow all skilled ranges of players to enjoy PVP and not just top tier, they will continue to fail.
Complete crap. I personally don't like open-world free for all pvp games with player looting. But it is just plain stupid to go into that sort of a game and then complain about it. And it is absolute ignorant rubbish to claim that these sort of games rely on pve players to "farm".
Games like Albion put good resources in pvp areas to encourage players to fight over them. It is a catalyst for pvp, in a game that has a playerbase that went into the game wanting a full-loot pvp experience.
Again, forced PvP is also rubbish. A game speaks for itself when you HAVE to put incentives in PvP areas just to make a PvP game enjoyable. Why is that? If people enjoy PvP so much, why do you need incentives?
Any MMORPG with PvP has to make a choice. Either PvP is optional, which pisses off PvP players because like every PvE player has explained 1,000,000 times, yet PvP players ignore, that PvP players DO NOT enjoy fighting other PvP players. Is this blatant fact not obvious enough? When you give players the choice to PvP or not to, how is that bad game design? It's not. Forcing people to PvP is bad game design, PERIOD.
What on Earth are you talking about? Your comment has nothing to do with my post.
Just saw this discussion--- I actually thought most of the problems mentioned in this thread about pvp were already solved by games like GW2, DAOC, Return for Reckoning and Champions of Regnum? They all seem to have active, well balanced pvp (some beter than others). GW2 is know to have too much of a zerg element where the pvp groups just ride around in packs sequentially grabbing forts. But RoR and Regnum have all solved that as well?
Just saw this discussion--- I actually thought most of the problems mentioned in this thread about pvp were already solved by games like GW2, DAOC, Return for Reckoning and Champions of Regnum? They all seem to have active, well balanced pvp (some beter than others). GW2 is know to have too much of a zerg element where the pvp groups just ride around in packs sequentially grabbing forts. But RoR and Regnum have all solved that as well?
Well I never played Reckoning or Regnum, but in DAOC you might as well call that a PVE game. I remember running around day in day out in 8 man PVP groups trying to find PVP and the zones were empty. Only thing was stealthers unless you went to the Albion Portal Keep where you could sometimes find people hiding behind the guards. Funny in DAOC the best PVP was the level 24 zone. But the few PVP going on there compared to the PVE areas was just a drop in the bucket.
But I actually like DAOC, wish they would have made DAOC2 instead of warhammer.
PVP in MMO's will never work in OWPVP. It relies on PVE'ers to be farmed. In PVE the AI can die 1000's or infinite times and never complain. ... Until these MMO's figure out a way to allow all skilled ranges of players to enjoy PVP and not just top tier, they will continue to fail.
BDO is especially telling because it has everything an OWPvP phobe should hate yet they don't. Why? Because you're immune from it until you get to level 50 and leveling past 50 is not even automatic - you need to use an item to unlock 50+
That makes me wonder if another aspect of that crowd is never leveling up all that high in the MMOs they play.
99% of PvP in BDO is ganking those who are grinding in your favorite XP/hour grinding spot - and BDO PvE is all about grinding. The motivation for doing PvP is about as lame as it gets in any game yet it mostly gets a free pass when it should be ridiculed by them.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
BDO is especially telling because it has everything an OWPvP phobe should hate yet they don't. Why? Because you're immune from it until you get to level 50 and leveling past 50 is not even automatic - you need to use an item to unlock 50+
That makes me wonder if another aspect of that crowd is never leveling up all that high in the MMOs they play.
99% of PvP in BDO is ganking those who are grinding in your favorite XP/hour grinding spot - and BDO PvE is all about grinding. The motivation for doing PvP is about as lame as it gets in any game yet it mostly gets a free pass when it should be ridiculed by them.
Pure lifeskillers don't go past the forced PVP level like you mentioned. These players only take part in the trading aspects of the game and will not go the high level grind spots anyway since they cannot clear them.
The motivation for doing PVP is not different from any other PVP MMO like Albion or EVE: contesting over resources. Grind spots are gold and XP resources. I find it quite organic.
It is also not full loot, which is one of the reasons it is more appealing than other PVP titles. Many players are risk/loss averse, they are not PVP averse. And this affects both PVP/PVE players and PVP/PVE games (see death loss mechanics )
I consider that a very lame reason to PvP. PvP should have a legitimacy with a solid grounding in game lore exactly the same way PvE does. You kill those players and not these players because you're at war with them or they killed your father so prepare to die.
One thing I always hated that about Archeage is that they went through the trouble of establishing factions as all good PvP games should, but then you could turn around and gank your own faction mates,
I've stated many times in many PvP threads that I see chaotic kill anyone PvP as gang wars or muggings simulators. I want my PvP to be all about nations at war simulatons. I can immerse in the later but the former just seems like gamy shit - you might as well be playing Mortal Kombat not an MMO.
And as you know, you say risk/reward for death penalties or losing your items and I say additional game systems tacked on that make you spend time doing other things to recover rather than the thing you actually want to do.
That has nothing to do with risk it's just a focused vs. ADHD gaming preference
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
PVP in MMO's will never work in OWPVP. It relies on PVE'ers to be farmed. In PVE the AI can die 1000's or infinite times and never complain. ... Until these MMO's figure out a way to allow all skilled ranges of players to enjoy PVP and not just top tier, they will continue to fail.
Are we really calling BDO open world PvP? I can remember being attacked in some out of the way place a couple of times, but mostly it seemed to be a consensual guild tagged system. Doesn't EVE have safe zones?
I am not putting out my stall for open world here, my preference is RvR, just not sure how open world PvP anything is today.
Are we really calling BDO open world PvP? I can remember being attacked in some out of the way place a couple of times, but mostly it seemed to be a consensual guild tagged system. Doesn't EVE have safe zones?
I am not putting out my stall for open world here, my preference is RvR, just not sure how open world PvP anything is today.
There is frequent OWPVP in BDO in popular grind spots to contest them.
EVE has a security system that inhibits PVP significantly in high sec areas but you can still get attacked by suicide gankers in high sec if your cargo is juicy enough or by war targets if you are at war with another corp.
Well that's what I am getting at, is it really OWPvP? In BDO players restrict themselves to few areas where special resources can be plundered, here the mindset of the players seems to be creating a zoned form of PvP. In EVE from what you have said, a security system is reducing the PvP to a minimal activity in high sec.
Now that's always going to happen, players are going to have reasons as to why they PvP in certain areas. But are players not now becoming self regulating, in the past it was almost like a free for all. And the security system you mentioned is saying to me if you can't be self regulating the game will become designed to regulate you.
Have PvP players moved on, is this what they now want? As a RvR fan it seems logical to me that "open world" PvP evolves and is no longer so open world at all. But I am not sure actual OWPvP fans want so much structure, they seemed to favour at the most guilds regulating what was going on.
BDO, I never once got attacked by a player in it. I played it to my heart's content but I also stayed away from areas where the PvP players hung out. I was attacked more times in Archeage.
I am of the opinion that Archeage had a very good idea with the peace and war zones and areas that would gradually become war zones from peace zones. It put the decision to go to an area where you might be killed in your hands. So I didn't mind the PvP at all. I loved that game and enjoyed farming and trading in that game. Unfortunately the labour system is the death of the game for me and their high level equipment grind is very bad for PvP. Some folk were way ahead on the curve and impossible to kill.
Dark Age of Camelot was the game that allowed me to PvP when I wanted and PvE as much as I like. It was unfortunate that the PvE was so dull or I would have stayed. I enjoyed the RvR though it was great fun and I never felt targeted as a healer class. I was well protected in my groups. I don't think I actively killed anyone, left that to my minions aka realm mates.
Initially, DAoC was a very popular game. I personally consider it the best hybrid PvE/PvP game ever designed. I played on the Merlin server and I never had issues finding PvP wars. In fact, 3 way battles were very common and I'm talking 100's of players. I also enjoyed my time in Thidranki too and consider it one of the best battlegrounds I've ever been a part of.
The thing which probably hurt DAoC the most was the Trials of Atlantis expansion and introduction of Artifacts. That is when I quit, till they opened up classic servers.
I agree with you about DAoC 2.0 would have been better than WHOnline. I mean, WHOnline would have worked if they utilized more of what made DAoC great, but nope, they decided to go deeper into PvP and less into PvE. Might be why it failed.
Really? I loved ToA. I thought it was a cool way to expand character abilities beyond just raising the level cap, and the concept of equipment that had to be assembled and leveled was pretty cool.
OWPVP will never work for most of the gaming population. This leaves two options, leave out PvP which alienated those who like PvP, or place PvP in a separate zone like DAoC.
Of course you need incentives otherwise you lose interest quickly. PvP and PvE players need incentives, it is dumb to argue a certain type of play style requires no incentive to engage in the activity.
It is a very disingenuous argument that PvP players should not need any incentives for PvP. Why do you have to punish players for an activity they enjoy? Why do PvE players need incentives?
I loved my ranks in WoW. I had a shaman orc with the rank of Stoneguard in Vanilla WoW. I was so damn proud of all the gear I bought with her rank and walked around with the tabard. When someone asked me I was so happy to tell them where I got the tabard.
You don't have to meanly argue that PvP players deserve no incentives because even if I don't enjoy open world PvP I am not so petty as to argue that they deserve nothing. Players need to have goals , titles and other incentives. The game would be so devoid of things to look forward to if you offer none.
I enjoy PvP, but I refuse to play games that force it, for several reasons, mainly because of gankers. There are a lot of honorable PvPerrs that are just looking for fun, but there are enough of the ganker types in these games that the fun is completely wiped out. Once a player that is not a hardcore PvPer runs into a group of gankers over and over, even though they had a lot of fun to that point, the game is ruined for them and they leave.
I'm sure that they saw the same thing in The New World. People that were having enormous fun were driven away once they got into the forced PvP part of the game, and never came back, even though it was a free test.
If this happened with a free no obligation test, what would happen when they charged money for it?
I like the idea of PvP servers or PvP zones, like Cyrodil. If they go with either of these I am looking forward to this game.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
Comments
I doubt many PVE'ers have issues with more difficult PVE content having higher rewards. In classic WOW right now, world bosses actually have some of the best loot. But either way its PVE.
What I do agree with however, is that you shouldn't require PVPers to RAID PVE dungeons for PVP gear or resources. Just like you shouldn't require PVE'ers to go to PVP zones to get their PVE gear/resources.
If a game is going offer both play-styles then they should have two types of resources and keep the best PVP gear in PVP zones and the resources to make that gear in PVP zones. They should also put the best PVE gear in PVE zones with the resources to make that in those zones.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
So they added "arena's" for the pve player.These will require killing mobs until you find a special key,i think it's called a Spriggen key.
This is basically copying Atlas's treasure bottle idea,swapping a treasure map for a key.
Within this arena mode,i assume instanced,you will have the chance at likely the best loot in the game,so pve can sort of celebrate...or not.
The differences is perks and gem slots which require crafting.Crafting is a main proponent of the gear system,you NEED it.
However the yare going to give those that flag pvp rewards and more xp.Apparently the crafting system never ends,higher tiers,so i assume a never ending gear score system.
I will assume that upgrading the defenses also involves the crafting/harvesting system,again tiers but don't quote me,i think the defense tiers may be locked at tier 3 but my memory is shotty so not certain on a locked tier or maybe defenses can be endless as well.
50 is the maximum so no one guild can load up with 500 players but in reality they can.They can just have several divisions so The Syndicate 1 ,The Syndicate 2,The Syndicate 3 ,you get the idea,each with 50 players.
IMO i find it very lame they are trying to incorporate Wow in to this with gear scores and gem slots,i actually consider it VERY lame.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
But for PVP to have 1000 kills requires someone to be killed 1000 times. If you look at the bell curve, where top tier hunters rarely die, that means low tier have to almost always die "Deer". PVE'ers dont want to be farmed. Those "Deer" will just leave. Then you have the mid range people that are the new farmed tier, who will now have no "Deer" to shoot, and are being farmed by the top, then the Mid range PVPers leave. That leaves the top hunters to fight each other, and they will just quit, because they dont want to die alot.
Top Tier PVPers dont fight eachother much in MMO's because there is not a big enough incentive for them to do so. They want to farm people. These MMO's rely on PVE'ers and low skill PVPers to be farmed and try to draw them into their MMO's with massive incentives in PVP areas.
Until these MMO's figure out a way to allow all skilled ranges of players to enjoy PVP and not just top tier, they will continue to fail.
Games like Albion put good resources in pvp areas to encourage players to fight over them. It is a catalyst for pvp, in a game that has a playerbase that went into the game wanting a full-loot pvp experience.
There is a LOT of hit n miss,like a LOT.
So they claim you can only be attacked if you have your pvp flag up,so pve players will not be ganked as many worry about.
They put a heavy restriction on learning trees to a max of 60 points,again same as Atlas only with fewer points.
rinse and repeat over and over mission runs to declare war.Once war is declared a random faction of the 2 will get to do the siege,the other can ummm go grab a snack lol.So one faction will be doing those missions basically for nothing.
I assume they are giving rewards to the pvp players because of obvious reasons.If some players are busy with sieges they would fall way behind the PVE players in advancement.
So what did they do for PVE players,well more than i assumed.You will need to get a drop "a KEY"that allows you to enter "arenas"where you can get apparently "some of the top loot in the game".Amazon was careful to use the term >>>SOME.
The problem areas in the design?
Once a faction is declared the attacker ,the governor picks the 50 players that get to take part and a handshake for participation to the rest lol.
Will there be enough of these "arenas"to appease PVE players?
How many are going to get angry when they run the missions and their faction gets left out?How many will get angry when they do those mission runs only find out they are not among the 50 picked?
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
IMO 3 is not nearly enough and i stated this like 20 years ago already.
You can have your own individual housing "restrictions on that aspect,i have no idea".You will have to pay taxes to the owner of that zone.
There will obviously be strife within the factions and you can organize to overthrow the leader,how exactly idk.Reason is you might get for example The Syndicate voting in their player to lead the faction then that leader picks the same 50 Syndicate players to take part everytime leaving all others in the faction hung out to dry.
I feel like the way it is structured,you might see a few large real life guilds,like th Syndicate control the game,leaving all others with participation medals.
This is why a game like this needs at minimum 20+ factions but of course they don't want to make gear for 20 different factions.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
UO ptsd I bet.
Well I never played Reckoning or Regnum, but in DAOC you might as well call that a PVE game. I remember running around day in day out in 8 man PVP groups trying to find PVP and the zones were empty. Only thing was stealthers unless you went to the Albion Portal Keep where you could sometimes find people hiding behind the guards. Funny in DAOC the best PVP was the level 24 zone. But the few PVP going on there compared to the PVE areas was just a drop in the bucket.
But I actually like DAOC, wish they would have made DAOC2 instead of warhammer.
That makes me wonder if another aspect of that crowd is never leveling up all that high in the MMOs they play.
99% of PvP in BDO is ganking those who are grinding in your favorite XP/hour grinding spot - and BDO PvE is all about grinding. The motivation for doing PvP is about as lame as it gets in any game yet it mostly gets a free pass when it should be ridiculed by them.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
One thing I always hated that about Archeage is that they went through the trouble of establishing factions as all good PvP games should, but then you could turn around and gank your own faction mates,
I've stated many times in many PvP threads that I see chaotic kill anyone PvP as gang wars or muggings simulators. I want my PvP to be all about nations at war simulatons. I can immerse in the later but the former just seems like gamy shit - you might as well be playing Mortal Kombat not an MMO.
And as you know, you say risk/reward for death penalties or losing your items and I say additional game systems tacked on that make you spend time doing other things to recover rather than the thing you actually want to do.
That has nothing to do with risk it's just a focused vs. ADHD gaming preference
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I am not putting out my stall for open world here, my preference is RvR, just not sure how open world PvP anything is today.
Now that's always going to happen, players are going to have reasons as to why they PvP in certain areas. But are players not now becoming self regulating, in the past it was almost like a free for all. And the security system you mentioned is saying to me if you can't be self regulating the game will become designed to regulate you.
Have PvP players moved on, is this what they now want? As a RvR fan it seems logical to me that "open world" PvP evolves and is no longer so open world at all. But I am not sure actual OWPvP fans want so much structure, they seemed to favour at the most guilds regulating what was going on.
I was attacked more times in Archeage.
I am of the opinion that Archeage had a very good idea with the peace and war zones and areas that would gradually become war zones from peace zones. It put the decision to go to an area where you might be killed in your hands. So I didn't mind the PvP at all. I loved that game and enjoyed farming and trading in that game. Unfortunately the labour system is the death of the game for me and their high level equipment grind is very bad for PvP. Some folk were way ahead on the curve and impossible to kill.
Dark Age of Camelot was the game that allowed me to PvP when I wanted and PvE as much as I like. It was unfortunate that the PvE was so dull or I would have stayed. I enjoyed the RvR though it was great fun and I never felt targeted as a healer class. I was well protected in my groups. I don't think I actively killed anyone, left that to my minions aka realm mates.
It is a very disingenuous argument that PvP players should not need any incentives for PvP. Why do you have to punish players for an activity they enjoy? Why do PvE players need incentives?
I loved my ranks in WoW. I had a shaman orc with the rank of Stoneguard in Vanilla WoW. I was so damn proud of all the gear I bought with her rank and walked around with the tabard. When someone asked me I was so happy to tell them where I got the tabard.
You don't have to meanly argue that PvP players deserve no incentives because even if I don't enjoy open world PvP I am not so petty as to argue that they deserve nothing. Players need to have goals , titles and other incentives. The game would be so devoid of things to look forward to if you offer none.
I'm sure that they saw the same thing in The New World. People that were having enormous fun were driven away once they got into the forced PvP part of the game, and never came back, even though it was a free test.
If this happened with a free no obligation test, what would happen when they charged money for it?
I like the idea of PvP servers or PvP zones, like Cyrodil. If they go with either of these I am looking forward to this game.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!