Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing

189111314

Answers

  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member RarePosts: 1,363
    You can have harsh penalty for dying as a ganker.  But have less punishment for consensual pvp such as faction/war declaration.  
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,357
    Ungood said:
    kitarad said:
    This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
    Well I can only speak for myself and my own experiences with MMO's for the last 30 some odd years on this.

    Originally they did CoExist, back in the days of AOL online game, where they were text based games, Gemstone IV, being a great example of this, where there was a single game world where thousands of players coexisted, that had open world PvP. But keep in mind, in these games, there was a strong drive for realism, like needing to have a sheath to store a dagger, and having belt pouches that you attached to your belt, Etc. Back then, PvP was considered a "Necessary part of Role Play" this is because, well in games like D&D, PvP was in fact allowed, you could attack anyone and anything, including other players. So players were in fact able to settle their differences through violence if that is how they wanted to handle things, and the idea of PvP being a part of role play was in fact started in those Pen&Paper games. However, keep in mind those games were often small groups of reoccuring people, typically the same 4 - 10 people every week for game night. So it was a very controlled group.

    Even later in online games like Gemstone IV and Dragonrealms, while yes, you went from 4 - 10 people now to a world full of 1,000+ people all playing at the same time, it still was a group of people looking for a role playing game. Not just people looking to be trolls and asshats.

    But even way back then, people would use the excuse "I am role playing evil" as a justification to a complete asshat.

    And that got old fast.

    Jump to EQ, and suddenly they removed PvP, and now, the game and game world is far more prolific. Sure they still had their PvP servers for the players that believed that PvP was the golden chalice of role play, but they didn't hold a candle to the populations that the PvE servers held. 

    A new world is born, and Game Developers realized that PvP was not "All That" , that PvP was not needed to make a fun, realistic game world, nor was it needed for Role Play. This of course was not met well by the people that wanted to bully and abuse other players, and the name calling like "carebear" and the like started, but PvE thrived, because those players didn't want to deal with the griefing asshats.

    However, some players enjoyed the thrill and challenge of facing other players, this has held true in many games over time, going right back to games like chess, where the best challenge was another player.

    So some developers opted to make games where the PvP was important, it was not a role play thing, but a important part of the game, and the game world changed again, Arena games, Battle Royals, Realms vs Realms, these games where PvP was the game were born. And the players that enjoyed PvP flocked to those games and if the numbers tell us anything, they are loving the hell out of that.

    These two groups are more than happy to leave each other to their own games, as they are enjoying what they have.

    Case in point, I have never in my life while playing an Arena game, heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"

    I have also, in my entire like of playing PvE games heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"

    Which leaves us with one small subset of gamer that was left out in the cold. The griefing asshat, that wanted to put a bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later, these players that wanted to use PvP to bully, abuse, and harass other players. 

    And even then, there are games that have been made just for them, often dubbed as survival games, where the whole idea is to bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later

    Funny how these players don't want to play a game designed for others just like them.. maybe because.. NO ONE wants to take a bullet into the Ass while they are Harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later ?

    So that is kind of where we are right now in the game development era.

    Gee, well, why can't we design a game that makes it more problematic or difficult for people to behave like bullies or a**shats?  Why can't we make a PVP/PVE game that discourages players from bullying, abusing, and stalking/harassing other players?

    Note:  Role-Playing a criminal, a villain, or an enemy soldier/combatant in an MMORPG does not automatically equate to being a bully, abuser, stalker, harasser, or griefer.

    Anyway, why is someone trying to harvest a flower to make some mint tea later in a dangerous wilderness all by him or herself?  Did you know that, even in modern times, it can be dangerous to walk in the wilderness alone and unarmed?  It can even still be dangerous if a person isn't alone or unarmed.  Wild animals can be dangerous sometimes.  There can also be crazy or evil people lurking in wilderness or remote areas. 

    ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!  DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS! 




    If there is a separation where you can choose to enter the pvp or not to enter the pvp area, then it is even considered "OPEN PVP" anymore? Not by definition.  If you have a location for these casuals or stricly pve players to enjoy their time without requiring contact to PVP then it's not covered in this post.
    You mean like how GW2, has their PvE Content, and they have their sPvP Content, and their WvW Content. Each has their own maps, rewards, akin to being 3 seperate games all under one umbrella of a single MMO. 

    This exists, and arguably about the best way to have those exist all in the same game.

    However, GW2 is still plagued by the same thing that tends to affect all PvP in MMO's and that is balance issues, so much so that some abilities have unique properties in each game move, gear is done differently in some game modes, even leveling is handled differently.. etc, etc. 
    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.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,357
    Ungood said:
    kitarad said:
    This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
    Well I can only speak for myself and my own experiences with MMO's for the last 30 some odd years on this.

    Originally they did CoExist, back in the days of AOL online game, where they were text based games, Gemstone IV, being a great example of this, where there was a single game world where thousands of players coexisted, that had open world PvP. But keep in mind, in these games, there was a strong drive for realism, like needing to have a sheath to store a dagger, and having belt pouches that you attached to your belt, Etc. Back then, PvP was considered a "Necessary part of Role Play" this is because, well in games like D&D, PvP was in fact allowed, you could attack anyone and anything, including other players. So players were in fact able to settle their differences through violence if that is how they wanted to handle things, and the idea of PvP being a part of role play was in fact started in those Pen&Paper games. However, keep in mind those games were often small groups of reoccuring people, typically the same 4 - 10 people every week for game night. So it was a very controlled group.

    Even later in online games like Gemstone IV and Dragonrealms, while yes, you went from 4 - 10 people now to a world full of 1,000+ people all playing at the same time, it still was a group of people looking for a role playing game. Not just people looking to be trolls and asshats.

    But even way back then, people would use the excuse "I am role playing evil" as a justification to a complete asshat.

    And that got old fast.

    Jump to EQ, and suddenly they removed PvP, and now, the game and game world is far more prolific. Sure they still had their PvP servers for the players that believed that PvP was the golden chalice of role play, but they didn't hold a candle to the populations that the PvE servers held. 

    A new world is born, and Game Developers realized that PvP was not "All That" , that PvP was not needed to make a fun, realistic game world, nor was it needed for Role Play. This of course was not met well by the people that wanted to bully and abuse other players, and the name calling like "carebear" and the like started, but PvE thrived, because those players didn't want to deal with the griefing asshats.

    However, some players enjoyed the thrill and challenge of facing other players, this has held true in many games over time, going right back to games like chess, where the best challenge was another player.

    So some developers opted to make games where the PvP was important, it was not a role play thing, but a important part of the game, and the game world changed again, Arena games, Battle Royals, Realms vs Realms, these games where PvP was the game were born. And the players that enjoyed PvP flocked to those games and if the numbers tell us anything, they are loving the hell out of that.

    These two groups are more than happy to leave each other to their own games, as they are enjoying what they have.

    Case in point, I have never in my life while playing an Arena game, heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"

    I have also, in my entire like of playing PvE games heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"

    Which leaves us with one small subset of gamer that was left out in the cold. The griefing asshat, that wanted to put a bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later, these players that wanted to use PvP to bully, abuse, and harass other players. 

    And even then, there are games that have been made just for them, often dubbed as survival games, where the whole idea is to bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later

    Funny how these players don't want to play a game designed for others just like them.. maybe because.. NO ONE wants to take a bullet into the Ass while they are Harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later ?

    So that is kind of where we are right now in the game development era.

    Gee, well, why can't we design a game that makes it more problematic or difficult for people to behave like bullies or a**shats?  Why can't we make a PVP/PVE game that discourages players from bullying, abusing, and stalking/harassing other players?

    Note:  Role-Playing a criminal, a villain, or an enemy soldier/combatant in an MMORPG does not automatically equate to being a bully, abuser, stalker, harasser, or griefer.

    Anyway, why is someone trying to harvest a flower to make some mint tea later in a dangerous wilderness all by him or herself?  Did you know that, even in modern times, it can be dangerous to walk in the wilderness alone and unarmed?  It can even still be dangerous if a person isn't alone or unarmed.  Wild animals can be dangerous sometimes.  There can also be crazy or evil people lurking in wilderness or remote areas. 

    ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!  DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS! 




    Better Question: What is with the obsession with enabling sociopaths in a game world, when in the real world we do all we can to get rid of them.

    Keep in mind, in Medieval Europe the punishment for Theft was death. I mean, movies like "Pirates of Caribbean" are funny and all, but did you notice, when they got caught, they were all going to be hung. One shot at that, Perma Death game mode.

    I mean think about it, Real life does not want these people, why would anyone want them in their game?
    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.
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,777
    Ungood said:

    Better Question: What is with the obsession with enabling sociopaths in a game world, when in the real world we do all we can to get rid of them.

    Keep in mind, in Medieval Europe the punishment for Theft was death. I mean, movies like "Pirates of Caribbean" are funny and all, but did you notice, when they got caught, they were all going to be hung. One shot at that, Perma Death game mode.

    I mean think about it, Real life does not want these people, why would anyone want them in their game?
    I think tying the real world into the game mechanics of a video game isn't always going to work.

    Let's dial it back. There are games that are built so players can attack people whenever and for the most part wherever they want.

    That's the game. the developers didn't sit there and say "wow, we have a lot of sociopaths out there who aren't being represented, we should make games for them."

    The developers like the freedom of martial combat everywhere, like that it creates political ramifications within the game, and like a game that gets rid of rails.

    For some reason there is a contingent of players who think that every game should cater to every person. In an ideal world that would be great but that's not how things work. 

    There could be financial reasons why developers don't have multiple rulesets, it could be because they think it will water down the playerbase or it could be because "they just don't want to create those experiences."

    While not an mmorpg, Dark Souls games don't have difficulty settings. They made what they wanted and if people want to play the games they have to figure out how. Otherwise move on.

    And while there are people out there with HUGE issues, they are just an unfortunate byproduct of games that allow such freedom.

    Developres didn't make these games so that they could then "punish" their players. They made these games so that there players can have this type of game play experience. They might put in ways to dissuade them from player killing "everyone" but they want that to be a choice. Not an actual "we'll get you for doing what we put in the game!"
    ChildoftheShadows
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,357
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:

    Better Question: What is with the obsession with enabling sociopaths in a game world, when in the real world we do all we can to get rid of them.

    Keep in mind, in Medieval Europe the punishment for Theft was death. I mean, movies like "Pirates of Caribbean" are funny and all, but did you notice, when they got caught, they were all going to be hung. One shot at that, Perma Death game mode.

    I mean think about it, Real life does not want these people, why would anyone want them in their game?
    I think tying the real world into the game mechanics of a video game isn't always going to work.

    Let's dial it back. There are games that are built so players can attack people whenever and for the most part wherever they want.

    That's the game. the developers didn't sit there and say "wow, we have a lot of sociopaths out there who aren't being represented, we should make games for them."

    The developers like the freedom of martial combat everywhere, like that it creates political ramifications within the game, and like a game that gets rid of rails.

    For some reason there is a contingent of players who think that every game should cater to every person. In an ideal world that would be great but that's not how things work. 

    There could be financial reasons why developers don't have multiple rulesets, it could be because they think it will water down the playerbase or it could be because "they just don't want to create those experiences."

    While not an mmorpg, Dark Souls games don't have difficulty settings. They made what they wanted and if people want to play the games they have to figure out how. Otherwise move on.

    And while there are people out there with HUGE issues, they are just an unfortunate byproduct of games that allow such freedom.

    Developres didn't make these games so that they could then "punish" their players. They made these games so that there players can have this type of game play experience. They might put in ways to dissuade them from player killing "everyone" but they want that to be a choice. Not an actual "we'll get you for doing what we put in the game!"
    Which brings us back to the OP's Question and the Answer being: No.
    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.
  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 7,317
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:

    Better Question: What is with the obsession with enabling sociopaths in a game world, when in the real world we do all we can to get rid of them.

    Keep in mind, in Medieval Europe the punishment for Theft was death. I mean, movies like "Pirates of Caribbean" are funny and all, but did you notice, when they got caught, they were all going to be hung. One shot at that, Perma Death game mode.

    I mean think about it, Real life does not want these people, why would anyone want them in their game?
    I think tying the real world into the game mechanics of a video game isn't always going to work.

    Let's dial it back. There are games that are built so players can attack people whenever and for the most part wherever they want.

    That's the game. the developers didn't sit there and say "wow, we have a lot of sociopaths out there who aren't being represented, we should make games for them."

    The developers like the freedom of martial combat everywhere, like that it creates political ramifications within the game, and like a game that gets rid of rails.

    For some reason there is a contingent of players who think that every game should cater to every person. In an ideal world that would be great but that's not how things work. 

    There could be financial reasons why developers don't have multiple rulesets, it could be because they think it will water down the playerbase or it could be because "they just don't want to create those experiences."

    While not an mmorpg, Dark Souls games don't have difficulty settings. They made what they wanted and if people want to play the games they have to figure out how. Otherwise move on.

    And while there are people out there with HUGE issues, they are just an unfortunate byproduct of games that allow such freedom.

    Developres didn't make these games so that they could then "punish" their players. They made these games so that there players can have this type of game play experience. They might put in ways to dissuade them from player killing "everyone" but they want that to be a choice. Not an actual "we'll get you for doing what we put in the game!"
    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    Ungood
    Chamber of Chains
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,931
    Ungood said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:

    Better Question: What is with the obsession with enabling sociopaths in a game world, when in the real world we do all we can to get rid of them.

    Keep in mind, in Medieval Europe the punishment for Theft was death. I mean, movies like "Pirates of Caribbean" are funny and all, but did you notice, when they got caught, they were all going to be hung. One shot at that, Perma Death game mode.

    I mean think about it, Real life does not want these people, why would anyone want them in their game?
    I think tying the real world into the game mechanics of a video game isn't always going to work.

    Let's dial it back. There are games that are built so players can attack people whenever and for the most part wherever they want.

    That's the game. the developers didn't sit there and say "wow, we have a lot of sociopaths out there who aren't being represented, we should make games for them."

    The developers like the freedom of martial combat everywhere, like that it creates political ramifications within the game, and like a game that gets rid of rails.

    For some reason there is a contingent of players who think that every game should cater to every person. In an ideal world that would be great but that's not how things work. 

    There could be financial reasons why developers don't have multiple rulesets, it could be because they think it will water down the playerbase or it could be because "they just don't want to create those experiences."

    While not an mmorpg, Dark Souls games don't have difficulty settings. They made what they wanted and if people want to play the games they have to figure out how. Otherwise move on.

    And while there are people out there with HUGE issues, they are just an unfortunate byproduct of games that allow such freedom.

    Developres didn't make these games so that they could then "punish" their players. They made these games so that there players can have this type of game play experience. They might put in ways to dissuade them from player killing "everyone" but they want that to be a choice. Not an actual "we'll get you for doing what we put in the game!"
    Which brings us back to the OP's Question and the Answer being: No.
    Unless you don’t want ALL of them. The developers would just need to accept that they’re only going to get some pve players interested, but also will piss off and lose some if the pvp players as well.
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,240
    edited April 30
    Direct answer to OP’s question -

    YES if the players who buy the game don’t mind dying.
    Sovrath
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,357
    bcbully said:
    Direct answer to OP’s question -

    YES if the players who buy the game don’t mind dying getting killed by other players.
    Corrected in BOLD, what you said, and that makes a difference, it also tends to exclude PvE and Casual players.

    So.. Mainly the answer remains: No. or more exactly.. Not going to happen.
    AlBQuirky
    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.
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,777
    edited April 30
    cheyane said:

    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    Um great, why do you assume they won't be able to get  a "minimum sustainable population: for the game to work.

    So what your saying is that every pve mmorpg must add pvp because they have to have that "minimum population?" I doubt it.

    More correctly, every game developer needs to understand their audience and what type of populationj they can expect, and then how they will lose that population over time, and must design accordingly with a correct budget.


  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 7,317
    edited April 30
    Sovrath said:
    cheyane said:

    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    Um great, why do you assume they won't be able to get  a "minimum sustainable population: for the game to work.

    So what your saying is that every pve mmorpg must add pvp because they have to have that "minimum population?" I doubt it.

    More correctly, every game developer needs to understand their audience and what type of populationj they can expect, and then how they will lose that population over time, and must design accordingly with a correct budget.


    PvE fights against the content created by the game. You can even solo it. Lots do. For PvP you need other players. They have to engage otherwise you don't have enough people to do the PvP content. What happens in a BG when the other side does not turn up?

    People even solo raids in WoW I mean certain high levels do it it is even a meta. So even raids can be soloed which isn't much fun but if another player doesn't play your PvP game there is no PvP.

    What I mean is that you need some type of sustainable population for the world PvP like when the whole Alliance left the server in WoW. Their world PvP died.
    Ungood
    Chamber of Chains
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,242
    cheyane said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:

    Better Question: What is with the obsession with enabling sociopaths in a game world, when in the real world we do all we can to get rid of them.

    Keep in mind, in Medieval Europe the punishment for Theft was death. I mean, movies like "Pirates of Caribbean" are funny and all, but did you notice, when they got caught, they were all going to be hung. One shot at that, Perma Death game mode.

    I mean think about it, Real life does not want these people, why would anyone want them in their game?
    I think tying the real world into the game mechanics of a video game isn't always going to work.

    Let's dial it back. There are games that are built so players can attack people whenever and for the most part wherever they want.

    That's the game. the developers didn't sit there and say "wow, we have a lot of sociopaths out there who aren't being represented, we should make games for them."

    The developers like the freedom of martial combat everywhere, like that it creates political ramifications within the game, and like a game that gets rid of rails.

    For some reason there is a contingent of players who think that every game should cater to every person. In an ideal world that would be great but that's not how things work. 

    There could be financial reasons why developers don't have multiple rulesets, it could be because they think it will water down the playerbase or it could be because "they just don't want to create those experiences."

    While not an mmorpg, Dark Souls games don't have difficulty settings. They made what they wanted and if people want to play the games they have to figure out how. Otherwise move on.

    And while there are people out there with HUGE issues, they are just an unfortunate byproduct of games that allow such freedom.

    Developres didn't make these games so that they could then "punish" their players. They made these games so that there players can have this type of game play experience. They might put in ways to dissuade them from player killing "everyone" but they want that to be a choice. Not an actual "we'll get you for doing what we put in the game!"
    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    You are making the wrong assumption. 

    What some of us are after is the middle ground. 
    PKers who want to just roll all other players and take their loot will not like it. 
    PvEers who want nothing to do with PvP at all will not like it. 

    But all the gamers in the middle of that will have another option.
    "PvP with meaning."
    No Gank Fest.
    A more worldly simulation that makes sense.
    RP opportunities in that sensical world. 
    Enhanced social interactions based on mutual interests. 
    PvP in it's place, but not separated from the rest of the game. 

    If you look at Arena games, it's clear that there are a hell of a lot more players interested in "PvP with meaning" than there are who are interested in WOPvP. 
    That's what's missing in MMORPGs, that "meaning" within the world context, it's either a gank fest or separated out. 
    DAoC is the only MMORPG I'm aware of that added meaning to their PvP in the world wide context, yet they also had separated PvP. That was good, but not the ultimate way of doing it. Which is to find a way to mix it all together, without having that gank fest thing included. 
    Ancient_Exile

    Once upon a time....

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,777
    cheyane said:
    Sovrath said:
    cheyane said:

    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    Um great, why do you assume they won't be able to get  a "minimum sustainable population: for the game to work.

    So what your saying is that every pve mmorpg must add pvp because they have to have that "minimum population?" I doubt it.

    More correctly, every game developer needs to understand their audience and what type of populationj they can expect, and then how they will lose that population over time, and must design accordingly with a correct budget.


    PvE fights against the content created by the game. You can even solo it. Lots do. For PvP you need other players. They have to engage otherwise you don't have enough people to do the PvP content. What happens in a BG when the other side does not turn up?

    People even solo raids in WoW I mean certain high levels do it it is even a meta. So even raids can be soloed which isn't much fun but if another player doesn't play your PvP game there is no PvP.

    What I mean is that you need some type of sustainable population for the world PvP like when the whole Alliance left the server in WoW. Their world PvP died.
    I can't speak to pvp in World of Warcraft. I can say that, surprisingly, Lineage 2 has seemingly a very healthy population. It's not an engaging pve experience I can tell you that.

    I do know that Dark Age of Camelot still has a very active pvp scene.

    PvP games that are good will get people. 

    People seeking a certain type of game will find those games. 


  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,357
    Sovrath said:
    cheyane said:

    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    Um great, why do you assume they won't be able to get  a "minimum sustainable population: for the game to work.

    So what your saying is that every pve mmorpg must add pvp because they have to have that "minimum population?" I doubt it.

    More correctly, every game developer needs to understand their audience and what type of populationj they can expect, and then how they will lose that population over time, and must design accordingly with a correct budget.


    While I have always been a champion of designing for an audience, you know this from my many posts, that I believe a Developer needs to know who they are making their game for, and design just for them, be damned anyone else.

    That also means they may have a very small well of players to pull from, but if they do it right, they have a very loyal player base for the game. Which is really what sustains MMO's, is that loyal base.

    Anyway with that said, many Modern MMO's don't need a minimum population so much as a just a feeling of having a population, that sense there are other people around you and with you as you play.  But that is not a hard fixed point. 

    Some games do in fact have a threshold population point, where they designed points in their game that require a population count to make happen, like for example, GW2, with some of it's world bosses, which require a sizeable force to complete, and this is not just raw population, but enough continual population that likes to do that content to keep it active. This was one of the reasons why GW2 went to Mega-Server system, because their populations tanked to the point that they didn't have enough people on each server to make those events possible, and now, it stands where if you play on "Off times" you won't get enough people to do the challenging World Bosses.

    So depending on the game design and how it is built, there can be population thresholds.

    So what does this have to do with PvP. Well, on some PvP maps in GW2, there are nowhere near enough players to move some of the bigger events along, so, the PvP players will try to pull in and attract the PvE players into the game mode to bolster their numbers, just like PvE players will try to pull PvP players into doing World Bosses and Raids and other PvE content.

    This becomes a huge issue with Realms vs Realms games, where if one realm due to just being unpopular or whatever, loses enough players they simply have no chance to be competitive, which kills the game for those players and more leave, as that realm died, well, without a fight, PvP becomes boring, so even if you are the dominant realm, unless the other side can challenge you, the game is simply no fun.

    This happened in DAoC, where Albion zerg rolled the other realms, to the point there was no reason to even bother to fight anymore. Now sure how that game is today, but when I left Hibernia on my server, (which I have long since forgotten) had all but given up even bothering to do any of the Siege battles, as no matter what we did, were going to get overrun by either Albion or Midgard.

    Anyway, all that aside. The reality is, a AAA MMO is expensive, not only to make but to maintain, and this requires money. This is why MMO's try to check-box as much as they can to get the maximum amount of players so they have potential to make the most amount of money, the balance act is putting them into the game in such a way that they don't end up sucking harder than a Dyson™ that got plugged into the 50amp outlet by mistake.

    But yes, the goal is to throw a huge a net as possible to get as many people into the game as possible, to keep the funds coming in, to keep the game going and even growing. If that threshold of income drops too low, then things like layoffs and such happen.

    But, then again.. I think I just wasted a huge chunk of time saying something we both already know.
    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.
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,240
    cheyane said:
    Sovrath said:
    cheyane said:

    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    Um great, why do you assume they won't be able to get  a "minimum sustainable population: for the game to work.

    So what your saying is that every pve mmorpg must add pvp because they have to have that "minimum population?" I doubt it.

    More correctly, every game developer needs to understand their audience and what type of populationj they can expect, and then how they will lose that population over time, and must design accordingly with a correct budget.


    PvE fights against the content created by the game. You can even solo it. Lots do. For PvP you need other players. They have to engage otherwise you don't have enough people to do the PvP content. What happens in a BG when the other side does not turn up?

    People even solo raids in WoW I mean certain high levels do it it is even a meta. So even raids can be soloed which isn't much fun but if another player doesn't play your PvP game there is no PvP.

    What I mean is that you need some type of sustainable population for the world PvP like when the whole Alliance left the server in WoW. Their world PvP died.
    WoW and WoW battlegrounds are such a terrible example off mmorpg pvp. Recommendation should not be used based on that model.

    It’s such a dame that many have never seen anything else but that type. 
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,357
    cheyane said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:

    Better Question: What is with the obsession with enabling sociopaths in a game world, when in the real world we do all we can to get rid of them.

    Keep in mind, in Medieval Europe the punishment for Theft was death. I mean, movies like "Pirates of Caribbean" are funny and all, but did you notice, when they got caught, they were all going to be hung. One shot at that, Perma Death game mode.

    I mean think about it, Real life does not want these people, why would anyone want them in their game?
    I think tying the real world into the game mechanics of a video game isn't always going to work.

    Let's dial it back. There are games that are built so players can attack people whenever and for the most part wherever they want.

    That's the game. the developers didn't sit there and say "wow, we have a lot of sociopaths out there who aren't being represented, we should make games for them."

    The developers like the freedom of martial combat everywhere, like that it creates political ramifications within the game, and like a game that gets rid of rails.

    For some reason there is a contingent of players who think that every game should cater to every person. In an ideal world that would be great but that's not how things work. 

    There could be financial reasons why developers don't have multiple rulesets, it could be because they think it will water down the playerbase or it could be because "they just don't want to create those experiences."

    While not an mmorpg, Dark Souls games don't have difficulty settings. They made what they wanted and if people want to play the games they have to figure out how. Otherwise move on.

    And while there are people out there with HUGE issues, they are just an unfortunate byproduct of games that allow such freedom.

    Developres didn't make these games so that they could then "punish" their players. They made these games so that there players can have this type of game play experience. They might put in ways to dissuade them from player killing "everyone" but they want that to be a choice. Not an actual "we'll get you for doing what we put in the game!"
    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    You are making the wrong assumption. 

    What some of us are after is the middle ground. 
    PKers who want to just roll all other players and take their loot will not like it. 
    PvEers who want nothing to do with PvP at all will not like it. 

    But all the gamers in the middle of that will have another option.
    "PvP with meaning."
    No Gank Fest.
    A more worldly simulation that makes sense.
    RP opportunities in that sensical world. 
    Enhanced social interactions based on mutual interests. 
    PvP in it's place, but not separated from the rest of the game. 

    If you look at Arena games, it's clear that there are a hell of a lot more players interested in "PvP with meaning" than there are who are interested in WOPvP. 
    That's what's missing in MMORPGs, that "meaning" within the world context, it's either a gank fest or separated out. 
    DAoC is the only MMORPG I'm aware of that added meaning to their PvP in the world wide context, yet they also had separated PvP. That was good, but not the ultimate way of doing it. Which is to find a way to mix it all together, without having that gank fest thing included. 
    You can be after that, but that has nothing to do with the OP, or the OP's question.

    If you want to Theorycraft your Ideal Open World PvP game, start a new topic on that, but also keep in mind, you might have a very narrow band of players that would even think such a game would be remotely intriguing. 

    However this topic was, "Can Sandbox PvP MMO's be accessible for Both PvE and Casual Audiences/ AKA: Solving the Griefing. 

    The long and short answer is: No.

    But if you want to discuss your ideal game, my advice is go start a thread and do that, a opposed to having your amazing perfect ideal game world concept getting buried down on page 7 in a 11+ Page thread, shoved in between disagreements. 

    There are plenty of topics were people talk about what would be your ideal game.. feel free to start a new one, just my advice, I mean, if you want to continue to bicker here, yah do that too.

    Amaranthar
    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.
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,931
    cheyane said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:

    Better Question: What is with the obsession with enabling sociopaths in a game world, when in the real world we do all we can to get rid of them.

    Keep in mind, in Medieval Europe the punishment for Theft was death. I mean, movies like "Pirates of Caribbean" are funny and all, but did you notice, when they got caught, they were all going to be hung. One shot at that, Perma Death game mode.

    I mean think about it, Real life does not want these people, why would anyone want them in their game?
    I think tying the real world into the game mechanics of a video game isn't always going to work.

    Let's dial it back. There are games that are built so players can attack people whenever and for the most part wherever they want.

    That's the game. the developers didn't sit there and say "wow, we have a lot of sociopaths out there who aren't being represented, we should make games for them."

    The developers like the freedom of martial combat everywhere, like that it creates political ramifications within the game, and like a game that gets rid of rails.

    For some reason there is a contingent of players who think that every game should cater to every person. In an ideal world that would be great but that's not how things work. 

    There could be financial reasons why developers don't have multiple rulesets, it could be because they think it will water down the playerbase or it could be because "they just don't want to create those experiences."

    While not an mmorpg, Dark Souls games don't have difficulty settings. They made what they wanted and if people want to play the games they have to figure out how. Otherwise move on.

    And while there are people out there with HUGE issues, they are just an unfortunate byproduct of games that allow such freedom.

    Developres didn't make these games so that they could then "punish" their players. They made these games so that there players can have this type of game play experience. They might put in ways to dissuade them from player killing "everyone" but they want that to be a choice. Not an actual "we'll get you for doing what we put in the game!"
    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    You are making the wrong assumption. 

    What some of us are after is the middle ground. 
    PKers who want to just roll all other players and take their loot will not like it. 
    PvEers who want nothing to do with PvP at all will not like it. 

    But all the gamers in the middle of that will have another option.
    "PvP with meaning."
    No Gank Fest.
    A more worldly simulation that makes sense.
    RP opportunities in that sensical world. 
    Enhanced social interactions based on mutual interests. 
    PvP in it's place, but not separated from the rest of the game. 

    If you look at Arena games, it's clear that there are a hell of a lot more players interested in "PvP with meaning" than there are who are interested in WOPvP. 
    That's what's missing in MMORPGs, that "meaning" within the world context, it's either a gank fest or separated out. 
    DAoC is the only MMORPG I'm aware of that added meaning to their PvP in the world wide context, yet they also had separated PvP. That was good, but not the ultimate way of doing it. Which is to find a way to mix it all together, without having that gank fest thing included. 
    What does this have to do with the OP? I think people are confusing these threads. 
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,242
    cheyane said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:

    Better Question: What is with the obsession with enabling sociopaths in a game world, when in the real world we do all we can to get rid of them.

    Keep in mind, in Medieval Europe the punishment for Theft was death. I mean, movies like "Pirates of Caribbean" are funny and all, but did you notice, when they got caught, they were all going to be hung. One shot at that, Perma Death game mode.

    I mean think about it, Real life does not want these people, why would anyone want them in their game?
    I think tying the real world into the game mechanics of a video game isn't always going to work.

    Let's dial it back. There are games that are built so players can attack people whenever and for the most part wherever they want.

    That's the game. the developers didn't sit there and say "wow, we have a lot of sociopaths out there who aren't being represented, we should make games for them."

    The developers like the freedom of martial combat everywhere, like that it creates political ramifications within the game, and like a game that gets rid of rails.

    For some reason there is a contingent of players who think that every game should cater to every person. In an ideal world that would be great but that's not how things work. 

    There could be financial reasons why developers don't have multiple rulesets, it could be because they think it will water down the playerbase or it could be because "they just don't want to create those experiences."

    While not an mmorpg, Dark Souls games don't have difficulty settings. They made what they wanted and if people want to play the games they have to figure out how. Otherwise move on.

    And while there are people out there with HUGE issues, they are just an unfortunate byproduct of games that allow such freedom.

    Developres didn't make these games so that they could then "punish" their players. They made these games so that there players can have this type of game play experience. They might put in ways to dissuade them from player killing "everyone" but they want that to be a choice. Not an actual "we'll get you for doing what we put in the game!"
    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    You are making the wrong assumption. 

    What some of us are after is the middle ground. 
    PKers who want to just roll all other players and take their loot will not like it. 
    PvEers who want nothing to do with PvP at all will not like it. 

    But all the gamers in the middle of that will have another option.
    "PvP with meaning."
    No Gank Fest.
    A more worldly simulation that makes sense.
    RP opportunities in that sensical world. 
    Enhanced social interactions based on mutual interests. 
    PvP in it's place, but not separated from the rest of the game. 

    If you look at Arena games, it's clear that there are a hell of a lot more players interested in "PvP with meaning" than there are who are interested in WOPvP. 
    That's what's missing in MMORPGs, that "meaning" within the world context, it's either a gank fest or separated out. 
    DAoC is the only MMORPG I'm aware of that added meaning to their PvP in the world wide context, yet they also had separated PvP. That was good, but not the ultimate way of doing it. Which is to find a way to mix it all together, without having that gank fest thing included. 
    What does this have to do with the OP? I think people are confusing these threads. 
    Do I have the state the obvious, that I was responding to another post? 
    You guys need to get off your high horses. 
    You are not the enforcers here. 

    But if you want an answer to your demands, then I can oblige. 
    If there were so many gamers playing those arena games, but they weren't playing the totally meaningless PvP in MMORPGs (at least for all but a very few), and if they did play MMORPGs, they played them for what? 
    Yes, the PvE. 
    I can't attest to how many did that no matter how reasonable it is to assume it, and you can't attest to how many didn't based on an unreasonable assumption, but that's still something to consider. 
    And so, it does fit here. 


    Once upon a time....

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited April 30
    PVE RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS - No, we cannot solve griefing in a Faction-based OWPVP/PVE Sandbox MMORPG.  It's impossible.  There's no effective way we can restrict/limit the ability of griefers/stalkers/overly abusive players from ruining the game for everyone else.  There's no way to create safeguards that will protect players who mostly just want to participate in PVE or just want to focus on PVE during a particular gaming session.  Open competition in MMORPGs is bad.  Any form of competition must be very limited in scope and should have no real effect on the game world or our characters.

    PVP RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS - No, you cannot put any restrictions on PVP in a Faction-based OWPVP/PVE Sandbox MMORPG.  Having logical/rational potential consequences for choices and actions in a Role-Playing Game = punishing players.  Because PVPers want to play in a totally lawless/chaotic game world where the only law is the Law of the Jungle.  The strong survive and prey on the weak.  The weak must become strong (if they can manage it while getting mercilessly ganked most of the time) or remain eternal victims. 

    Both of these Cults also seem to believe that Final Fantasy/Dragon Warrior/Everquest/World of Warcraft-style practically unlimited Vertical Character Level/Gear/Combat Power progression is only type of progression that should be used in MMORPGs.  (Note:  The progression is only temporarily limited until the next expansion is released.)

    However, what I have seen in the vast majority of MMORPGs that have OWPVP, or even just PVP, is that the competition is really more of a Race.  Who can get to higher or max level the fastest?  Who can acquire BIS gear before other players?  Because Character Level and Gear Level usually matter more than skill.  The most skilled players might not have a chance if they aren't high enough level or don't have good enough gear.  No matter how well they play.  Then throw in P2W Cash Shops, allow Whales to pay to crush other players, and PVP gets really screwed up.

    So, I do not believe that FF/DW/EQ/WoW-style progression will ever work for PVP in an MMORPG.  And, so we must have an alternative style of progression.  I have already described this alternative style of progression.  On Page One of this thread (my 2nd post).

    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • g0dl355g0dl355 Member UncommonPosts: 325
    Conan exiles has pve servers where pvp is allowed a couple hours a night only but noone can damage your base. Just play that.
    Ancient_Exile

    image
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,931
    cheyane said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:

    Better Question: What is with the obsession with enabling sociopaths in a game world, when in the real world we do all we can to get rid of them.

    Keep in mind, in Medieval Europe the punishment for Theft was death. I mean, movies like "Pirates of Caribbean" are funny and all, but did you notice, when they got caught, they were all going to be hung. One shot at that, Perma Death game mode.

    I mean think about it, Real life does not want these people, why would anyone want them in their game?
    I think tying the real world into the game mechanics of a video game isn't always going to work.

    Let's dial it back. There are games that are built so players can attack people whenever and for the most part wherever they want.

    That's the game. the developers didn't sit there and say "wow, we have a lot of sociopaths out there who aren't being represented, we should make games for them."

    The developers like the freedom of martial combat everywhere, like that it creates political ramifications within the game, and like a game that gets rid of rails.

    For some reason there is a contingent of players who think that every game should cater to every person. In an ideal world that would be great but that's not how things work. 

    There could be financial reasons why developers don't have multiple rulesets, it could be because they think it will water down the playerbase or it could be because "they just don't want to create those experiences."

    While not an mmorpg, Dark Souls games don't have difficulty settings. They made what they wanted and if people want to play the games they have to figure out how. Otherwise move on.

    And while there are people out there with HUGE issues, they are just an unfortunate byproduct of games that allow such freedom.

    Developres didn't make these games so that they could then "punish" their players. They made these games so that there players can have this type of game play experience. They might put in ways to dissuade them from player killing "everyone" but they want that to be a choice. Not an actual "we'll get you for doing what we put in the game!"
    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    You are making the wrong assumption. 

    What some of us are after is the middle ground. 
    PKers who want to just roll all other players and take their loot will not like it. 
    PvEers who want nothing to do with PvP at all will not like it. 

    But all the gamers in the middle of that will have another option.
    "PvP with meaning."
    No Gank Fest.
    A more worldly simulation that makes sense.
    RP opportunities in that sensical world. 
    Enhanced social interactions based on mutual interests. 
    PvP in it's place, but not separated from the rest of the game. 

    If you look at Arena games, it's clear that there are a hell of a lot more players interested in "PvP with meaning" than there are who are interested in WOPvP. 
    That's what's missing in MMORPGs, that "meaning" within the world context, it's either a gank fest or separated out. 
    DAoC is the only MMORPG I'm aware of that added meaning to their PvP in the world wide context, yet they also had separated PvP. That was good, but not the ultimate way of doing it. Which is to find a way to mix it all together, without having that gank fest thing included. 
    What does this have to do with the OP? I think people are confusing these threads. 
    Do I have the state the obvious, that I was responding to another post? 
    You guys need to get off your high horses. 
    You are not the enforcers here. 

    But if you want an answer to your demands, then I can oblige. 
    If there were so many gamers playing those arena games, but they weren't playing the totally meaningless PvP in MMORPGs (at least for all but a very few), and if they did play MMORPGs, they played them for what? 
    Yes, the PvE. 
    I can't attest to how many did that no matter how reasonable it is to assume it, and you can't attest to how many didn't based on an unreasonable assumption, but that's still something to consider. 
    And so, it does fit here. 


    You guys seemingly derailed this thread to have the same exact conversation you've been having elsewhere. I was asking a question as to how this conversation could fit into the OP,

    "Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing."

    Nothing more, nothing less.
    AlBQuirky
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,242
    cheyane said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:

    Better Question: What is with the obsession with enabling sociopaths in a game world, when in the real world we do all we can to get rid of them.

    Keep in mind, in Medieval Europe the punishment for Theft was death. I mean, movies like "Pirates of Caribbean" are funny and all, but did you notice, when they got caught, they were all going to be hung. One shot at that, Perma Death game mode.

    I mean think about it, Real life does not want these people, why would anyone want them in their game?
    I think tying the real world into the game mechanics of a video game isn't always going to work.

    Let's dial it back. There are games that are built so players can attack people whenever and for the most part wherever they want.

    That's the game. the developers didn't sit there and say "wow, we have a lot of sociopaths out there who aren't being represented, we should make games for them."

    The developers like the freedom of martial combat everywhere, like that it creates political ramifications within the game, and like a game that gets rid of rails.

    For some reason there is a contingent of players who think that every game should cater to every person. In an ideal world that would be great but that's not how things work. 

    There could be financial reasons why developers don't have multiple rulesets, it could be because they think it will water down the playerbase or it could be because "they just don't want to create those experiences."

    While not an mmorpg, Dark Souls games don't have difficulty settings. They made what they wanted and if people want to play the games they have to figure out how. Otherwise move on.

    And while there are people out there with HUGE issues, they are just an unfortunate byproduct of games that allow such freedom.

    Developres didn't make these games so that they could then "punish" their players. They made these games so that there players can have this type of game play experience. They might put in ways to dissuade them from player killing "everyone" but they want that to be a choice. Not an actual "we'll get you for doing what we put in the game!"
    That mentality about you play our game by our rules like Dark Souls work for a single player game. It won't work for an MMORPG. The developers in the MMORPG need a minimum sustainable population for the game to work. You need engagements or the seiges or other large PvP interactions to work for the game to be fun.The developers want more people to play their game so they try to cater to the different tastes and end up pleasing no one.

    They should design their games for smaller populations and be happy with that but they are not. They keep trying to get PVEers to play their game. Hence the eternal debate.
    You are making the wrong assumption. 

    What some of us are after is the middle ground. 
    PKers who want to just roll all other players and take their loot will not like it. 
    PvEers who want nothing to do with PvP at all will not like it. 

    But all the gamers in the middle of that will have another option.
    "PvP with meaning."
    No Gank Fest.
    A more worldly simulation that makes sense.
    RP opportunities in that sensical world. 
    Enhanced social interactions based on mutual interests. 
    PvP in it's place, but not separated from the rest of the game. 

    If you look at Arena games, it's clear that there are a hell of a lot more players interested in "PvP with meaning" than there are who are interested in WOPvP. 
    That's what's missing in MMORPGs, that "meaning" within the world context, it's either a gank fest or separated out. 
    DAoC is the only MMORPG I'm aware of that added meaning to their PvP in the world wide context, yet they also had separated PvP. That was good, but not the ultimate way of doing it. Which is to find a way to mix it all together, without having that gank fest thing included. 
    What does this have to do with the OP? I think people are confusing these threads. 
    Do I have the state the obvious, that I was responding to another post? 
    You guys need to get off your high horses. 
    You are not the enforcers here. 

    But if you want an answer to your demands, then I can oblige. 
    If there were so many gamers playing those arena games, but they weren't playing the totally meaningless PvP in MMORPGs (at least for all but a very few), and if they did play MMORPGs, they played them for what? 
    Yes, the PvE. 
    I can't attest to how many did that no matter how reasonable it is to assume it, and you can't attest to how many didn't based on an unreasonable assumption, but that's still something to consider. 
    And so, it does fit here. 


    You guys seemingly derailed this thread to have the same exact conversation you've been having elsewhere. I was asking a question as to how this conversation could fit into the OP,

    "Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing."

    Nothing more, nothing less.
    And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games. 

    What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's? 

    I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. 
    Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer. 

    Ancient_Exile

    Once upon a time....

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,357
    And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games. 

    What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's? 

    I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. 
    Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer. 

    As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP. 
    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.
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,240
    Ungood said:
    And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games. 

    What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's? 

    I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. 
    Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer. 

    As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP. 
    L2build nub
    ScorchienIselinUngood
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,357
    bcbully said:
    Ungood said:
    And in my post that you are quoting, I was participating in the conversation in a direct way. I was explaining how a lot of players might be considered PvE, and "casual" even, when in fact they might also be hardcore PvPers in Arena games. 

    What, do I have to agree with and accept the OP's terms? Or anyone else's? 

    I think maybe you are the one doing the derailing. 
    Let the conversations flow, and don't try to be a self styled enforcer. 

    As one of those PvE players, that's a hardcore MFer in Arena games, I can sincerely tell you, there is almost no way in hell you would get me to play some hybrid fuckery game with level, class, gear, and all the other asinine imbalances that PvE games have sandwiched into an open world PvP. 
    L2build nub
    Everyone read this ^

    This is the exact mentality is what will forever keep PvPMMO a second rate shit subgenre.
    bcbullyAlBQuirky
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.