The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
"If these people were really all about the money, they would be making
mmo's that could attract 100 million people, yet we don't see any of
those."
The problem is you would have 100 million different opinions of how the game should be......Most games don't like to go with either PVE or PVP only, so they try to incorporate both....Many games try to please as many as possible, but you also anger many with certain decisions.WHile trying to please one you may lose 10.
Ive been playing UO near 25 years now ( just got my 24 year Vet rewards) And the risk/reward blood pumping game play has never been matched .. People just need thicker skin and stop bringing your feelings to the internet ..
Learn the systems in any game like this there are most likely survival tactics and strategies you never thought of or tried ..
That being said .. NW is as casual as it gets .. in this regard .ii The risk/reward is next to 0
How about this? If a player kills and loots another player, they become the same level as that dead player.
That way, a powerful high level character can't go around killing lowbies. They'd become a lowbie themself.
A lower player that manages to kill a higher level player can advance.
Unfortunately, we have to think in terms of the least respectable kinds of players.
For example, the obvious work around for your idea is for 3 or 4 level one PKs to feed on lowbies in the starter zones. That is really the toughest problem we have - dealing with people who will game the system in any way possible to cause grief.
Either that, or simply work up to level 5 (the 20 minutes that takes) and then beat the hell out of lowbies.
True Story: I had a groups of friends that reached level 69 in WOW - right on the edge of 70 - went into a battle ground such that their first kill advanced them to 70 - at which point they switched over to 70 gear and spent the rest of the evening owning defenseless 69s in that battle ground instance. (I may have some details wrong, I don't do WOW).
Point is: Even in elective battle grounds assholes find a way to exploit.
There needs to be some kind of consequences for fighting others below your level. If you're a 70, fighting 69's should lower your stats below a 69. If you fight someone 10 levels below you, you lose 10 levels.
It needs to be something severe enough to make ganking not worth it.
That would encourage 69s to attack 70s.
And I'd agree it has to be severe but I think less in terms of "punishment" and more in terms of "making certain types of PvP more fun than ganking."
If you are going to make ganking punitive then why allow it at all?
"In this game you can kill lowbies, but if you do we send a guy to your house to literally break your legs in real life."
An outlaw should constantly be on the run, constantly in need of supplies, and constantly trying to find ways to survive. THIS should be the goal so that the thought of being a PK makes a person tired. The fun it provides should be so distracting that killing lowbies is boring by comparison.
sort of ...
I don't think it should dissuade people from doing it so much as offer a different game play option.
so yes, outlaws should be on the run. In Lineage 2 there was an outlaw town where they could deal with some things but it was limited. I think it was gludin.
Because you are correct, if you are going to punish for pk'ing then it shouldn't be included.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
<snip> All we see is failure after failure. Think about this, Amazon couldn't get enough people in a room to agree that hardcore PVP would be a bust until AFTER it went into Alpha? How many years were they building the game towards PVP completely oblivious that hardcore PVP would be a failure? Where have the devs been hiding under a rock for 2 decades? They had to wait until after seeing customer feedback to figure out the game would die if it didn't drastically change? How could a company the size of Amazon be so unaware. <snip>
Definitely, developers seem to be more interested in making games for themselves. In the case of Amazon, I think the entire situation came down to an adult came into the room, saw what the devs were trying to do, and said 'No'. You might think that would be normal, but in the MMORPG development community (especially the indie crowdfunded variety of MMORPG developers), that is pretty much the exception.
The indie developer's mindset seems to be "We don't need no supervisors". If that were actually the key to success, innovation and game development, we'd be up to our necks in quality, new MMORPG choices. We simply aren't.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I didn't watch the OP video but this is an interesting thread.
First off, whilst I will admit that nearly all PvP focused MMORPGs either fail or remain extremely niche, I do believe there is a massive market. Online PvP games are hugely popular, probably the most popular online genre. Just look at how many people play CoD, Battlefield, Counterstrike etc.
So, if PvP is very popular, why has it never taken off big in the MMORPG genre? It really is down to design.
The starting point of the problem, in my opinion, is trying to merge an RPG with PvP. Whilst I fully believe the two can be put together, it requires a deep rethink of typical RPG mechanics. They may work well in a single player RPG, but they work a lot less well in an MMO, and even worse in PvP. Very few devs seem to realise this.
So, the main design issues for a PvP MMORPG as I see them:
1) Full Loot
Nobody likes losing their stuff. So, from my point of view, this is simply a mechanic that needs to go if you want large scale success.
However, if you insist on making a full loot game, I believe the key is to make sure the loot is far less important to our characters, and much more easily replaced. Like, a sword will only have 2 stats - damage and speed - and can be easily crafted or bought. That way, if u lose it, you can replace it easily and you haven't become attached to your uber sword.
2) Balance
The essence PvP is competition (not killing, as many seem to think). I do acknowledge that there are some sociopaths out there, but the vast majority of PvPers just want some fun competition.
Balance is essential to a good competition. Look at all the sporting competitions out there, every effort is made to ensure balance. Between the rules of the sport and any sort of tiered rankings, everything is done to get the closest competition possible, where the outcome could go either way.
That has yet to happen in a PvP focused MMORPG.
I think there are two main things to do here. The first is to build the game around horizontal progression, and on a rock-paper-scissors approach to class balance. In this way, everyone is basically equal in terms of power, but will also have good chances to kill specific people whilst losing to other specific people (e.g. tanks will be able to kill melee dps, but will lose to mages)
The second thing is to have a self-balancing mechanics that try to deal with the player number imbalance.
An easy thing is to add NPCs. I know hardcore PvPers will hate this idea, but it is really effective. If you are outnumbered, you can retreat somewhere with NPCs to help you out. There are obviously limitations to this approach, but if you design the NPCs properly then it can work well.
A harder thing to do is adding incentives for the winning team to fuck off! Think darkness falls in DAoC, or Delving of Fror in LotRO. The winning team is encouraged to fuck off elsewhere, to a special place only they can access, thus reducing their numbers and helping out the losing team.
3) How You Progress / Motivation
Nearly all PvP MMORPGs make you progress through only two things: killing players and winning objectives.
Human beings are hardwired to seek the most efficient way of doing things, its an important evolutionary trait. The farmer who can plough a field in a day is going to be more successful than a farmer that takes 3 days to do the same thing.
Sadly, this positive evolutionary trait manifests itself as ganking and objective swopping. The game makes these methods the most efficient way of progressing, so is it any wonder that players take this route?
The solution is to change the way we progress, whilst also addressing player's motivations.
I actually think Camelot Unchained has some amazing ideas of how to address this exact issue.
First up, CU is based on horizontal progression. Ganking other people and progressing won't make you more powerful, thus removing one incentive to ganking.
Second, progression only happens once a day. You won't earn renown for killing someone, or taking an objective, until the end of the day. The game will keep track of everything you do and then reward you accordingly. This means they can monitor things like ganking and not reward you for it, likewise they can spot objective swopping and not reward that either. But, they can spot things like running a resource caravan to the front, and even if you didn't kill anyone you will still get some progression rewards. They can adjust rewards on the fly, so that if one realm has a stronger desire for defenders, then defending gets higher rewards compared to other realms.
I really feel like the way CU is planning progression is going to change players motivations. Without knowing what will give you the most progression, players can really just focus on the fun, whether they find that fun defending castles, roaming in small squads or crafting weapons and armour for the warriors.
4) Longevity
This is something I don't think any PvP genre has figured out yet. With a game like CoD, or a moba like LoL, longevity isn't an issue. The whole game has been setup to focus on the churn (new players rather than retention). They can do that because they can release a new game every year and get all those lapsed players back.
MMORPGs don't have that luxury.
They are so expensive to make that they can release a new game every year to get players back, they need to retain those players in the first place.
Retention is really difficult. You need gameplay that remains exciting for a long time and is hard to master. You need to provide a sense of belonging and ownership to keep players attached to the game. You need to provide long term goals, so that when a player inevitably gets bored or unmotivated, they have something to work towards anyway. You need alternative activities, so that even if a player gets bored of the combat, there is still something for them to do in game.
Most importantly, you really need some great social systems in place. "Friends dont let friends quit". If your PvP MMORPG is designed from day one to foster a community, that community will increase retention. Having fun with your mates will keep you playing long after you've mastered the mechanics. Wanting to kill a specific enemy will keep you fighting even when common sense says to run away.
I'm not forcing them to play FL and/or OW PvP games, it's their choice .
Which they typically don't, hence such games often fail to attract any sort of decent size player base, proving the OPs point, yes?
You'd actually be surprised how many people I've run across that force themselves to play games they don't like, it really boggles my mind...
If the majority who play FL OW PVP dont even like it, then who is the game even appealing too then? Already only a tiny fraction of players even play these types of games, to think these people hate it also is too funny.
Talk about making unpopular games.
And what about the entire survival genre? At it's core they're games that are primarily focused on Full Loot PvP. Some have also evolved to improve on the PvE experience such as Conan Exiles and Ark: Survival Evolved. Of course, they've given the players more choice by allowing them to choose between FL PvP or PvE.
If you gave players the ability to FL PvP in WoW, there would be a portion of the player base that'd hop on that train in a heartbeat.
The argument that hardcore PVP MMO's fail can also be thrown out the window when we take into account the elephant in the room.... Albion online. It's entirely centered around PvP and everything people here dislike about PvP content. Albion eases their new players into PvP content by providing them beginner zones that provide low risk/rewards but when you're ready, you have to brave FL PVP portions of the game in attempts to get higher tier loot.
Could it just be the fact that previous developers who've attempted a FL PVP MMO just sucked at designing them? Lets be honest, we've not had many FL PVP MMO hit the market. Darkfall 1/2, Mortal Online 1/2, UO, Lineage (kinda stretching it), Wizardry, and Albion, Crowfall (if and when they implement FL PVP dregs) off the top of my head offer FL PVP.
We could also point towards more PvE focused MMO's that have failed than that of the FL PvP MMO.
Here are some more to add to your list (so many more than have just shut down completely)
Legends of Aria
Gloria Victus
Wurm Online
Life is Feudal
The idea you are using Albion as the only success is kind of funny really. I mean, you realize when Albion cost money it had around 450 players. Not exactly amazing. It was forced to go completely free due to lack of players, just like every other FL PVP has to go free, so that a few Whales can support the entire game. But then PVP'ers complain about P2W mechanics.
You use Ark/Conan but you do understand these games are being supported by solo players and PVE players mostly.
Ark PVP where you log in build a 1 x 1 building and the entire alpha guild tries to hunt you down and destroy your tiny 1x1 base. Yeah that's some good PVP there, give me a break.
I am still believing that a game could succeed if it allows full loot PvP but heavily punishes mindless ganking and allows to steer this with a judge system.
Like in ArcheAge where you need to go to a trial but with way harsher penalties if found guilty.
The goal is, that you can PK someone but.... 1. You need a good reason to do so, so you always think twice. 2. You might live a long time as outlaw with harsh mechanics to allow someone to be lawful again (e.g. help a lot of newbies and/or get good feedback by different veterans from different guilds) 3. Trading helping outlaws can also flag you with high effort to go back again to prevent PKs getting help from blue twinks. 4. Additional mechanics to make someone really think twice to mindless gank people
So that open PvP exists but it will be rare for individuals and more war/GvG centric, respectively reds will have a harsher life.
I approach MMO's as virtual worlds to live in. Few people want to live in a world where they can be attacked and killed at any time, apparently.
Games with PvP zones are doing well. Non MMO PvP games are doing well.
the Article is about .. Full Loot PvP MMOs.. Fortnite has 0 bearing on the discussion ..
If other types of full loot PvP games are very popular, what is it about MMO's that PvP isn't that popular?
Loot obviously. Fornite has session-only generic loot.
"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
What I cant understand, is the devs are supposed to be competent. So why do they keep making games for tiny audiences then wonder where all the players are.
If these people were really all about the money, they would be making mmo's that could attract 100 million people, yet we don't see any of those.
What we see is these devs over and over again making mmo's that fail at launch, any person who has followed these games knows they will fail at launch, yet they keep making them. We are at a point now that people are saying this entire MMORPG genre is niche because of all these stupid devs.
Maybe if some devs would actually make some decent MMO's that appeal to 10's of millions of people then the space would grow so there would be room for some of these niche MMO's.
There was a time when MMO's were mainstream, since then the AAA studios have consistently made declining substandard MMO's hurting the entire genre.
I want to address this, because I also wonder this myself. Like you were reading my mind as you asked this question.
Given I am about as nice as 40grit sandpaper on a gas powered belt sander, you said better than I could.
My theory however, is that they see game like Fortnight, Overwatch, pulling in 100 Million active players, and think "People Love PVP!"
And they are not wrong, but, they also see how flash in the pan these games are, and see games like EvE, that is still going rock solid, so they are like, we want the population of a PvP game, with the longevity of an MMO.
And they look at the failures, and hear the players cry "We love it, they just did wrong, but if you do it right, we will ALL love you"
But, that IMHO, is a Sirens Song, as blending PvE and PvP together is it's own monstrosity, and again, IMHO, no one really tagged it right yet. Like looking to trying to unlock the Lament Configuration and not get fucked in the process.
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.
A lot of them fail because the game is bad before you can even get into what kind of game they are.
Why don't you play this game that sucks just because it has PVP you ask for? Same reason people don't play PvE games that suck.
Ok.. so what game did it right?
and.. why is everyone not playing that 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.
I wonder how many times this is said just as a "badge" of some kind or other.
(Sorry so late to the discussion...)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I don't think it should dissuade people from doing it so much as offer a different game play option.
so yes, outlaws should be on the run. In Lineage 2 there was an outlaw town where they could deal with some things but it was limited. I think it was gludin.
Because you are correct, if you are going to punish for pk'ing then it shouldn't be included.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Here are some more to add to your list (so many more than have just shut down completely)
The idea you are using Albion as the only success is kind of funny really. I mean, you realize when Albion cost money it had around 450 players. Not exactly amazing. It was forced to go completely free due to lack of players, just like every other FL PVP has to go free, so that a few Whales can support the entire game. But then PVP'ers complain about P2W mechanics.
You use Ark/Conan but you do understand these games are being supported by solo players and PVE players mostly.
Ark PVP where you log in build a 1 x 1 building and the entire alpha guild tries to hunt you down and destroy your tiny 1x1 base. Yeah that's some good PVP there, give me a break.
Like in ArcheAge where you need to go to a trial but with way harsher penalties if found guilty.
The goal is, that you can PK someone but....
1. You need a good reason to do so, so you always think twice.
2. You might live a long time as outlaw with harsh mechanics to allow someone to be lawful again (e.g. help a lot of newbies and/or get good feedback by different veterans from different guilds)
3. Trading helping outlaws can also flag you with high effort to go back again to prevent PKs getting help from blue twinks.
4. Additional mechanics to make someone really think twice to mindless gank people
So that open PvP exists but it will be rare for individuals and more war/GvG centric, respectively reds will have a harsher life.
1997 Meridian 59 'til 2019 ESO
Waiting for Camelot Unchained & Pantheon
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Its also NOT an MMO ....
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
the Article is about .. Full Loot PvP MMOs.. Fortnite has 0 bearing on the discussion ..
If other types of full loot PvP games are very popular, what is it about MMO's that PvP isn't that popular?
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Given I am about as nice as 40grit sandpaper on a gas powered belt sander, you said better than I could.
My theory however, is that they see game like Fortnight, Overwatch, pulling in 100 Million active players, and think "People Love PVP!"
And they are not wrong, but, they also see how flash in the pan these games are, and see games like EvE, that is still going rock solid, so they are like, we want the population of a PvP game, with the longevity of an MMO.
And they look at the failures, and hear the players cry "We love it, they just did wrong, but if you do it right, we will ALL love you"
But, that IMHO, is a Sirens Song, as blending PvE and PvP together is it's own monstrosity, and again, IMHO, no one really tagged it right yet. Like looking to trying to unlock the Lament Configuration and not get fucked in the process.
Why don't you play this game that sucks just because it has PVP you ask for? Same reason people don't play PvE games that suck.
and.. why is everyone not playing that game.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR