Each counter-measure that Albion includes to deter ganking is an admission that open world PvP doesn't work very well and that it is a problem that must be addressed. Because of this, I don't think Albion qualifies as an open world PvP title.
Open world pvp works well for people who have "signed in" for the experience.
Once again, if a person is complaining about it then they shouldn't be playing the game.
It would be the same if a person complained they had to craft, or had to do pve content.
This is not to say there shouldn't be countermeasures for players or that there shouldn't be some mechanic that makes the player have to make a choice.
But if a player is playing an open world pvp game there is going to be open world player killing. "That's the game."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Each counter-measure that Albion includes to deter ganking is an admission that open world PvP doesn't work very well and that it is a problem that must be addressed. Because of this, I don't think Albion qualifies as an open world PvP title.
Come to an Albion yellow, red or black zone and I'd be happy to prove you wrong. If you survive long enough that is, someone else might prove it to you instead.
Besides, the addition of counter-measures is more of an admission FFA PVP doesn't work well, has little to do with it being open world so much, though the two go hand in hand sometimes.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Each counter-measure that Albion includes to deter ganking is an admission that open world PvP doesn't work very well and that it is a problem that must be addressed. Because of this, I don't think Albion qualifies as an open world PvP title.
Open world pvp works well for people who have "signed in" for the experience.
Once again, if a person is complaining about it then they shouldn't be playing the game.
It would be the same if a person complained they had to craft, or had to do pve content.
This is not to say there shouldn't be countermeasures for players or that there shouldn't be some mechanic that makes the player have to make a choice.
But if a player is playing an open world pvp game there is going to be open world player killing. "That's the game."
You are right of course. It's still a shame that some good games failed because they refused to offer at least alternative servers with optional PvP, but whatever... seems developers learn from past mistakes for most, and don't make such games anymore.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Each counter-measure that Albion includes to deter ganking is an admission that open world PvP doesn't work very well and that it is a problem that must be addressed. Because of this, I don't think Albion qualifies as an open world PvP title.
Open world pvp works well for people who have "signed in" for the experience.
Once again, if a person is complaining about it then they shouldn't be playing the game.
It would be the same if a person complained they had to craft, or had to do pve content.
This is not to say there shouldn't be countermeasures for players or that there shouldn't be some mechanic that makes the player have to make a choice.
But if a player is playing an open world pvp game there is going to be open world player killing. "That's the game."
You are right of course. It's still a shame that some good games failed because they refused to offer at least alternative servers with optional PvP, but whatever... seems developers learn from past mistakes for most, and don't make such games anymore.
I don't think it was a mistake for developers to make such games so much as it was a mistake to do it on the cheap.
So often certain players will point out that open world pvp games don't survive therefore they aren't viable.
I would counter with the idea that cheaply made games with bugs and flaws just don't make it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Crafters/life skillers can stay at home without fear of dying, while the PvPers can go out and bring back the materials for the folks at home. There's a place for everyone in these types of games. There is quite a repertoire of PvE focused MMORPGs for the people that disagree, but very very few PvP MMORPGs where us bloodthirsty savages can reside.
That's the post that started this rabbit hole. All we need is for worldsbestdad to tell us whether according to him games like EVE and Albion fit his view of open world full loot games. Without that, what any of us (including me) believe is useless.
His topic does not really match our rabbit hole. Can Eve and Albion be the home of savage PvPers? I think the answer is quite obvious and does not deserve a discussion.
Is Albion true open world because it has zones? Again, I think that was not really the topic. But I'll answer this one: since there is only one shard, then it is a unique segmented world. And why not?
But let's try to go back on track. I think the most important question here was:
How well PvPers can coexist with PvEers? Or What system could make this happen?
For this question, I personally think that the Albion's devs found one of the possible solutions.
What I'm concerned about is a game that has extensive anti-random ganking rules in place is depicted as an open world PvP game (see: Mortal Online) and then used to prove these models (see: Mortal Online) are popular.
I'm for the anti-griefing measures and doing so creatively is the goal.
A game that has some safe or relatively safe zones (EVE stations and high sec, Albion cities and blue zones) is still an open world FFA PVP game.
Totally agree with restrictions for the three reasons I mentioned above:
- protect new players - give a safe place for recovery - implement risk/reward scaling
In null sec/black zones PVP is unbarred and deliberate, and any notion of advantages or fairness is irrelevant. That's the game.
By the same logic, a dev that says there are no restrictions and all zones are 100% PVP zones implies that it is ok and deliberate for anyone to attack, say, a new player. Which in my opinion is flawed design.
I did not use that argument to say that games like MO2 are popular or successful and I did clarify it to you at some point in the past, will link if I can find it.
No need, I imagine you have clarified it at some point.
I do not consider Albion to be an open world PvP game. If the community here decides that it is an open world PvP game then we need a term for games like early UO, Mortal Online, and other games that are significantly less restrictive than Albion.
Albion's zones were a huge turn off for me when I gave it a try.
Again, none of this takes away from Albion. It isn't somehow a failure if it cannot wear the open world PvP title - seems to me they read the market and are responding to it in successful ways.
I dunno, I consider Albion Online to be as much an "open world" PVP game as EVE Online is, which is very much so.
If anyone disagrees they clearly are just being p** p*** heads, and
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Each counter-measure that Albion includes to deter ganking is an admission that open world PvP doesn't work very well and that it is a problem that must be addressed. Because of this, I don't think Albion qualifies as an open world PvP title.
Open world pvp works well for people who have "signed in" for the experience.
Once again, if a person is complaining about it then they shouldn't be playing the game.
It would be the same if a person complained they had to craft, or had to do pve content.
This is not to say there shouldn't be countermeasures for players or that there shouldn't be some mechanic that makes the player have to make a choice.
But if a player is playing an open world pvp game there is going to be open world player killing. "That's the game."
You are right of course. It's still a shame that some good games failed because they refused to offer at least alternative servers with optional PvP, but whatever... seems developers learn from past mistakes for most, and don't make such games anymore.
I don't think it was a mistake for developers to make such games so much as it was a mistake to do it on the cheap.
So often certain players will point out that open world pvp games don't survive therefore they aren't viable.
I would counter with the idea that cheaply made games with bugs and flaws just don't make it.
Additionally, know your audience. Successful pvp games know their target demographic. It seems to me a lot of games have the "Field of Dreams" philosophy of "Build it and they will come" and I think that is just a recipe for disaster and failure. Marketing and getting the word out to those people is very important, but just knowing who the target audience is helps provide boundaries and focus.
The 'Field of Dreams' mentality seems quite popular on both the PvE and PvP side of the fence. I really don't think that it serves either market effectively.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I'd consider open world to be seamless wandering from region to region; whereas a world where most travel is through portals would be something other than open world.
To me that would be important because portals would become choke points. If you had a scout at the choke point you'd know the instant danger entered the zone and could evacuate. That is an entirely different experience than someone being able to get at you from nearly any direction.
In the future instead of open world I'll use 'zoneless'.
Yes, I agree, and at the same time Skyrim, and other Elder Scrolls single player episodes, are considered open world too. Truth is only the outside world is really open. Caves, houses, dungeons, and even towns are isolated in their own zone.
But sure, since it is single player, there is no choke point problem here... Actually..... I remember a game in which I was about to die, and I escaped like a dirty coward. When I wanted to come back, all those bandits were waiting for me just behind the door and ambushed me..........................
F000cking NPC gankers! Even in single player! I will report the devs, sue them in court, and make sure they'll be sent in Ukraine!
I'd consider open world to be seamless wandering from region to region; whereas a world where most travel is through portals would be something other than open world.
To me that would be important because portals would become choke points. If you had a scout at the choke point you'd know the instant danger entered the zone and could evacuate. That is an entirely different experience than someone being able to get at you from nearly any direction.
In the future instead of open world I'll use 'zoneless'.
"Zoneless" is a very good and explicit term for it.
And you are kinda right. Portals are close to being choke points but not 100%. Anyone entering a zone has an invulnerability bubble for a few seconds (can't remember how long).
Generally AO zones have other choke points as well and many fights do happen over those, and not just in the zone entrances. You can google "youtube Albion ZvZ" for some examples (ZvZ = zerg vs zerg).
The invulnerability bubble is kind of a red flag and suggests something other than open world to me, but I digress. I'll stick with the 'zoneless' moniker until you decide to hijack it to mean something like 'single player game on Nintendo 64 only'.
Sorry, a bit snarky. It is snowing here again and I'm sad.
I agree with you which is why I pointed out that this is my personal view on what constitutes open world.
For example, what I like about Albion has nothing to do with being open world. When I play it is because I enjoy the crafting and gear skill lines and working down through those trees not because it is advertised as open world.
My core point in the post though is that PvP games are successful when they focus on a set of demographics and deliver what those people want to play. Mostly this is true for competitive platforms without progression or where progression is limited to a short campaign- Call of Duty, CS:GO, multiplayer strategy games, and so on. It seems to be a lot more hit and miss with "mmo style" long term progression based games because they end up so unbalanced and that seems to popular only with a relatively small niche of people by comparison. Even Lineage with its million subscriber is tiny compared to numbers playing arena games, shooters, LoL, etc.
I'm mostly arguing against the idea that PvP is unpopular and can't work. There is ample evidence it can and does.
Agreed- but it's not really useful, in terms of MMORPG PvP, to point to success in games that aren't MMORPGs.
The games are so fundamentally different, an MMORPG dev studio trying to capture the feel and demographics of, say, Battlefield or Foxhole... Well, they're going to be in for a rude awakening. Those games are successful for reasons MMORPGs won't realistically achieve.
Each counter-measure that Albion includes to deter ganking is an admission that open world PvP doesn't work very well and that it is a problem that must be addressed. Because of this, I don't think Albion qualifies as an open world PvP title.
Open world pvp works well for people who have "signed in" for the experience.
Once again, if a person is complaining about it then they shouldn't be playing the game.
It would be the same if a person complained they had to craft, or had to do pve content.
This is not to say there shouldn't be countermeasures for players or that there shouldn't be some mechanic that makes the player have to make a choice.
But if a player is playing an open world pvp game there is going to be open world player killing. "That's the game."
You are right of course. It's still a shame that some good games failed because they refused to offer at least alternative servers with optional PvP, but whatever... seems developers learn from past mistakes for most, and don't make such games anymore.
I don't think it was a mistake for developers to make such games so much as it was a mistake to do it on the cheap.
So often certain players will point out that open world pvp games don't survive therefore they aren't viable.
I would counter with the idea that cheaply made games with bugs and flaws just don't make it.
You have to keep going. Why are they so often cheaply made games? Because the money just isn't there for *MMORPG PvP games.*
Not like it is for MMORPG PvE or smaller competitive multiplayer titles. The market supports far more of the other two for a reason, the cheaply made games is not purely a cause. It's partially an effect.
I'd consider open world to be seamless wandering from region to region; whereas a world where most travel is through portals would be something other than open world.
To me that would be important because portals would become choke points. If you had a scout at the choke point you'd know the instant danger entered the zone and could evacuate. That is an entirely different experience than someone being able to get at you from nearly any direction.
In the future instead of open world I'll use 'zoneless'.
You know, many places in the real world have logical choke points, impassible mountain ranges, bodies of water when it comes to moving armies, so I guess it isn't really an "open world" by your definition.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'd consider open world to be seamless wandering from region to region; whereas a world where most travel is through portals would be something other than open world.
To me that would be important because portals would become choke points. If you had a scout at the choke point you'd know the instant danger entered the zone and could evacuate. That is an entirely different experience than someone being able to get at you from nearly any direction.
In the future instead of open world I'll use 'zoneless'.
"Zoneless" is a very good and explicit term for it.
And you are kinda right. Portals are close to being choke points but not 100%. Anyone entering a zone has an invulnerability bubble for a few seconds (can't remember how long).
Generally AO zones have other choke points as well and many fights do happen over those, and not just in the zone entrances. You can google "youtube Albion ZvZ" for some examples (ZvZ = zerg vs zerg).
The invulnerability bubble is kind of a red flag and suggests something other than open world to me, but I digress. I'll stick with the 'zoneless' moniker until you decide to hijack it to mean something like 'single player game on Nintendo 64 only'.
Sorry, a bit snarky. It is snowing here again and I'm sad.
I'd consider open world to be seamless wandering from region to region; whereas a world where most travel is through portals would be something other than open world.
To me that would be important because portals would become choke points. If you had a scout at the choke point you'd know the instant danger entered the zone and could evacuate. That is an entirely different experience than someone being able to get at you from nearly any direction.
In the future instead of open world I'll use 'zoneless'.
"Zoneless" is a very good and explicit term for it.
And you are kinda right. Portals are close to being choke points but not 100%. Anyone entering a zone has an invulnerability bubble for a few seconds (can't remember how long).
Generally AO zones have other choke points as well and many fights do happen over those, and not just in the zone entrances. You can google "youtube Albion ZvZ" for some examples (ZvZ = zerg vs zerg).
The invulnerability bubble is kind of a red flag and suggests something other than open world to me, but I digress. I'll stick with the 'zoneless' moniker until you decide to hijack it to mean something like 'single player game on Nintendo 64 only'.
Sorry, a bit snarky. It is snowing here again and I'm sad.
Here's a sunny gif to fix your mood:
Think she will give mouth-to-mouth ?
You might refuse it.
I'll be the elephant in the room. Washed out trailers park stripper look.
Based on the totally open world/no zones/no portals definition, Vanguard is the only true open world MMO I've ever played. No zones, no instances, even dungeons and your house were open to the world.
I think games that combine PvE and PvP are the most successful, if the PvP is optional and has some kind of real meaning. In Ryzom for example, PvP attacks on outposts are scheduled, and the outposts give out special mats that can't be gotten any other way. Guilds own them and fight over them. The best mats in the game can only be dug up in a PvP zone.
In PoTBS, trading ports can be attacked and that creates a PvP zone around them. Aside from the tax rate changing based on which faction controls the port, anybody with factories, shipyards, etc, in that port has to go through the PvP zone to get in or out,
What I don't like is forced PvP, where a PK ganker camps the respawn point and kills everybody who tries to respawn.. Of course, once you are killed, you can only respawn again and get killed again,
Comments
Once again, if a person is complaining about it then they shouldn't be playing the game.
It would be the same if a person complained they had to craft, or had to do pve content.
This is not to say there shouldn't be countermeasures for players or that there shouldn't be some mechanic that makes the player have to make a choice.
But if a player is playing an open world pvp game there is going to be open world player killing. "That's the game."
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
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You are right of course.
It's still a shame that some good games failed because they refused to offer at least alternative servers with optional PvP, but whatever... seems developers learn from past mistakes for most, and don't make such games anymore.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
So often certain players will point out that open world pvp games don't survive therefore they aren't viable.
I would counter with the idea that cheaply made games with bugs and flaws just don't make it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If anyone disagrees they clearly are just being p** p*** heads, and
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I recognize this game! This is Black Desert Online!
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The games are so fundamentally different, an MMORPG dev studio trying to capture the feel and demographics of, say, Battlefield or Foxhole... Well, they're going to be in for a rude awakening. Those games are successful for reasons MMORPGs won't realistically achieve.
Not like it is for MMORPG PvE or smaller competitive multiplayer titles. The market supports far more of the other two for a reason, the cheaply made games is not purely a cause. It's partially an effect.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Washed out trailers park stripper look.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.