I never understood why killing someone"s virtual pixels in a virtual world with infinite lives deserved punishment in return. But anyway, if you're into competitive PvP without consequences, like myself, there should be a staged tourny/arena location in MO. I'm hoping its something like GW's Hall of Heroes.
You almost answered your own question - because they are indeed trying to create a "virtual world". It's a sandbox MMO, in which multiple different playstyles and goals are supposed to be allowed. In a virtual world of continuous, indiscriminate murder, not a lot else is going to be accomplished - it only satisfies the ganker/griefer.
In a sandbox MMO, your own world should have no coded limitations, only limitations imposed by the will of other players. That way, different playstyles will truely be dynamic and interesting.
There will always be some type of coded limitations in an MMO, no matter how sandboxy it attempts to be. Additionally, advocates of total freedom, who try to sell it as more "dynamic and interesting" are almost uniformly lobbying for their personally preferred playstyle, no matter if that infringes on the playstyles of others. MO is not a PvP combat game ONLY - it's supposed to allow other styles as well. The "do unto others" crowd, embracing their freedom, knows that they will always be inside the OODA loop of a game's society, so they are at a natural advantage.
Some limitations, in the form of consequences, are required to offset that advantage, if the game isn't going to become dictated by the ganker's style of play. Example: Darkfall.
Perhaps if exercising the "will of the other players" meant a game's society could capture and permanently imprison or execute continuous offenders (permadeath and deletion of someone else's character as decided by a game's society), you might be onto something. But, that wouldn't be fun to the evil character, though more in line with your thinking, I believe. The ultimate imposition of society's will.
There will be plenty of combat in this game I have no doubt. Plenty of ganking too. I'm just hoping for more of an actual "virtual world" sandbox MMO, and not just a meaningless FPS in a persistant world.
All in all, it's probably best to stick with FPS or fighting games for PvP without consequences. I think PvP with consequences will be a lot more challenging, and therefore satisfying.
I would agree with this, if it wasn't for the fact that the gameplay of MO, supposedly, will be much better than that of other FPS games and therefore more fun. I was a huge fan of Dark Messiahs gameplay, and this sounds like the MMO version of its gameplay.
PvP without consequences is more challenging, because it requires players to learn and earn their survival, instead of it being given to them by the devs, effectively making the game more realistic and dynamic. You have to fight and survive through real "evils" to be a real "hero."
Again, a nice platitude, but please be honest - you're not talking about giving others the chance to be a "real" hero, you're lobbying for a continual stock of easy prey with no consequences to yourself.
Besides, you're obviously meaning it should be "more challenging" for the potential victims - I meant more challenging for the ganker/PK'er. Shouldn't being a "real evil" be a challenge? You appear to want it to be easy. I'd like it to be a balance.
Anyway, I realize statloss is here to stay for MO and that's acceptable at least. I think it would be more fair for everyone to have statloss on death instead of just reds. The rest of the game will make up for that single hitch I'm sure. I just hope the arena is well thought out and competitive as I'll probably spend most of my time there.
As far as I know, the exact implementation of stat loss, if any, is still being decided upon.
Regarding your statement above, what aspects of MO's gameplay do you find more appealing than other FPSs?
I never understood why killing someone"s virtual pixels in a virtual world with infinite lives deserved punishment in return. But anyway, if you're into competitive PvP without consequences, like myself, there should be a staged tourny/arena location in MO. I'm hoping its something like GW's Hall of Heroes.
You almost answered your own question - because they are indeed trying to create a "virtual world". It's a sandbox MMO, in which multiple different playstyles and goals are supposed to be allowed. In a virtual world of continuous, indiscriminate murder, not a lot else is going to be accomplished - it only satisfies the ganker/griefer.
In a sandbox MMO, your own world should have no coded limitations, only limitations imposed by the will of other players. That way, different playstyles will truely be dynamic and interesting.
There will always be some type of coded limitations in an MMO, no matter how sandboxy it attempts to be. Additionally, advocates of total freedom, who try to sell it as more "dynamic and interesting" are almost uniformly lobbying for their personally preferred playstyle, no matter if that infringes on the playstyles of others. MO is not a PvP combat game ONLY - it's supposed to allow other styles as well. The "do unto others" crowd, embracing their freedom, knows that they will always be inside the OODA loop of a game's society, so they are at a natural advantage.
Some limitations, in the form of consequences, are required to offset that advantage, if the game isn't going to become dictated by the ganker's style of play. Example: Darkfall.
There must be consequences, correct. I said not developer consequences, but player consequences. We're actually arguing for the same thing. If you see something ingame you disagree with or frown upon, deal with it however you wish with your own justice, that's what I mean by promoting dynamic and realistic environments. Darkfall is a bad example because its not a sandbox, just a full loot open PvP environment, nothing else. There was literally nothing in DF but PvP to do. Unlike a true sandbox like UO.
Perhaps if exercising the "will of the other players" meant a game's society could capture and permanently imprison or execute continuous offenders (permadeath and deletion of someone else's character as decided by a game's society), you might be onto something. But, that wouldn't be fun to the evil character, though more in line with your thinking, I believe. The ultimate imposition of society's will.
I would agree with this if MO allowed guilds to build prisons, etc to punish those offenders who go against their codes/laws. I think guilds or players with significant prestige, some kind of money or power, should be able to hire NPC guards that can be ordered to do certain defensive things. Guard areas, guard players, kill reds on sight, watch my back, etc.
There will be plenty of combat in this game I have no doubt. Plenty of ganking too. I'm just hoping for more of an actual "virtual world" sandbox MMO, and not just a meaningless FPS in a persistant world.
All in all, it's probably best to stick with FPS or fighting games for PvP without consequences. I think PvP with consequences will be a lot more challenging, and therefore satisfying.
I would agree with this, if it wasn't for the fact that the gameplay of MO, supposedly, will be much better than that of other FPS games and therefore more fun. I was a huge fan of Dark Messiahs gameplay, and this sounds like the MMO version of its gameplay.
PvP without consequences is more challenging, because it requires players to learn and earn their survival, instead of it being given to them by the devs, effectively making the game more realistic and dynamic. You have to fight and survive through real "evils" to be a real "hero."
Again, a nice platitude, but please be honest - you're not talking about giving others the chance to be a "real" hero, you're lobbying for a continual stock of easy prey with no consequences to yourself.
I'm getting a serious "I played on a WoW pvp server and it was full of griefers so all gankers in other games must be just like that too" vibe... A lot of WoW generation perspectives these days assume that there are only two stereotypical groups, the carebear RPing crafter addicted to grind and lore and the life-ruining antisocial griefer who ruthlessly hunts others innocent pixels for no reason. Lets get past that. You'll probably soon realize with MO, that games that allow you any path, produce people of many different paths.
Conflict is a fundamental tool of player interaction, interaction is the most important part of a sandbox. Sandboxes are not second life "single player" games, but true online worlds that allow for all elements of interaction. This isn't a Modern Age: World of Economic Domination setting, so combat and killing are a central part of foundation.
The consequences to myself are the fact that the players I may encounter will be of equal skill to me and I will lose my gear. Nothing more and nothing less should be apart of that encounter. I've said this a million times, but this won't be WoW PvP. The idea of some high level character getting easy kills is unlikely anywhere, assuming the Devs stick to their word.
I plan on creating an RP-lite yet PvP competitive mercenary guild with the sole intentions of helping the weaker populace including players, and guilds. Could include short term protection, defense during a seige against the unfair zergs, information sharing, training, hosting/guarding events, etc. Likely a huge focus on events like tournament hosting. Not simply your "lulzgoon PKer sqauds."
Besides, you're obviously meaning it should be "more challenging" for the potential victims - I meant more challenging for the ganker/PK'er. Shouldn't being a "real evil" be a challenge? You appear to want it to be easy. I'd like it to be a balance.
Why should evil be more challenging than not? Rememeber this is a leveless, player skill required game, being "evil," doesn't mean you will be instagibing noobs... And if it is, then the Devs have gone back on their word, and I will be seriously disappointed. Besides, evil is subjective. If one person just betrayed my guild and went off with our secrets and guild bank supplies, even if he was blue, he would be evil to us and therefore most likely hunted. There is no Dev system for situations like that, just player justice, as it should be. The only way to make this system fair would be to give stat loss on death to both blues and reds. I would support it then.
Anyway, I realize statloss is here to stay for MO and that's acceptable at least. I think it would be more fair for everyone to have statloss on death instead of just reds. The rest of the game will make up for that single hitch I'm sure. I just hope the arena is well thought out and competitive as I'll probably spend most of my time there.
As far as I know, the exact implementation of stat loss, if any, is still being decided upon.
Regarding your statement above, what aspects of MO's gameplay do you find more appealing than other FPSs?
It's more easier to see it visually. I suggest watching a video of Dark Messiah, GoW2, and then comparing and contrasting it to MO's alpha footage. You'll notice that one has just guns and the others are, well, more intricate than that. You could also say I was a huge fan of JKA multiplayer.
i am a HUGE shadowbane fan, love the freedom in SB, and i am really lookgin forward to MO
but i really the game is release only if it is complete (not polish, it is too hard for game like MO to be polish), there're too few information about the game yet...but i can't beileve it is out soon..i really hope MO isn't another Dark and Light or Darkfail
Nice to know. You know, things like this make the difference between a true PK (which is an art in these games) and a sissy griefer that likes to repeatedly kill random people in lowbie areas and feel like their good. This way only true PKs will follow the path of being an outlaw, only a minority is supposed to take this path, otherwise you have a retarded gank grief fest.
there are no levels, so no lowbie area, maybe a nooby area... but 20 noobs should be able to kill 1 griefer ;P
but all n all, don't play full pvp games if you can't deal without being ganked, seriously
Sure, but though I love to gank myself, there have to be certain pennalties. A complete gankfest where nothing can be achieved without dying many times would limit the sandbox realism to this game.
Take a real life 'sandbox' like the midwest a few centuries ago; sure you had highwaymen and robbers but they weren't waiting for you behind every single friggin' bush.
I agree that pvp should always be an option and that is how the MMO team thinks about it too, but they are rightly trying to keep the amount of it more realistic compared to games like DFO.
I think that is great It will mean a bigger division between those who choose to be lawfull and those who choose not too. It permits the evil bastards among us to wear their murderer badge with 'honor' :>
^ This
well said pony. I cant think of any game that doesnt have some consequence for murdering somebody. I know in UO(and lineage 2) you turned red. In EVE you lose sec status and are unable to go into certain areas and you have a major disadvantage if you attack on a stargate or station. AOC has that criminal thing as well.
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
In a sandbox MMO, your own world should have no coded limitations, only limitations imposed by the will of other players. That way, different playstyles will truely be dynamic and interesting. I would agree with this, if it wasn't for the fact that the gameplay of MO, supposedly, will be much better than that of other FPS games and therefore more fun. I was a huge fan of Dark Messiahs gameplay, and this sounds like the MMO version of its gameplay. PvP without consequences is more challenging, because it requires players to learn and earn their survival, instead of it being given to them by the devs, effectively making the game more realistic and dynamic. You have to fight and survive through real "evils" to be a real "hero."
Anyway, I realize statloss is here to stay for MO and that's acceptable at least. I think it would be more fair for everyone to have statloss on death instead of just reds. The rest of the game will make up for that single hitch I'm sure. I just hope the arena is well thought out and competitive as I'll probably spend most of my time there.
FFA w/o limitations does not promote diversity. Just look at DF or take a look in the real world. Without some sort of rules to even out things there will always be 1 dominate playstyle that surfaces and everyone will have to play that way or lose out. PvP w/o consequences is not more challenging, and again DF is the perfect example ( Zerg or Die ). The devs are going about it the right way by leveling the playing field for all playstyles.
In a sandbox MMO, your own world should have no coded limitations, only limitations imposed by the will of other players. That way, different playstyles will truely be dynamic and interesting. I would agree with this, if it wasn't for the fact that the gameplay of MO, supposedly, will be much better than that of other FPS games and therefore more fun. I was a huge fan of Dark Messiahs gameplay, and this sounds like the MMO version of its gameplay. PvP without consequences is more challenging, because it requires players to learn and earn their survival, instead of it being given to them by the devs, effectively making the game more realistic and dynamic. You have to fight and survive through real "evils" to be a real "hero."
Anyway, I realize statloss is here to stay for MO and that's acceptable at least. I think it would be more fair for everyone to have statloss on death instead of just reds. The rest of the game will make up for that single hitch I'm sure. I just hope the arena is well thought out and competitive as I'll probably spend most of my time there.
FFA w/o limitations does not promote diversity. Just look at DF or take a look in the real world. Without some sort of rules to even out things there will always be 1 dominate playstyle that surfaces and everyone will have to play that way or lose out. PvP w/o consequences is not more challenging, and again DF is the perfect example ( Zerg or Die ). The devs are going about it the right way by leveling the playing field for all playstyles.
First of all you dont know what your talking about and second of all yes ffa done right promotes diversity (see asherons call back in the day lots of factions of pvp groups, different builds for mage,archer or melle...similar but different). Third, darkfall is horrible just horrible, the melle system and magic system are ludicris, and worst of all you need a group to go around ganking to kill someone...because 1 on 1 someone can run away forever...REALLY REALLY DUMB (my impression from a little while ago but I'm guessing that company didnt change anything!).
FFA w/o limitations does not promote diversity. Just look at DF or take a look in the real world. Without some sort of rules to even out things there will always be 1 dominate playstyle that surfaces and everyone will have to play that way or lose out. PvP w/o consequences is not more challenging, and again DF is the perfect example ( Zerg or Die ). The devs are going about it the right way by leveling the playing field for all playstyles.
First of all you dont know what your talking about and second of all yes ffa done right promotes diversity (see asherons call back in the day lots of factions of pvp groups, different builds for mage,archer or melle...similar but different). Third, darkfall is horrible just horrible, the melle system and magic system are ludicris, and worst of all you need a group to go around ganking to kill someone...because 1 on 1 someone can run away forever...REALLY REALLY DUMB (my impression from a little while ago but I'm guessing that company didnt change anything!).
Does that help with your reading comprehension?
I do agree that FFA done decent promotes good diversity. EVE is the perfect example.
Comments
You almost answered your own question - because they are indeed trying to create a "virtual world". It's a sandbox MMO, in which multiple different playstyles and goals are supposed to be allowed. In a virtual world of continuous, indiscriminate murder, not a lot else is going to be accomplished - it only satisfies the ganker/griefer.
In a sandbox MMO, your own world should have no coded limitations, only limitations imposed by the will of other players. That way, different playstyles will truely be dynamic and interesting.
There will always be some type of coded limitations in an MMO, no matter how sandboxy it attempts to be. Additionally, advocates of total freedom, who try to sell it as more "dynamic and interesting" are almost uniformly lobbying for their personally preferred playstyle, no matter if that infringes on the playstyles of others. MO is not a PvP combat game ONLY - it's supposed to allow other styles as well. The "do unto others" crowd, embracing their freedom, knows that they will always be inside the OODA loop of a game's society, so they are at a natural advantage.
Some limitations, in the form of consequences, are required to offset that advantage, if the game isn't going to become dictated by the ganker's style of play. Example: Darkfall.
Perhaps if exercising the "will of the other players" meant a game's society could capture and permanently imprison or execute continuous offenders (permadeath and deletion of someone else's character as decided by a game's society), you might be onto something. But, that wouldn't be fun to the evil character, though more in line with your thinking, I believe. The ultimate imposition of society's will.
There will be plenty of combat in this game I have no doubt. Plenty of ganking too. I'm just hoping for more of an actual "virtual world" sandbox MMO, and not just a meaningless FPS in a persistant world.
All in all, it's probably best to stick with FPS or fighting games for PvP without consequences. I think PvP with consequences will be a lot more challenging, and therefore satisfying.
I would agree with this, if it wasn't for the fact that the gameplay of MO, supposedly, will be much better than that of other FPS games and therefore more fun. I was a huge fan of Dark Messiahs gameplay, and this sounds like the MMO version of its gameplay.
PvP without consequences is more challenging, because it requires players to learn and earn their survival, instead of it being given to them by the devs, effectively making the game more realistic and dynamic. You have to fight and survive through real "evils" to be a real "hero."
Again, a nice platitude, but please be honest - you're not talking about giving others the chance to be a "real" hero, you're lobbying for a continual stock of easy prey with no consequences to yourself.
Besides, you're obviously meaning it should be "more challenging" for the potential victims - I meant more challenging for the ganker/PK'er. Shouldn't being a "real evil" be a challenge? You appear to want it to be easy. I'd like it to be a balance.
Anyway, I realize statloss is here to stay for MO and that's acceptable at least. I think it would be more fair for everyone to have statloss on death instead of just reds. The rest of the game will make up for that single hitch I'm sure. I just hope the arena is well thought out and competitive as I'll probably spend most of my time there.
As far as I know, the exact implementation of stat loss, if any, is still being decided upon.
Regarding your statement above, what aspects of MO's gameplay do you find more appealing than other FPSs?
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
You almost answered your own question - because they are indeed trying to create a "virtual world". It's a sandbox MMO, in which multiple different playstyles and goals are supposed to be allowed. In a virtual world of continuous, indiscriminate murder, not a lot else is going to be accomplished - it only satisfies the ganker/griefer.
In a sandbox MMO, your own world should have no coded limitations, only limitations imposed by the will of other players. That way, different playstyles will truely be dynamic and interesting.
There will always be some type of coded limitations in an MMO, no matter how sandboxy it attempts to be. Additionally, advocates of total freedom, who try to sell it as more "dynamic and interesting" are almost uniformly lobbying for their personally preferred playstyle, no matter if that infringes on the playstyles of others. MO is not a PvP combat game ONLY - it's supposed to allow other styles as well. The "do unto others" crowd, embracing their freedom, knows that they will always be inside the OODA loop of a game's society, so they are at a natural advantage.
Some limitations, in the form of consequences, are required to offset that advantage, if the game isn't going to become dictated by the ganker's style of play. Example: Darkfall.
There must be consequences, correct. I said not developer consequences, but player consequences. We're actually arguing for the same thing. If you see something ingame you disagree with or frown upon, deal with it however you wish with your own justice, that's what I mean by promoting dynamic and realistic environments. Darkfall is a bad example because its not a sandbox, just a full loot open PvP environment, nothing else. There was literally nothing in DF but PvP to do. Unlike a true sandbox like UO.
Perhaps if exercising the "will of the other players" meant a game's society could capture and permanently imprison or execute continuous offenders (permadeath and deletion of someone else's character as decided by a game's society), you might be onto something. But, that wouldn't be fun to the evil character, though more in line with your thinking, I believe. The ultimate imposition of society's will.
I would agree with this if MO allowed guilds to build prisons, etc to punish those offenders who go against their codes/laws. I think guilds or players with significant prestige, some kind of money or power, should be able to hire NPC guards that can be ordered to do certain defensive things. Guard areas, guard players, kill reds on sight, watch my back, etc.
There will be plenty of combat in this game I have no doubt. Plenty of ganking too. I'm just hoping for more of an actual "virtual world" sandbox MMO, and not just a meaningless FPS in a persistant world.
All in all, it's probably best to stick with FPS or fighting games for PvP without consequences. I think PvP with consequences will be a lot more challenging, and therefore satisfying.
I would agree with this, if it wasn't for the fact that the gameplay of MO, supposedly, will be much better than that of other FPS games and therefore more fun. I was a huge fan of Dark Messiahs gameplay, and this sounds like the MMO version of its gameplay.
PvP without consequences is more challenging, because it requires players to learn and earn their survival, instead of it being given to them by the devs, effectively making the game more realistic and dynamic. You have to fight and survive through real "evils" to be a real "hero."
Again, a nice platitude, but please be honest - you're not talking about giving others the chance to be a "real" hero, you're lobbying for a continual stock of easy prey with no consequences to yourself.
I'm getting a serious "I played on a WoW pvp server and it was full of griefers so all gankers in other games must be just like that too" vibe... A lot of WoW generation perspectives these days assume that there are only two stereotypical groups, the carebear RPing crafter addicted to grind and lore and the life-ruining antisocial griefer who ruthlessly hunts others innocent pixels for no reason. Lets get past that. You'll probably soon realize with MO, that games that allow you any path, produce people of many different paths.
Conflict is a fundamental tool of player interaction, interaction is the most important part of a sandbox. Sandboxes are not second life "single player" games, but true online worlds that allow for all elements of interaction. This isn't a Modern Age: World of Economic Domination setting, so combat and killing are a central part of foundation.
The consequences to myself are the fact that the players I may encounter will be of equal skill to me and I will lose my gear. Nothing more and nothing less should be apart of that encounter. I've said this a million times, but this won't be WoW PvP. The idea of some high level character getting easy kills is unlikely anywhere, assuming the Devs stick to their word.
I plan on creating an RP-lite yet PvP competitive mercenary guild with the sole intentions of helping the weaker populace including players, and guilds. Could include short term protection, defense during a seige against the unfair zergs, information sharing, training, hosting/guarding events, etc. Likely a huge focus on events like tournament hosting. Not simply your "lulzgoon PKer sqauds."
Besides, you're obviously meaning it should be "more challenging" for the potential victims - I meant more challenging for the ganker/PK'er. Shouldn't being a "real evil" be a challenge? You appear to want it to be easy. I'd like it to be a balance.
Why should evil be more challenging than not? Rememeber this is a leveless, player skill required game, being "evil," doesn't mean you will be instagibing noobs... And if it is, then the Devs have gone back on their word, and I will be seriously disappointed. Besides, evil is subjective. If one person just betrayed my guild and went off with our secrets and guild bank supplies, even if he was blue, he would be evil to us and therefore most likely hunted. There is no Dev system for situations like that, just player justice, as it should be. The only way to make this system fair would be to give stat loss on death to both blues and reds. I would support it then.
Anyway, I realize statloss is here to stay for MO and that's acceptable at least. I think it would be more fair for everyone to have statloss on death instead of just reds. The rest of the game will make up for that single hitch I'm sure. I just hope the arena is well thought out and competitive as I'll probably spend most of my time there.
As far as I know, the exact implementation of stat loss, if any, is still being decided upon.
Regarding your statement above, what aspects of MO's gameplay do you find more appealing than other FPSs?
It's more easier to see it visually. I suggest watching a video of Dark Messiah, GoW2, and then comparing and contrasting it to MO's alpha footage. You'll notice that one has just guns and the others are, well, more intricate than that. You could also say I was a huge fan of JKA multiplayer.
i am a HUGE shadowbane fan, love the freedom in SB, and i am really lookgin forward to MO
but i really the game is release only if it is complete (not polish, it is too hard for game like MO to be polish), there're too few information about the game yet...but i can't beileve it is out soon..i really hope MO isn't another Dark and Light or Darkfail
there are no levels, so no lowbie area, maybe a nooby area... but 20 noobs should be able to kill 1 griefer ;P
but all n all, don't play full pvp games if you can't deal without being ganked, seriously
Sure, but though I love to gank myself, there have to be certain pennalties. A complete gankfest where nothing can be achieved without dying many times would limit the sandbox realism to this game.
Take a real life 'sandbox' like the midwest a few centuries ago; sure you had highwaymen and robbers but they weren't waiting for you behind every single friggin' bush.
I agree that pvp should always be an option and that is how the MMO team thinks about it too, but they are rightly trying to keep the amount of it more realistic compared to games like DFO.
I think that is great
It will mean a bigger division between those who choose to be lawfull and those who choose not too. It permits the evil bastards among us to wear their murderer badge with 'honor' :>
^ This
well said pony. I cant think of any game that doesnt have some consequence for murdering somebody. I know in UO(and lineage 2) you turned red. In EVE you lose sec status and are unable to go into certain areas and you have a major disadvantage if you attack on a stargate or station. AOC has that criminal thing as well.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
FFA w/o limitations does not promote diversity. Just look at DF or take a look in the real world. Without some sort of rules to even out things there will always be 1 dominate playstyle that surfaces and everyone will have to play that way or lose out. PvP w/o consequences is not more challenging, and again DF is the perfect example ( Zerg or Die ). The devs are going about it the right way by leveling the playing field for all playstyles.
10% primary skill and stat loss if you have a stat timer > 0 on resurrection.
Just seems like a bad UO rip off.
FFA w/o limitations does not promote diversity. Just look at DF or take a look in the real world. Without some sort of rules to even out things there will always be 1 dominate playstyle that surfaces and everyone will have to play that way or lose out. PvP w/o consequences is not more challenging, and again DF is the perfect example ( Zerg or Die ). The devs are going about it the right way by leveling the playing field for all playstyles.
First of all you dont know what your talking about and second of all yes ffa done right promotes diversity (see asherons call back in the day lots of factions of pvp groups, different builds for mage,archer or melle...similar but different). Third, darkfall is horrible just horrible, the melle system and magic system are ludicris, and worst of all you need a group to go around ganking to kill someone...because 1 on 1 someone can run away forever...REALLY REALLY DUMB (my impression from a little while ago but I'm guessing that company didnt change anything!).
Does that help with your reading comprehension?
I do agree that FFA done decent promotes good diversity. EVE is the perfect example.