Open-world, non-consensual PVP directly enhances the ''sandbox'' feel, no?
It does indeed. With enough penalties (or loot maybe), it's the easiest way to make a game feel more sandbox and thrilling at the same time. I myself am a above average pvp-er, but I do not have guild or a clan. In this type of setting, without having a zerg, I would die a lot, which is something I am always willing to do. Escaping or hiding from zergs of player killers would make things even more fun.
EQ is known for its vast amount of classes with different mechanics, which make things harder in terms of the balance. Then again, a few overpowered or underpowered classes/templates would not make a game bad, boring or repetitive - which are the source of the problem. Hence, I actually find it ok. Sure, balance is key for e-sports type of structured pvp setting (or objective based for that matter), but then again, why would you need a perfect balance in an open world pvp?
Meanwhile, a form of progress is also needed and no, I am not talking about levels or end-game sets. What I am saying is that progress is healthy, where the difference between a newly created character and a veteran character is smaller than usual. Not like you have 200 hp at level 1 and 50000k hp at level 80, this is just inflation, not real progress.
I am saying this because they want this game to be community driven, with crafters doing their job to craft the best items. Why not make item-stats totally random, where a weapon could carry random stats and expertise every time its crafted. I know all that sounds like UO 2nd Age, then again, why should it not sound like UO?
What gets me excited is that, for the first time, a mainstream company like SOE and a franchise like EQ comes up with the promise of a sandbox. A sandbox with enough eye candy, good animations - visuals with lots of content and a great player-base to begin with.
I've said this elsewhere, and I'll repeat it here. SOE is not building a game that will allow you to victimize your fellow players, which is what Open world, non-consensual PvP does. Not by itself of course,or even its nature, but because there seems to be a large number of our people who believe it is their right to grief their fellow players. These are the people you can thank for not having a AAA sandbox, open world nonconsensual PvP game, not the so-called carebears. These are the people that have driven the Open-world paradigm into the niche that it's in, by disrespecting the rights of their fellow players.
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
This would work if we could get a developer to afford opportune amounts to the PVP portion instead of just throwing shit out against a wall.
An open PVP server with no criminal flags, looting rules, etc is not real PVP. It's an AFTERTHOUGHT. Thus, the purpose of this very thread.
Whether different servers or on one giant server, there will always be PvE vs. PvP balance issues. There's really no difference whether they're split or together. As long as a play style exists, players of that style will be yelling about balance the first time they get their butt handed to them, whether by another player or a mob.
Seems to me splitting the groups would make it easier to collect data on the playstyles in order to come up with balance adjustments.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
i just don't see whats wrong with PVP dedicated servers and PVE (with consensual PVP) servers? why do PVPers feel the need to force their playstyle down everyones throat? or is it because PVPers know that MOST players if they have a choice prefer to have consensual PVP and will not touch pure PVP server unless they are forced on them.
and LOL @ minecraft - thats like saying if you want all PVP go play Call of Duty.
not all pvp'rs want that - I like pvp and I think there are other forms - EVE like, Shadowbane-like but replacing open world with just those cities at war being able to pvp. When pve'rs yell about pvp they always focus on non-consensual as if that is the only type of pvp. Now, there are types of pvp I hate - arena pvp being tops. Or LOTRO's little monster play pvp thing. You can have a game where pve and pvp can co-exist. I rarely had a problem in EVE playing pve. If I wanted a fight I could find one. If I wanted to not fight, to mine or run missions I could do that. I rarely got ganked - and the 1 major time I did it was my fault for not paying attention. I find the risk of pvp trouble is a spice worth having in a game. Safe zones, and semi safe zones and suicide zones work - as eVE shows. City based faction warfare could work. It doesn't have to be non-consensual pvp for there to be ppvp. Pve'rs cry foul over the merest concept of pvp when there are forms that would make gankers pretty rare.
because even in those systems there is still a chance for some ganker to come and kill me. this is why consensual PVP WORKS, whether its an RVR area like DAOC or a flagging system. if you want PVP you go find it or flag for it if you do not want to PVP you NEVER EVER EVER have to worry about it.
Consensual PVP is compromise what you want is NOT compromise.
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
PVPers have shown their dislike of tacked on PVP.
and PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers have shown their dislike for full on Open PVP. heres the dirty secret the pure PVPers are the vocal minority and the PVE'rs and Consensual PVPer PAY good money for your content and your servers. PVP servers are always the least populated and always have the lowest number of servers.
you PVPer should be thanking and kissing the feet of PVE'rs/Consensual PVPers ... not trying to run them off. without their money "your" PVP paradise fails and the game dies.
Elitist much?
The problem is that PVP in most mmo's, the pvp "server" is always a TACKED on pvp option. They didn't design the game around pvp and it shows, and that's why pvp servers are usually lower pop, because the game wasn't designed for it and the pvp doesn't really pan out in any meaningful way.
Since old UO there has not been a SINGLE ffa open world sandbox mmorpg from any major AAA publisher. Only a few small indie attempts that have no where near the money for the game to compete on any kind of level playing field against the likes of WoW or other huge 50+million budget mmo's.
However there has been Eve, which was a niche mmo that has CoNSTANTLY grown and is one of the highest subscription based mmo's still on the market. It has shown that there IS a market for PVP mmo's that are DESIGNED with this in mind.
On top of this, for those of us few who actually got to experience full ffa pvp first hand in either UO or Eve, we understand how different it can be.
Most "PVErs" that are so adamantly against PVP are judging open pvp based on their experiences from mmo's designed with PVE in mind and tacked on PVP (like WoW). Where gear is so important that it "makes" your character and where there's no realy point to pvp, no consequences for killing someone, no rewards , just mindless tacked on pvp with no meaning, and then the people ASSUME that all open pvp in an mmo has to be that way, but it doesn't.
i just don't see whats wrong with PVP dedicated servers and PVE (with consensual PVP) servers? why do PVPers feel the need to force their playstyle down everyones throat? or is it because PVPers know that MOST players if they have a choice prefer to have consensual PVP and will not touch pure PVP server unless they are forced on them.
and LOL @ minecraft - thats like saying if you want all PVP go play Call of Duty.
not all pvp'rs want that - I like pvp and I think there are other forms - EVE like, Shadowbane-like but replacing open world with just those cities at war being able to pvp. When pve'rs yell about pvp they always focus on non-consensual as if that is the only type of pvp. Now, there are types of pvp I hate - arena pvp being tops. Or LOTRO's little monster play pvp thing. You can have a game where pve and pvp can co-exist. I rarely had a problem in EVE playing pve. If I wanted a fight I could find one. If I wanted to not fight, to mine or run missions I could do that. I rarely got ganked - and the 1 major time I did it was my fault for not paying attention. I find the risk of pvp trouble is a spice worth having in a game. Safe zones, and semi safe zones and suicide zones work - as eVE shows. City based faction warfare could work. It doesn't have to be non-consensual pvp for there to be ppvp. Pve'rs cry foul over the merest concept of pvp when there are forms that would make gankers pretty rare.
because even in those systems there is still a chance for some ganker to come and kill me. this is why consensual PVP WORKS, whether its an RVR area like DAOC or a flagging system. if you want PVP you go find it or flag for it if you do not want to PVP you NEVER EVER EVER have to worry about it.
Consensual PVP is compromise what you want is NOT compromise.
did you read what I posted about player city faction warfare where cities can also declare themselves neutral? Where the only pvp is between players of cities that are at war? People who are not at war are safe? How is that NOT compromise? You can belong to a Neutral City and pve to your heart's content. You can belong to an aggressive city and, as long as your city is at war you have pvp targets. Sounds like a proper mix to me. What what disturb you about that, pvp'rs being on the same server as you, even if they cannot touch you as you remain neutral?
EQ had non consensual PVP actually. And the PVP servers died, there is only 1 left, while there are 16 PVE servers.
Some people like non-consensual PVP, but you're delusional if you think it's anything more than a small niche market.
Here son, show us on the doll where the bad pvpers touched you (I am seriously sick of your narrowminded, judgemental replies to any thread with this topic, either make a valid comment on its, PVP's, place in a future, not passed, EQ game with actual facts behind your arguments and I might not just start taking apart the jokes you call arguments).
You know, half of the reason PVE players refuse to do any PVP at all has to do with the attitude problem PVP players have. There's this need to be confrontational with you players, something you don't find on PVE servers.
And the doll didn't touch me anywhere you crazy creep.
This coming from the guy who called those who enjoy PVP "children".
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
PVPers have shown their dislike of tacked on PVP.
and PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers have shown their dislike for full on Open PVP. heres the dirty secret the pure PVPers are the vocal minority and the PVE'rs and Consensual PVPer PAY good money for your content and your servers. PVP servers are always the least populated and always have the lowest number of servers.
you PVPer should be thanking and kissing the feet of PVE'rs/Consensual PVPers ... not trying to run them off. without their money "your" PVP paradise fails and the game dies.
Elitist much?
The problem is that PVP in most mmo's, the pvp "server" is always a TACKED on pvp option. They didn't design the game around pvp and it shows, and that's why pvp servers are usually lower pop, because the game wasn't designed for it and the pvp doesn't really pan out in any meaningful way.
Since old UO there has not been a SINGLE ffa open world sandbox mmorpg from any major AAA publisher. Only a few small indie attempts that have no where near the money for the game to compete on any kind of level playing field against the likes of WoW or other huge 50+million budget mmo's.
However there has been Eve, which was a niche mmo that has CoNSTANTLY grown and is one of the highest subscription based mmo's still on the market. It has shown that there IS a market for PVP mmo's that are DESIGNED with this in mind.
On top of this, for those of us few who actually got to experience full ffa pvp first hand in either UO or Eve, we understand how different it can be.
Most "PVErs" that are so adamantly against PVP are judging open pvp based on their experiences from mmo's designed with PVE in mind and tacked on PVP (like WoW). Where gear is so important that it "makes" your character and where there's no realy point to pvp, no consequences for killing someone, no rewards , just mindless tacked on pvp with no meaning, and then the people ASSUME that all open pvp in an mmo has to be that way, but it doesn't.
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
PVPers have shown their dislike of tacked on PVP.
and PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers have shown their dislike for full on Open PVP. heres the dirty secret the pure PVPers are the vocal minority and the PVE'rs and Consensual PVPer PAY good money for your content and your servers. PVP servers are always the least populated and always have the lowest number of servers.
you PVPer should be thanking and kissing the feet of PVE'rs/Consensual PVPers ... not trying to run them off. without their money "your" PVP paradise fails and the game dies.
Elitist much?
The problem is that PVP in most mmo's, the pvp "server" is always a TACKED on pvp option. They didn't design the game around pvp and it shows, and that's why pvp servers are usually lower pop, because the game wasn't designed for it and the pvp doesn't really pan out in any meaningful way.
Since old UO there has not been a SINGLE ffa open world sandbox mmorpg from any major AAA publisher. Only a few small indie attempts that have no where near the money for the game to compete on any kind of level playing field against the likes of WoW or other huge 50+million budget mmo's.
However there has been Eve, which was a niche mmo that has CoNSTANTLY grown and is one of the highest subscription based mmo's still on the market. It has shown that there IS a market for PVP mmo's that are DESIGNED with this in mind.
On top of this, for those of us few who actually got to experience full ffa pvp first hand in either UO or Eve, we understand how different it can be.
Most "PVErs" that are so adamantly against PVP are judging open pvp based on their experiences from mmo's designed with PVE in mind and tacked on PVP (like WoW). Where gear is so important that it "makes" your character and where there's no realy point to pvp, no consequences for killing someone, no rewards , just mindless tacked on pvp with no meaning, and then the people ASSUME that all open pvp in an mmo has to be that way, but it doesn't.
But UO was also the first game to pull a 180 on PvP due to a larger part of the community requesting changes to PvP. The players themselves got tired of all the crap PvP caused in the game, the griefing, etc. They constantly requested PvP be dealt with. EA ended up splitting the worlds. Populations began growing again, but mostly on the Trammel half.
There is a reason PvP is treated as an after thought.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
And when it comes time to balance some skills do you just maintain two entirely different systems?
Cause balanced for pve and balanced for pvp arent really the same thing. And neither side likes nerfs cause random spell was too good in the side of the game they dont really care about.
well if you're looking at the pvp as a full world sandbox system the game doesnt need to be balanced for one on one pvp; however if you want arenas etc then it does. it needs to be balanced for group pvp and possibly sieges.
i dont see the problem with balancing skills differently for pve and pvp though. it actually seems like a good idea; though of course it would be Ugly (with a capital U) til they get it adjusted right at first. ex: Spell tool tip "fireball" Casting time 1s; does A damage to target NPC or B damage to target player. Range X yards vs NPC, Y yards vs PC
it might be a lazy way out but it is a way out.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
This would work if we could get a developer to afford opportune amounts to the PVP portion instead of just throwing shit out against a wall.
An open PVP server with no criminal flags, looting rules, etc is not real PVP. It's an AFTERTHOUGHT. Thus, the purpose of this very thread.
yes i actually absolutely agree with you. both pvp ad pve would need to be worked on with skilled and well staffed departments, if the 2 server solution were to be undertaken.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
And when it comes time to balance some skills do you just maintain two entirely different systems?
Cause balanced for pve and balanced for pvp arent really the same thing. And neither side likes nerfs cause random spell was too good in the side of the game they dont really care about.
well if you're looking at the pvp as a full world sandbox system the game doesnt need to be balanced for one on one pvp; however if you want arenas etc then it does. it needs to be balanced for group pvp and possibly sieges.
i dont see the problem with balancing skills differently for pve and pvp though. it actually seems like a good idea; though of course it would be Ugly (with a capital U) til they get it adjusted right at first. ex: Spell tool tip "fireball" Casting time 1s; does A damage to target NPC or B damage to target player. Range X yards vs NPC, Y yards vs PC
it might be a lazy way out but it is a way out.
I mean keeping them balanced and independant is doable....but requires twice the staff and work. And Im just not sure how likely that is to happen.
Far more likely we get the usual 1 build for all crap weve been getting. Which is a real downer.
Pity too Id prefer it that way and I think most people would. As you said it pretty much ends the arguing.
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
PVPers have shown their dislike of tacked on PVP.
This is completly understandable and has happened in many games that aren't pure PvP. The reason IMO has been because for most it's seen as a fun activity on the side if at all. I do think the trend needs to stop however and that PvP needs to be more fleshed out even if it's consentual. I do think it's possible to have both and I don't think having a deep PvP system means everyone has to be involved, the two are seperate. I still maintain that both can coexist as long as there is choice. Everyone would benefit.
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
PVPers have shown their dislike of tacked on PVP.
and PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers have shown their dislike for full on Open PVP. heres the dirty secret the pure PVPers are the vocal minority and the PVE'rs and Consensual PVPer PAY good money for your content and your servers. PVP servers are always the least populated and always have the lowest number of servers.
you PVPer should be thanking and kissing the feet of PVE'rs/Consensual PVPers ... not trying to run them off. without their money "your" PVP paradise fails and the game dies.
Elitist much?
The problem is that PVP in most mmo's, the pvp "server" is always a TACKED on pvp option. They didn't design the game around pvp and it shows, and that's why pvp servers are usually lower pop, because the game wasn't designed for it and the pvp doesn't really pan out in any meaningful way.
Since old UO there has not been a SINGLE ffa open world sandbox mmorpg from any major AAA publisher. Only a few small indie attempts that have no where near the money for the game to compete on any kind of level playing field against the likes of WoW or other huge 50+million budget mmo's.
Elitist? no just telling you the reality of it. PVP servers are always the lowest populated and are always very limited in number of servers compared to PVE servers. so yes you PVPers should be thanking PVE'rs and consensual PVPers for your content,
speaking of UO and the PVP utopia it was, except for the fact that the player base went up when they added Trammel. that should tell you something as well.
Originally posted by DocBrodyBring up one major developer big budget sandbox like EQN with non consensual PvP, then we´ll talk again.I can already taste the sweet sweet tears of the PvE-only players, when the game hits 10 million players.
EQ had non consensual PVP actually. And the PVP servers died, there is only 1 left, while there are 16 PVE servers.Some people like non-consensual PVP, but you're delusional if you think it's anything more than a small niche market.
Here son, show us on the doll where the bad pvpers touched you (I am seriously sick of your narrowminded, judgemental replies to any thread with this topic, either make a valid comment on its, PVP's, place in a future, not passed, EQ game with actual facts behind your arguments and I might not just start taking apart the jokes you call arguments).
It may be narrow minded, but it's based in reality. Call it what you will, FFA PvP, OWPvP, whatever, it pulls in fewer people than "flagging" PvP or battlegrounds style PvP.
In Rift, six out of twenty two servers are PvP servers.
Fifty five percent of WoW characters are rolled on PvE servers. The servers are actually pretty balanced, with there being four more PvE servers than PvP servers. There are more than double the number of RPPvE servers than RPPvP servers, but there aren't a ton of RP servers overall. No way to tell how many people participate in the PvP content on PvP servers though.
The majority of running EQ and EQ2 servers are PvE servers, not PvP servers.
Most of the people in Eve are playing in a game with non-consensual PvP, but they are playing in high security space. In other words, most players do not participate in PvP.
The statement that more people prefer PvE servers or consensual PvP to PvP servers or non-consensual PvP is easily supportable.
It goes further than that.
Many PvP players love to dangle the success of EVE in an attempt to make a point as to the popularity of open world PvP. What they fail to realize is that the player base of EVE, for the most part, reflects the total number of PvP players available to the genre.
In other words, it is not unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion that if EVE is the flag bearer for an open world PvP game, and if for the longest time it has been pretty much the most popular open world PvP game on the market in an industry quite devoid of the genre, then it stands to reason that its player base population is a really good reflection of the potential population that such a game will be able to generate.
So the question before us is obvioulsly, would SOE be satisfied with a potential player base the size of EVE's. If the answer is yes, then its reasonable to presume that the option is viable and on the table. If not, then it goes without saying that it will not happen.
I am, without a doubt certain, that SOE is striving for loftier goals.
This is utterly ridiculous. I don't play EVE. Tonnes of PVP-lovers don't play it. Space-ship battles aren't everyone's cup of tea.
Look at all the millions of people who play competitive multiplayer on Playstation. They will eat this game up when it comes out on PS4 if they can PVP.
Anyone who thinks "non consensual PvP" is a good idea and would make people stay need only look at the enormous drop in subs in AION over their first three months.....
Forced PvP leads to griefing.....
Griefing leads to frustration.....
Frustration leads to the Dark Side.....and canceled subs.
People get turned off by OWPVP because it is usually abused by punks and the games fail at having some sort of system to curtail the type of behavior. I like what Archeage is doing, and I think Wushu had some sort of similar mechanic that had penalties for that sort of game behavior.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
And when it comes time to balance some skills do you just maintain two entirely different systems?
Cause balanced for pve and balanced for pvp arent really the same thing. And neither side likes nerfs cause random spell was too good in the side of the game they dont really care about.
well if you're looking at the pvp as a full world sandbox system the game doesnt need to be balanced for one on one pvp; however if you want arenas etc then it does. it needs to be balanced for group pvp and possibly sieges.
i dont see the problem with balancing skills differently for pve and pvp though. it actually seems like a good idea; though of course it would be Ugly (with a capital U) til they get it adjusted right at first. ex: Spell tool tip "fireball" Casting time 1s; does A damage to target NPC or B damage to target player. Range X yards vs NPC, Y yards vs PC
it might be a lazy way out but it is a way out.
I mean keeping them balanced and independant is doable....but requires twice the staff and work. And Im just not sure how likely that is to happen.
Far more likely we get the usual 1 build for all crap weve been getting. Which is a real downer.
Pity too Id prefer it that way and I think most people would. As you said it pretty much ends the arguing.
i know what you mean but hey listen; SQE has admitted mistakes; maybe they will start a revolution of game devs turning over a new leaf
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Originally posted by DocBrodyBring up one major developer big budget sandbox like EQN with non consensual PvP, then we´ll talk again.I can already taste the sweet sweet tears of the PvE-only players, when the game hits 10 million players.
EQ had non consensual PVP actually. And the PVP servers died, there is only 1 left, while there are 16 PVE servers.Some people like non-consensual PVP, but you're delusional if you think it's anything more than a small niche market.
Here son, show us on the doll where the bad pvpers touched you (I am seriously sick of your narrowminded, judgemental replies to any thread with this topic, either make a valid comment on its, PVP's, place in a future, not passed, EQ game with actual facts behind your arguments and I might not just start taking apart the jokes you call arguments).
It may be narrow minded, but it's based in reality. Call it what you will, FFA PvP, OWPvP, whatever, it pulls in fewer people than "flagging" PvP or battlegrounds style PvP.
In Rift, six out of twenty two servers are PvP servers.
Fifty five percent of WoW characters are rolled on PvE servers. The servers are actually pretty balanced, with there being four more PvE servers than PvP servers. There are more than double the number of RPPvE servers than RPPvP servers, but there aren't a ton of RP servers overall. No way to tell how many people participate in the PvP content on PvP servers though.
The majority of running EQ and EQ2 servers are PvE servers, not PvP servers.
Most of the people in Eve are playing in a game with non-consensual PvP, but they are playing in high security space. In other words, most players do not participate in PvP.
The statement that more people prefer PvE servers or consensual PvP to PvP servers or non-consensual PvP is easily supportable.
It goes further than that.
Many PvP players love to dangle the success of EVE in an attempt to make a point as to the popularity of open world PvP. What they fail to realize is that the player base of EVE, for the most part, reflects the total number of PvP players available to the genre.
In other words, it is not unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion that if EVE is the flag bearer for an open world PvP game, and if for the longest time it has been pretty much the most popular open world PvP game on the market in an industry quite devoid of the genre, then it stands to reason that its player base population is a really good reflection of the potential population that such a game will be able to generate.
So the question before us is obvioulsly, would SOE be satisfied with a potential player base the size of EVE's. If the answer is yes, then its reasonable to presume that the option is viable and on the table. If not, then it goes without saying that it will not happen.
I am, without a doubt certain, that SOE is striving for loftier goals.
This is utterly ridiculous. I don't play EVE. Tonnes of PVP-lovers don't play it. Space-ship battles aren't everyone's cup of tea.
Look at all the millions of people who play competitive multiplayer on Playstation. They will eat this game up when it comes out on PS4 if they can PVP.
I love how people throw out statistics like the people who play EVE are the pvp base number. Where did you get that idea. I know a lot of people who like PvP who do not play EVE because either it is spaceship based or because it is a spreadsheet game. I know a lot who do not like Mortal online, myself included because it is not very playable. I like pvp but the last time I played someone was in the distance, I saw them move in my direction and then in a heartbeat I was dead and they were looting my corpse. There was no pvp just someone using a bug to kill me. Darkfall I wanted to play but heard about too many issues to spend money on it. I also like how people talk about pvp as if non-consensual is the only type of pvp pvp'rs want to play. It is just their rallying cries so they can feel good about them not wanting to try anything remotely connected to pvp because some ganker killed their toon once. I got killed in EVE once by a ganker, once, all it did was make me sure that when I played PvE in EVE I played sensibly.
Non-consensual PVP is not going to happen on all servers. It's just realistic people the market is too small. If you want to invest millions into a new game, trash your best IP, and betray everyone of the players who stuck with EQ for 14 years make a open world forced PVP game you think people were pissed about the NGE.
There will obviously be PVP and PVP will be important to the game but expecting a darkfall EQ you're setting yourself up to be let down. I like to PVP, but I don't like to be forced into it every time I log in.
People who say the market is too small, really do not have anything to back that statement up. For one, what's too small? I mean if you are talking bigger potential player base the better, the World of Warcraft clone has a far larger potential player base than any other type of MMORPG on the market and we see how that has worked out for so many games. We also see how the scrapping of the first two iterations of EQN and the development of a sandbox EQN shows that SOE is not developing EQN for the largest potential player base.
How do you figure ? People don't want a wow clone they have plenty . People are sick of wow even people playing wow are just waiting for that next game that does something new.
New and different does not = open world PVP that is not new its not different several dozen games have it or have tried it and failed.
All of the speculation EQN will be an open world PVP game are unfounded and based of one quote that everyone has a different meaning to.
You better believe smed is going for a bigger crowd here he doesn't want another game with 200k players he already has a few of them.
How do I figure what exactly? The fact is, the largest apparent market within the MMORPG genre is the World of Warcraft market. That is why there are still a slew of games that are coming out that are WoW clones despite the success of the games coming out not compensating for the budget needed to produce that type of game.
New and different does not automatically equate to open world, you are right. That is why games like Guild Wars 2 comes out. Yet what do they have to make different exactly?
The irony of this conversation is that people on this forum will argue that the PVP market is too small, but then in another thread call for things like corpse runs, experience loss, mob grind, item camping, and long leveling times as if there is some magical large market for that. It's a joke really. What is really the case is that they don't want a PVP based game, so they will say literally anything to convince themselves that it won't be built around PVP.
Open-world, non-consensual PVP directly enhances the ''sandbox'' feel, no?
no it doesn't enhance the feel, being a sandbox does not mean it has to have open-world PVP at all. SWG was a fine sandbox without Full PVP.
I said enhances, of course a sandbox can be without pvp. But with meaningful pvp (not tokens, ranks, titles), you help creating a meaningful community who actually relies to each other (if you make the economy crafting-based then you have another contributing factor). A meaningful community, eventually adds to the longevity and value of the game.
If you ask me, I would opt against an in-game world/local map too. You can just follow the directions on the road and then get lost in the wilderness just to be killed by violent players or monsters.
That would be exploring. In a month or so; people would draws maps etc. But still, you will find yourself looking for that map online, instead of going to a pre-determined direction. Never played EQ1, but I guess it had similar elements.
When MMO designers talked about less grindy games, they should have thought about keeping the ''effort'' at the same level. Mindless grind could well be compensated by focusing player effort on different areas. That is why I hated GW2, it eliminated grind to some extent in return for glory of progress.
Originally posted by Hellidol I agree with the OP, I know for a fact that games like shadowbane would have never died if it wasnt for bad programming. EVE did it right and anything they did wrong they corrected in a way it didnt hurt their product. People have been waiting a long long long time for a sword and bored style EVE, IMO just make SB2 BUT if EQN is anything like sb then I will be playing it for a long long time.
For those arguing that the market is too small and that PvPers are nonexistent I suggest you take a moment and think about something. What game is the most popular PC game at the moment? And no, it's not World of WarCraft. It's an entirely PvP driven experience. Then I'd also like for you all to take into consideration the immense success of titles like DayZ which brought the whole conflict driven sandbox experience to the masses. Guess what? People loved it.
So can we please put the silly notion of gamers not liking PvP behind us? The proof is in the pudding and the vast majority of gamers absolutely love player conflict. The trick is doing it right. Most of the failed sandbox MMOs cited here were awful games at just about every level. They didn't fail because they focused on PvP, they failed because they were shoddily designed.
Yet the format for the majority of pvp only gaming is not in the form of MMOs and there is a very good reason for that. Pvp is stressful and most people only want it in small doses, hence the plethora of single player and non-time consuming multiplayer pvp games. MMOs are another beast because they require a lot more effort, a lot more time investment and usually cannot be played in small chunks of time. Add pvp as the mainstay of an MMO and you have a recipe that turns off most gamers. The inability to turn off pvp when you're not in the mood. Having to deal with enough jerks who waste your time and steal your hard earned loot and or XP (something you do not ever suffer in regular multiplayer games). Pvpers can and have blocked other players from progressing by locking off content areas and or quest objectives.
The point is that pvp has a severe and sometimes very negative effect on an MMO that can't be found in other genres.
What about PlanetSide 2 which also happens to be SOE's biggest cash cow?
Let's face it, the money argument doesn't hold up here. The last successful PvE based MMO SOE created was EverQuest and that was at the very dawn of the genre. Things have changed and people aren't going to be satisfied whacking away at automatons. World of WarCraft did all that could be done in regards to themeparks. If EverQuest Next wants to succeed it cannot afford pandering to the dying PvE audience. Even Blizzard's titan is slowly withering away. It needs to embrace PvX and work on making it one organism.
Good point about PlanetSide 2. It's time for PVP to go back into MMOs where it belongs.
Comments
Open-world, non-consensual PVP directly enhances the ''sandbox'' feel, no?
It does indeed. With enough penalties (or loot maybe), it's the easiest way to make a game feel more sandbox and thrilling at the same time. I myself am a above average pvp-er, but I do not have guild or a clan. In this type of setting, without having a zerg, I would die a lot, which is something I am always willing to do. Escaping or hiding from zergs of player killers would make things even more fun.
EQ is known for its vast amount of classes with different mechanics, which make things harder in terms of the balance. Then again, a few overpowered or underpowered classes/templates would not make a game bad, boring or repetitive - which are the source of the problem. Hence, I actually find it ok. Sure, balance is key for e-sports type of structured pvp setting (or objective based for that matter), but then again, why would you need a perfect balance in an open world pvp?
Meanwhile, a form of progress is also needed and no, I am not talking about levels or end-game sets. What I am saying is that progress is healthy, where the difference between a newly created character and a veteran character is smaller than usual. Not like you have 200 hp at level 1 and 50000k hp at level 80, this is just inflation, not real progress.
I am saying this because they want this game to be community driven, with crafters doing their job to craft the best items. Why not make item-stats totally random, where a weapon could carry random stats and expertise every time its crafted. I know all that sounds like UO 2nd Age, then again, why should it not sound like UO?
What gets me excited is that, for the first time, a mainstream company like SOE and a franchise like EQ comes up with the promise of a sandbox. A sandbox with enough eye candy, good animations - visuals with lots of content and a great player-base to begin with.
Whether different servers or on one giant server, there will always be PvE vs. PvP balance issues. There's really no difference whether they're split or together. As long as a play style exists, players of that style will be yelling about balance the first time they get their butt handed to them, whether by another player or a mob.
Seems to me splitting the groups would make it easier to collect data on the playstyles in order to come up with balance adjustments.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
because even in those systems there is still a chance for some ganker to come and kill me. this is why consensual PVP WORKS, whether its an RVR area like DAOC or a flagging system. if you want PVP you go find it or flag for it if you do not want to PVP you NEVER EVER EVER have to worry about it.
Consensual PVP is compromise what you want is NOT compromise.
no it doesn't enhance the feel, being a sandbox does not mean it has to have open-world PVP at all. SWG was a fine sandbox without Full PVP.
Elitist much?
The problem is that PVP in most mmo's, the pvp "server" is always a TACKED on pvp option. They didn't design the game around pvp and it shows, and that's why pvp servers are usually lower pop, because the game wasn't designed for it and the pvp doesn't really pan out in any meaningful way.
Since old UO there has not been a SINGLE ffa open world sandbox mmorpg from any major AAA publisher. Only a few small indie attempts that have no where near the money for the game to compete on any kind of level playing field against the likes of WoW or other huge 50+million budget mmo's.
However there has been Eve, which was a niche mmo that has CoNSTANTLY grown and is one of the highest subscription based mmo's still on the market. It has shown that there IS a market for PVP mmo's that are DESIGNED with this in mind.
On top of this, for those of us few who actually got to experience full ffa pvp first hand in either UO or Eve, we understand how different it can be.
Most "PVErs" that are so adamantly against PVP are judging open pvp based on their experiences from mmo's designed with PVE in mind and tacked on PVP (like WoW). Where gear is so important that it "makes" your character and where there's no realy point to pvp, no consequences for killing someone, no rewards , just mindless tacked on pvp with no meaning, and then the people ASSUME that all open pvp in an mmo has to be that way, but it doesn't.
did you read what I posted about player city faction warfare where cities can also declare themselves neutral? Where the only pvp is between players of cities that are at war? People who are not at war are safe? How is that NOT compromise? You can belong to a Neutral City and pve to your heart's content. You can belong to an aggressive city and, as long as your city is at war you have pvp targets. Sounds like a proper mix to me. What what disturb you about that, pvp'rs being on the same server as you, even if they cannot touch you as you remain neutral?
Currently bored with MMO's.
This coming from the guy who called those who enjoy PVP "children".
good post.
Currently bored with MMO's.
But UO was also the first game to pull a 180 on PvP due to a larger part of the community requesting changes to PvP. The players themselves got tired of all the crap PvP caused in the game, the griefing, etc. They constantly requested PvP be dealt with. EA ended up splitting the worlds. Populations began growing again, but mostly on the Trammel half.
There is a reason PvP is treated as an after thought.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
well if you're looking at the pvp as a full world sandbox system the game doesnt need to be balanced for one on one pvp; however if you want arenas etc then it does. it needs to be balanced for group pvp and possibly sieges.
i dont see the problem with balancing skills differently for pve and pvp though. it actually seems like a good idea; though of course it would be Ugly (with a capital U) til they get it adjusted right at first. ex: Spell tool tip "fireball" Casting time 1s; does A damage to target NPC or B damage to target player. Range X yards vs NPC, Y yards vs PC
it might be a lazy way out but it is a way out.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
yes i actually absolutely agree with you. both pvp ad pve would need to be worked on with skilled and well staffed departments, if the 2 server solution were to be undertaken.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
I can't understand why people actually believe SOE especially Smedley can deliver and maintain a sandbox MMO.
Sorry - But SOE still is the Source Of Evil
rest in peace SWG
I mean keeping them balanced and independant is doable....but requires twice the staff and work. And Im just not sure how likely that is to happen.
Far more likely we get the usual 1 build for all crap weve been getting. Which is a real downer.
Pity too Id prefer it that way and I think most people would. As you said it pretty much ends the arguing.
This is completly understandable and has happened in many games that aren't pure PvP. The reason IMO has been because for most it's seen as a fun activity on the side if at all. I do think the trend needs to stop however and that PvP needs to be more fleshed out even if it's consentual. I do think it's possible to have both and I don't think having a deep PvP system means everyone has to be involved, the two are seperate. I still maintain that both can coexist as long as there is choice. Everyone would benefit.
Elitist? no just telling you the reality of it. PVP servers are always the lowest populated and are always very limited in number of servers compared to PVE servers. so yes you PVPers should be thanking PVE'rs and consensual PVPers for your content,
speaking of UO and the PVP utopia it was, except for the fact that the player base went up when they added Trammel. that should tell you something as well.
This is utterly ridiculous. I don't play EVE. Tonnes of PVP-lovers don't play it. Space-ship battles aren't everyone's cup of tea.
Look at all the millions of people who play competitive multiplayer on Playstation. They will eat this game up when it comes out on PS4 if they can PVP.
Anyone who thinks "non consensual PvP" is a good idea and would make people stay need only look at the enormous drop in subs in AION over their first three months.....
Forced PvP leads to griefing.....
Griefing leads to frustration.....
Frustration leads to the Dark Side.....and canceled subs.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
i know what you mean but hey listen; SQE has admitted mistakes; maybe they will start a revolution of game devs turning over a new leaf
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
I love how people throw out statistics like the people who play EVE are the pvp base number. Where did you get that idea. I know a lot of people who like PvP who do not play EVE because either it is spaceship based or because it is a spreadsheet game. I know a lot who do not like Mortal online, myself included because it is not very playable. I like pvp but the last time I played someone was in the distance, I saw them move in my direction and then in a heartbeat I was dead and they were looting my corpse. There was no pvp just someone using a bug to kill me. Darkfall I wanted to play but heard about too many issues to spend money on it. I also like how people talk about pvp as if non-consensual is the only type of pvp pvp'rs want to play. It is just their rallying cries so they can feel good about them not wanting to try anything remotely connected to pvp because some ganker killed their toon once. I got killed in EVE once by a ganker, once, all it did was make me sure that when I played PvE in EVE I played sensibly.
Currently bored with MMO's.
I think you're right...
I said enhances, of course a sandbox can be without pvp. But with meaningful pvp (not tokens, ranks, titles), you help creating a meaningful community who actually relies to each other (if you make the economy crafting-based then you have another contributing factor). A meaningful community, eventually adds to the longevity and value of the game.
If you ask me, I would opt against an in-game world/local map too. You can just follow the directions on the road and then get lost in the wilderness just to be killed by violent players or monsters.
That would be exploring. In a month or so; people would draws maps etc. But still, you will find yourself looking for that map online, instead of going to a pre-determined direction. Never played EQ1, but I guess it had similar elements.
When MMO designers talked about less grindy games, they should have thought about keeping the ''effort'' at the same level. Mindless grind could well be compensated by focusing player effort on different areas. That is why I hated GW2, it eliminated grind to some extent in return for glory of progress.
Thanks
Good point about PlanetSide 2. It's time for PVP to go back into MMOs where it belongs.