Howdy, Stranger!

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

What happened to PKing

1234568

Comments

  • itchmonitchmon Member UncommonPosts: 1,938

    some people like the thrill of not knowing when they might be "pvpd".

    some people like pvp but only in confined areas.

    others like pvp only in defined equalized matches (arena)

    still others like "economic pvp" such as one can do in eve (a corp tries to set the price of a commodity by hoarding it; profit ensues)

    and of course plenty of people don't like pvp in their MMO at all.

     

    none of the above people are bad people, none are playing the wrong way and thankfully there are games for all of us.

     

    might i suggest darkfall, eve, archeage, or the upcoming albion and camelot unchained to the OP.

    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

  • BladestromBladestrom Member UncommonPosts: 5,001
    Lizardsbones if you are incapable of entering a conversation without finishing with a personal attack don't bother. I don't need a game to an for my niche - j don't own a niche, and enjoy many mmorpg games righ now. Maybe you should actually read my posts since you attacked me by identifying game dev practices I agree with.

    rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar

    Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D

  • MsPtibiscuitMsPtibiscuit Member Posts: 164

    The problem with PKing is that it creates player interactions. You don't want that in MMORPGs, try to add more instances, phasing and separations between players.

  • TsumoroTsumoro Member UncommonPosts: 433
    Originally posted by Bribaryan

    Some of you love it.  A lot of you hate it.  But let's be honest Pkers adds a thrilling element to any game.  It also makes room for anti-pking, and the battle rages on.

     

    I've been playing Path Of Exile recently.  Although it's very much a copy / paste of diablo 2, it's excellent and extremely addicting.  And extremely fun.  But where is the hostile button when we level up and get bored?  Even Diablo 2 had that.

    It's really not so much about griefing other people, although I understand it is for many.  It's the atmosphere that's created.  It's hostile, unpredictable, and imho fun.  

    But more and more I'm seeing games are chopping the balls off of PvP.   IT should be an essential in any RPG as much as grouping up.

    Grinding mobs, getting awesome loot are two fun things.  But eventually your character hits endgame, and without PvP, well, it's over with.....

    What do you guys think?   Also, anyone know of a good game with the pvp I seek?

     

    Hitting End game with PvP does not mean its over, goodness no. I like PvP but more controlled environment like battle grounds etc. 

    The problem you have here is that PKing does not remain pure, it used to be pure, but no more. There is nothing satisfying nor rewarding about being killed by someone 20 more levels above you, nor you being killed by 10 players as you venture out, nor those players camping your corpse or smaller quest hub communities. They do it, because its easy and they get a mild enjoyment out of it to suit the tedium that must be present in their lives. 

    If you could keep PKing pure it would be wonderful, this is why nobbers in MMO's ruin it and why games like Dark Souls embrace it. 

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    3) Originally posted by Bladestrom
    Lizardsbones if you are incapable of entering a conversation without finishing with a personal attack don't bother. I don't need a game to an for my niche - j don't own a niche, and enjoy many mmorpg games righ now. Maybe you should actually read my posts since you attacked me by identifying game dev practices I agree with.
    2) Originally posted by Bladestrom
    They are large and expensive because they try to provide every feature that is popular in every game. I totally agree mmorpg are incredibly expensive to make - that's why it is important to aim for a market - not all markets.
    1) Originally posted by Bladestrom
    As it should be, mmorpg's should be niche and stop trying to be all things to all men - that's just stupidity and greed. Maybe then people who don't get mmorpg's will no longer feel the need to complain in forums that are aimed at mmorpg as mmorpg's will stop trying to aim at fans fro
    Multiple genre including non- rpg.

     

    The above quoted posts are not in order.  The editor is kind of cr@p when trying to do stuff like this.

     

    Huh.  Guess I hit a nerve there.

     

    MMORPGs are not trying to be all things to all men.  They aren't trying to provide every feature that is popular from every game.  If you can point out a game that has or has even tried to have all the features from all the games, I'd love to see what that looks like.  Now, are individual developers trying to add new features and options because that's how you compete?  Yes, definitely.  If they didn't the only MMORPG option would be Ultima Online and UO clones.

    MMORPGs are large and expensive because they are large and expensive.  As the cost of building video games has gone up, the cost of building MMORPGs has gone up more.  It doesn't matter what kind of MMORPG is being built.  To actually get even a standard set of features in there will cost millions of dollars.  To get a very nice set of features and to give the game a good polish will cost additional millions of dollars.  It's just really expensive to produce an MMORPG.

    Why would you think that developers and investors would invest in a genre that suddenly contracted and lost players?  All those people who don't "get" MMORPGs?  Without some sort of major backing, MMORPGs do not get developed.  Even with major financial backing, getting them developed is iffy.  Do you think people will develop MMORPGs as a hobby?  Nobody does that now, so would they do it then?  How would it even work?  Kickstarter? 

     

    The Repopulation is a pretty niche game.  The MMORPG genre is pretty niche, but The Repopulation is even more niche.  They have had as many as 50 people on staff working to develop that game, and it's been in development for like 9 years.  If those people are only working full time and not overtime, that's a 100,000 work-hours a year.  For 9 years.  That is a massive undertaking and they aren't doing anything particularly new.  It's really cool, but it's not really new.  MMORPGs are just massive games to produce.  Losing all the people who don't "get" MMORPGs is not going to help the genre.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • BribaryanBribaryan Member Posts: 23
    Originally posted by DeathWolf2u

    To OP,

     

    Let's be honest here for a moment for all the non-honest players out there in the world. Majority of PvPers are cheating in some regard whether from scripting to other type of hacks. Most people who are pro-pvp are in this category, argue it all you like it's a fact.

     

    When Destiny released there were already people cheating in the crucible only a few in the beginning, now that number has increased dramatically.

     

    Whenever you have an online game that is competitive you are going to have the dishonest players show up in droves. This is a main reason why most honest people do not want nor like PvP. If everyone was forced to play honestly without using their hack of choice then it would be different but that is never going to happen.

     

    This in short is the only acceptable answer to your question that you have posed.

    You can always make the argument that war/combat isn't going to ever be "truly fair/balanced." 

     

    If you throw a punch and I duck, did I cheat?  

     

    But I've had some of my most fun and entertaining fights in UO, WoW, etc. when we were at a disadvatange and still won the pvp fight. 

     

    Maybe what I'd simply like is a hardcore mode, siege perilous in every game I enter.  Just seems too often the games end up being a grind to lvl up and the end.

  • BribaryanBribaryan Member Posts: 23
    Originally posted by TiamatRoar
    Originally posted by Bribaryan

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  Vocal minority or not, I think Trammel killed the game for lots of people even if it did peak in subscribers around the same time.

    Quick factual correction:

     

    Subscribers peaked 3 years after trammel, not around the same time.  For more reference's sake, as you can see from the charts, UO was around 3 years old when Trammel first came out (and at that point, its subscription growth rate was apparently just about to decrease to 0).  Subscriber numbers wouldn't peak until 3 years later after that.  Although the "peak" was actually only slightly higher than UO's "levelled out" subscription numbers.  Basically, UO had practically stopped growing, then Trammel came out, UO's subscriber numbers almost doubled in a year showing a huge growth increase compared to what it was shortly before trammel, and then they stayed there for 3 years, finally increasing a little bit more at the end.

     

    ...and then WoW came out.  LOL.  I'm trying to remember if Age of Shadows was around that time or earlier (if AoS came later, then that'll prove nothing because... well, WoW. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure WoW came first from my memory of that era. AoS was likely developed in reaction to it).  So I guess if anything "killed" UO, it was WoW.

     

    I think lots of MMOs would love if they had some thing they could do to double their subscribers in the span of a year and keep that retention for 3 years+ (or whenever another WoW comes along to kill it).  Then again, the (perfectly valid) lesson they probably got from that was "don't even bother starting with no-alternate-option open world PvP in the first place"

    Well then I guess this comes down to personal taste, because when Wrath Of the Lich King came out, I thought it was awful and ruined the game.   I thought Vanilla and Burning Crusade were much better.  However, it managed to rope a lot of new players thanks to how much more spoonfed the rewards were.  So at this point, WoW may have peaked in playerbase, however the game for me wasnt that great.

    I wish we could split the thread arguments into what makes a good game, rather than "how are the companies going to milk what's left....."  There's lots of ways companies can turn up their money and population, whilst at the same time wrecking the game long term and driving off it's fanbase.   Keep in mind also that players with time invested arent going to walk away from 4 years + of progression very easily so the RPG genre has a slight edge in dragging players along for another year.

    I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game. 

    Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming.  Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...

     

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by Bribaryan
    Originally posted by TiamatRoar
    Originally posted by Bribaryan

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  Vocal minority or not, I think Trammel killed the game for lots of people even if it did peak in subscribers around the same time.

    Quick factual correction:

     

    Subscribers peaked 3 years after trammel, not around the same time.  For more reference's sake, as you can see from the charts, UO was around 3 years old when Trammel first came out (and at that point, its subscription growth rate was apparently just about to decrease to 0).  Subscriber numbers wouldn't peak until 3 years later after that.  Although the "peak" was actually only slightly higher than UO's "levelled out" subscription numbers.  Basically, UO had practically stopped growing, then Trammel came out, UO's subscriber numbers almost doubled in a year showing a huge growth increase compared to what it was shortly before trammel, and then they stayed there for 3 years, finally increasing a little bit more at the end.

     

    ...and then WoW came out.  LOL.  I'm trying to remember if Age of Shadows was around that time or earlier (if AoS came later, then that'll prove nothing because... well, WoW. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure WoW came first from my memory of that era. AoS was likely developed in reaction to it).  So I guess if anything "killed" UO, it was WoW.

     

    I think lots of MMOs would love if they had some thing they could do to double their subscribers in the span of a year and keep that retention for 3 years+ (or whenever another WoW comes along to kill it).  Then again, the (perfectly valid) lesson they probably got from that was "don't even bother starting with no-alternate-option open world PvP in the first place"

    Well then I guess this comes down to personal taste, because when Wrath Of the Lich King came out, I thought it was awful and ruined the game.   I thought Vanilla and Burning Crusade were much better.  However, it managed to rope a lot of new players thanks to how much more spoonfed the rewards were.  So at this point, WoW may have peaked in playerbase, however the game for me wasnt that great.

    I wish we could split the thread arguments into what makes a good game, rather than "how are the companies going to milk what's left....."  There's lots of ways companies can turn up their money and population, whilst at the same time wrecking the game long term and driving off it's fanbase.   Keep in mind also that players with time invested arent going to walk away from 4 years + of progression very easily so the RPG genre has a slight edge in dragging players along for another year.

    I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game. 

    Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming.  Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...

     

     

    Games are basically just a collection of preferences.  There is no global "makes a good game" feature other than "no bugs".  Nearly everything else that can go into an MMORPG can be argued as good or bad by players.  Well, unless you get down to really basic things like "being able to walk".  That kind of thing.  That's why "population" is the main rule for judging whether or not a game is good.  Games have targets to meet, and if they meet the population target, they've done good.  After that, it's all about retention.  However, this is all relative to the goals.  If a game's goal is 50K people and 100K people show up, that game did outstanding, even though compared to SWTOR the game is tiny.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • JDis25JDis25 Member RarePosts: 1,350

    I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game. 

    Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming.  Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...

     

    This is why gaming has sort of lost innovation. People aren't willing to take risks and instead copy popular games, maybe put a slight spin on it.

     

    I personally think forced PvP is fun, it's realistic, and never gets old. The point is, it's not scripted. This will never be "popular" in the MMO world as someone already said, PvP fans tend to gravitate towards other genres.

    I think that open PvP should eventually be on equal footing, no gear-treadmill at max level. However I don't think a level 1 should have a chance against a max level player like in GW2. I don't like pick up and play PvP because I feel there is no connection to you character, it doesn't feel as epic or grand, or something..

    Now Playing: Bless / Summoners War
    Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Bladestrom
    We are those game players, we are also not stupid and know what companies want. We also have our own minds.

    and you realize that devs have no obligations to cater to you, or me .. and that they are free .. in a free market .. to cater to anyone?

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by JDis25

     

    I personally think forced PvP is fun, it's realistic, and never gets old. The point is, it's not scripted.

    And i personally think forced pvp is not fun, and realism has little place in games, and when a game gets old, play the next one. And oh ... i like scripted SP games like the new sherlock holmes games.
  • trancejeremytrancejeremy Member UncommonPosts: 1,222

    Most PVP seems to be just ganking, someone higher level or with better gear killing low levels/low geared people.

     

    PVP should be equal, or close to it. But somehow the loudest PVP advocates can't seem to play games like that. Dark Fall most obviously. It's everything PVPers say they want, but really don't. They just want to gank people.

    R.I.P. City of Heroes and my 17 characters there

  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member UncommonPosts: 1,402
    Originally posted by JDis25

    I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game. 

    Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming.  Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...

     

    This is why gaming has sort of lost innovation. People aren't willing to take risks and instead copy popular games, maybe put a slight spin on it.

     

    In the case of what happened with UO and forced PvP, it's not so much "aren't willing to take risks" as it is "learned from the lessons of the past"

     

    MMOs tried forced PvP (not just UO, but other games that tried it too).  Turned out that it only caters to a very niche population.  So they stopped.  That's not "not taking risks".  That's "learned a lesson".

     

    (or, arguably, in some cases they simply cut the "RPG" part of the PvP out, and ended up with the much more successful MOBAs)

  • MiviMivi Member UncommonPosts: 83

    image

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by trancejeremy

     

     

    PVP should be equal, or close to it. But somehow the loudest PVP advocates can't seem to play games like that. Dark Fall most obviously. It's everything PVPers say they want, but really don't. They just want to gank people.


    well, most of the pvp supporters are already playing e-sport type games, and probably don't care enough about MMO pvp to come here and complain.

  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member UncommonPosts: 1,402
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by trancejeremy

     

     

    PVP should be equal, or close to it. But somehow the loudest PVP advocates can't seem to play games like that. Dark Fall most obviously. It's everything PVPers say they want, but really don't. They just want to gank people.


    well, most of the pvp supporters are already playing e-sport type games, and probably don't care enough about MMO pvp to come here and complain.

    Yea, if you're looking for PvPers who don't care about ganking or having inherent advantages from better gear or higher levels or more friends, you'll probably find them in other places like MOBAs and FPS's.

     

    After all, why bother dealing with that stupid PvE grind, that annoying questing, and that constant worry of having your class nerfed for the sake of PvE balance when you can just play an FPS or MOBA and not deal with that sort of thing?

  • kitaradkitarad Member EpicPosts: 5,077
    Originally posted by TiamatRoar
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by trancejeremy

     

     

    PVP should be equal, or close to it. But somehow the loudest PVP advocates can't seem to play games like that. Dark Fall most obviously. It's everything PVPers say they want, but really don't. They just want to gank people.


    well, most of the pvp supporters are already playing e-sport type games, and probably don't care enough about MMO pvp to come here and complain.

    Yea, if you're looking for PvPers who don't care about ganking or having inherent advantages from better gear or higher levels or more friends, you'll probably find them in other places like MOBAs and FPS's.

     

    After all, why bother dealing with that stupid PvE grind, that annoying questing, and that constant worry of having your class nerfed for the sake of PvE balance when you can just play an FPS or MOBA and not deal with that sort of thing?

    Succinctly and accurately put Tiamat

  • BribaryanBribaryan Member Posts: 23

    Wow, this thread got a lot more replies than I expected.  Good conversation.

     

    I think what probably works best is simply having PvP servers, and then PvE servers.   I'm not necessarily saying PvP should be forced on people.  Some people want to play the PvE and coop only, I completely get this...

     

    I'm just disappointed that some games lately have completely gone the opposite direction and either had no PvP, or some handcuffed version of it.  I've always built my characters and toons around going into pvp in games like diablo, UO, WoW, etc....

  • BribaryanBribaryan Member Posts: 23
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Bribaryan
    Originally posted by TiamatRoar
    Originally posted by Bribaryan

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  Vocal minority or not, I think Trammel killed the game for lots of people even if it did peak in subscribers around the same time.

    Quick factual correction:

     

    Subscribers peaked 3 years after trammel, not around the same time.  For more reference's sake, as you can see from the charts, UO was around 3 years old when Trammel first came out (and at that point, its subscription growth rate was apparently just about to decrease to 0).  Subscriber numbers wouldn't peak until 3 years later after that.  Although the "peak" was actually only slightly higher than UO's "levelled out" subscription numbers.  Basically, UO had practically stopped growing, then Trammel came out, UO's subscriber numbers almost doubled in a year showing a huge growth increase compared to what it was shortly before trammel, and then they stayed there for 3 years, finally increasing a little bit more at the end.

     

    ...and then WoW came out.  LOL.  I'm trying to remember if Age of Shadows was around that time or earlier (if AoS came later, then that'll prove nothing because... well, WoW. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure WoW came first from my memory of that era. AoS was likely developed in reaction to it).  So I guess if anything "killed" UO, it was WoW.

     

    I think lots of MMOs would love if they had some thing they could do to double their subscribers in the span of a year and keep that retention for 3 years+ (or whenever another WoW comes along to kill it).  Then again, the (perfectly valid) lesson they probably got from that was "don't even bother starting with no-alternate-option open world PvP in the first place"

    Well then I guess this comes down to personal taste, because when Wrath Of the Lich King came out, I thought it was awful and ruined the game.   I thought Vanilla and Burning Crusade were much better.  However, it managed to rope a lot of new players thanks to how much more spoonfed the rewards were.  So at this point, WoW may have peaked in playerbase, however the game for me wasnt that great.

    I wish we could split the thread arguments into what makes a good game, rather than "how are the companies going to milk what's left....."  There's lots of ways companies can turn up their money and population, whilst at the same time wrecking the game long term and driving off it's fanbase.   Keep in mind also that players with time invested arent going to walk away from 4 years + of progression very easily so the RPG genre has a slight edge in dragging players along for another year.

    I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game. 

    Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming.  Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...

     

     

    Games are basically just a collection of preferences.  There is no global "makes a good game" feature other than "no bugs".  Nearly everything else that can go into an MMORPG can be argued as good or bad by players.  Well, unless you get down to really basic things like "being able to walk".  That kind of thing.  That's why "population" is the main rule for judging whether or not a game is good.  Games have targets to meet, and if they meet the population target, they've done good.  After that, it's all about retention.  However, this is all relative to the goals.  If a game's goal is 50K people and 100K people show up, that game did outstanding, even though compared to SWTOR the game is tiny.

     

    Ya but here's the thing, I dont really agree with the "population ruler" being what qualifies a good game.  Katy Perry and Bieber might be the most popular music, but the quality of it is shit.  More people might eat McDonald's than eat Fried Calamari, etc....

    Building an rpg around population can really sink the game long term, UO being just one example of it.  The only people who should be using population as a ruler, are the fat cats out at Vivendi and the stock market.  And that isnt you or me actually playing it.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Originally posted by ikcin

    That is exactly what most of the MMORPG players did. And now the market of MMORPG is smaller then before 2 years. All that games with broken worlds, pve servers, and safe environment, from WoW to GW2 and ESO, just killing the genre. In fact most of the players are PvP, but not pve players. See how many people are playing LoL and WoW, and then tell me how the pve players are majority. No, they are not.

    PvP is more popular than PvE if we are talking general gaming yes. 

    The problem is that it isn't in MMOs. And it really isn't the PvE focused games that takes that away either, it is the fact that almost all MMOs have mechanics that doesn't work as well for PvP.

    The thing is that the level mechanics together with gear focus means that the players who usually win a 1 on 1 fight is first the one with highest level and secondly the one with best gear. The best player should be ale to win far more often even if he/she is below in stats and gear.

    In a FPS game the best players win most of the time, that is why FPS PvP is fun. Getting killed constantly with zero chance for 2 months so you yourself can kill people below you easily is what is killing the PvP part of the genre, not care bear mechanics.

    Funny enough would GW2s mechanics work excellent in an open PvP game if you just could find a way to keep the zerging down. And that is something that should be done with carrots, not stick. Give large rewards to anyone beating the odds, small to anyone doing an easy win. Yes, Risk Vs reward is also something that could be done better in PvP MMOs.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Originally posted by Bribaryan

    Ya but here's the thing, I dont really agree with the "population ruler" being what qualifies a good game.  Katy Perry and Bieber might be the most popular music, but the quality of it is shit.  More people might eat McDonald's than eat Fried Calamari, etc....

    Building an rpg around population can really sink the game long term, UO being just one example of it.  The only people who should be using population as a ruler, are the fat cats out at Vivendi and the stock market.  And that isnt you or me actually playing it.

    You are right there but the problem is that almost any band can record an album, it is pretty cheap today while making a good MMO cost at least $50M.

    And right now is the only "fat cat" supporting a different thinking studio I can think of Microsoft with Undead labs.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by Bribaryan
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Bribaryan
    Originally posted by TiamatRoar
    Originally posted by Bribaryan

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  Vocal minority or not, I think Trammel killed the game for lots of people even if it did peak in subscribers around the same time.

    Quick factual correction:

     

    Subscribers peaked 3 years after trammel, not around the same time.  For more reference's sake, as you can see from the charts, UO was around 3 years old when Trammel first came out (and at that point, its subscription growth rate was apparently just about to decrease to 0).  Subscriber numbers wouldn't peak until 3 years later after that.  Although the "peak" was actually only slightly higher than UO's "levelled out" subscription numbers.  Basically, UO had practically stopped growing, then Trammel came out, UO's subscriber numbers almost doubled in a year showing a huge growth increase compared to what it was shortly before trammel, and then they stayed there for 3 years, finally increasing a little bit more at the end.

     

    ...and then WoW came out.  LOL.  I'm trying to remember if Age of Shadows was around that time or earlier (if AoS came later, then that'll prove nothing because... well, WoW. Come to think about it, I'm pretty sure WoW came first from my memory of that era. AoS was likely developed in reaction to it).  So I guess if anything "killed" UO, it was WoW.

     

    I think lots of MMOs would love if they had some thing they could do to double their subscribers in the span of a year and keep that retention for 3 years+ (or whenever another WoW comes along to kill it).  Then again, the (perfectly valid) lesson they probably got from that was "don't even bother starting with no-alternate-option open world PvP in the first place"

    Well then I guess this comes down to personal taste, because when Wrath Of the Lich King came out, I thought it was awful and ruined the game.   I thought Vanilla and Burning Crusade were much better.  However, it managed to rope a lot of new players thanks to how much more spoonfed the rewards were.  So at this point, WoW may have peaked in playerbase, however the game for me wasnt that great.

    I wish we could split the thread arguments into what makes a good game, rather than "how are the companies going to milk what's left....."  There's lots of ways companies can turn up their money and population, whilst at the same time wrecking the game long term and driving off it's fanbase.   Keep in mind also that players with time invested arent going to walk away from 4 years + of progression very easily so the RPG genre has a slight edge in dragging players along for another year.

    I wish so many people here werent using "population" as their main ruler for a game. 

    Pointing out a large population in my mind doesnt mean quality gaming.  Maybe I'm way out in left field on this, but I think some readers here will understand what I mean...

     

     

    Games are basically just a collection of preferences.  There is no global "makes a good game" feature other than "no bugs".  Nearly everything else that can go into an MMORPG can be argued as good or bad by players.  Well, unless you get down to really basic things like "being able to walk".  That kind of thing.  That's why "population" is the main rule for judging whether or not a game is good.  Games have targets to meet, and if they meet the population target, they've done good.  After that, it's all about retention.  However, this is all relative to the goals.  If a game's goal is 50K people and 100K people show up, that game did outstanding, even though compared to SWTOR the game is tiny.

     

    Ya but here's the thing, I dont really agree with the "population ruler" being what qualifies a good game.  Katy Perry and Bieber might be the most popular music, but the quality of it is shit.  More people might eat McDonald's than eat Fried Calamari, etc....

    Building an rpg around population can really sink the game long term, UO being just one example of it.  The only people who should be using population as a ruler, are the fat cats out at Vivendi and the stock market.  And that isnt you or me actually playing it.

     

    You are still trying to make an opinion about a game (or music) a property of the game (or music).  The opinions exist in the people, not in the games (or music).  Games are good for the people who like them and bad for the people who do not like them.  The exact same thing is true for game mechanics.  They are good for the people who like them and bad for the people who don't like them. 

     

    If you have an objective measure of a game's quality that isn't currently being used, I'm very sure that many game developers, including the "Fat Cats" would love to hear about it.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • PsistormPsistorm Member UncommonPosts: 40

    I think the whole PvP/PKing aspect CAN be fun. If the game is built around it to facilitate meeting on even ground, and punishes you if you just behave like a dick all the time.

    Latest example from my experience is ArcheAge. A game set up for PvP, but my experience was, well, horrible. 95% of all fights had me at such a disadvantage that I never even had to bother to fight back to begin with. I was fighting a mob, meanwhile some 50 guy wanders up casually and starts feathering me with arrows. I'm dead before I even can get more than 2 hits on him, at lvl 30. Then some time later I wander into a crafting area, filled with a dozen hostiles. I did not get attacked though. Even though their numbers were superior, they actually waited until I had the bank menu open before they ganked me, to provide maximum annoyance.

    Basically, open pvp in AA - and apparently many other MMOs - boils down to this:

    - are you underleveled, outnumbered, outgeared, or just engaged with a mob or quest giver? You get attacked.

    - are you at equal level, ready to fight, and present a worthy opponent? People leave you alone.

     

    From my experience, MMO FFA PvP advocates don't actually WANT pvp. They want easy targets, and worse yet, from the behaviour I've seen, they are so cowardly that IF you turn the tables on them? They will run like sissies. Every. Single. Time.

     

    To sum it up, IF open PvP is to be a thing, there needs to be rulesets to discourage this kind of stuff. There needs to be level-normalizing algorhythms, mechanisms to make it more about skill - Wildstar's action combat might be one way - and honor ratings that actually punish you for beating down weak targets and reward you for taking on proper opponents - and yes, reward you for dying to them, and punish you for fleeing, at least in a small way. But that's not what people want, so the MMO pvp crowd has its mind stuck on open pvp being a legitimate form of trolling someone as much as you can.

  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member UncommonPosts: 1,402
    Originally posted by Bribaryan

    Ya but here's the thing, I dont really agree with the "population ruler" being what qualifies a good game.  Katy Perry and Bieber might be the most popular music, but the quality of it is shit.  More people might eat McDonald's than eat Fried Calamari, etc....

    Building an rpg around population can really sink the game long term, UO being just one example of it.  The only people who should be using population as a ruler, are the fat cats out at Vivendi and the stock market.  And that isnt you or me actually playing it.

    If population isn't going to be used as the ruler, then... what is?

     

    Besides that, MMORPGs are a business. And a VERY expensive one these days.  Population might not be a good ruler for if a game is good or not (according to you), but it's usually a VERY good ruler for the business success of an MMO.  Why should MMO companies spend so much time and money catering to your idea of what a good ruler is (whatever that is) instead of population when the latter is a good ruler for what counts not just to a business, but to keeping the game afloat in the first place?

     

    What do you mean by "sinking" anyways?  UO's population "sank" with WoW and you said population wasn't a good "ruler" anyways, so what is this ruler that sank when UO "catered to the population"?  And do you have a graph showing this sinking or some other tangible source that could display exactly what "sank" when UO "built itself around population"?  Because saying "the fun of the game sank" without any pie chart or graph or statistical gathering of every single person who played the game's opinion on the matter is just pulling stuff out of no where (and entirely arbitrary and based on each individual's idea of what "fun" is, anyways).

     

    Population works as a "ruler" because it's a non-arbitrary number that's easy to measure (as long as the data is actually known, which is generally the case when dealing with publically traded companies that are legally obliged to release at least some data).  What ruler do you have in mind that's objective, non-arbitrary, and easy to measure?  And what data do you have to show that this "ruler" sank when UO started "building itself for population"?

  • SheistaSheista Member UncommonPosts: 1,203

    I wish another game would use a combination of the Asheron's Call, or SWG PvP style.

    I love when there is HARD PvP, that is totally optional.  It creates a tighter knit PvP community, because you begin to learn who some of the major players are in the world.

    I loved how in Asheron's Call, it was a big deal to turn PK on a non-PK server.  You had to take a dangerous trip through a series of portals and mazes, to find the altar of Bael'Zharon.  Then you had to pray to it, turning you PK.  And in order to turn NPK, you had to find the altar of Asheron.  If you had killed anyone, there was a timer on how soon you could turn NPK.

    At the same time, PvP had harsh penalties.  Just like any other death in the game, you dropped a certain amount of loot on death, determined by its coin value, as well as you got a 5% penalty to your skills that had to be worked off by gaining XP.  This stacked several times, which meant you couldn't just jump right back into a fight if you died, because you might end up worse off than you started.  This system created groups within guilds that were very PvP heavy, and became well known on their respective servers.  They weren't a bother to Non-player killers, but very often they could convince NPKs to join them and turn PK, learning a whole different side of the game.

     

    In SWG, they had the covert/overt system, where you could join a faction and be considered covert.  This meant you were PvP-disabled in most places, UNLESS you decided to attack someone who was currently 'overt'.  This would make you overt for a duration, and you could be attacked by anyone of an opposing faction.

    Or, you could remain overt, which meant you had access to all the faction gear/items at all times, marking you as PvP-enabled wherever you went.

     

    These systems were BRILLIANT.  It allowed a community to choose whether or not to participate in PvP, and it both rewarded and punished those who did equally.  I wish another game would come out with such depth put into their PvP system.  The idea that PvP has to be "all or nothing" is ridiculous.  While it can work in some games, PvP is more accessible and can still be harsh by allowing people the option to opt-in.

     

    Edit:  I hate the idea of PvP 'areas', where you go specifically for PvP.  In AC, I loved the idea that I could be literally anywhere, and get jumped.  And it was because I voluntarily enabled PvP on my character.  There were groups of people known as Perma-PKs, who basically prayed at the altar, and never looked back.  It was red or dead, as some often said.

    I could be minding my own business in some totally random place in the world, and suddenly my heart would skip a beat as I saw another red dot appear on the radar.  Sometimes, we'd fight, other times we'd emote *wave* from a distance, and go about our separate ways after a quick hello/goodbye.  There then became the idea of 'honor', where once you began to get to know some of the PKers on your server, you knew which guys were nice, and which were a-holes.  It was considered honorable to not loot someone if you respected them, and the favor was often paid back in kind.  I remember being in groups of PKers and being told "Don't loot so-and-so" or telling my group that about someone as well.  These communities didn't used to be considered toxic, even though there were a fair share of complete jerks.  They were self-policed, and jerks typically got what was coming to them in the end.

    So.. in closing.  Optional PvP with HARSH penalties, creates a tight-knit community of players who play for the sport of it, and for the adrenaline rush.  It doesn't HAVE to result in a community of a-holes.  You just have to give incentive to players to not only take part in it, but to keep people from being griefed regularly.  These communities will sort themselves out naturally if you just let them.

Sign In or Register to comment.