Most of the complaints on the forum were related to the odd hybrid nature of same-faction PvP: namely, that you could grief or attack people in circumstances where they couldn't retaliate. More broadly, this sort of PvP tends to end up in practice as being the equivalent of a mugging rather than a duel. And people, as a rule, don't enjoy being mugged, nor are they willing to pay for the joy of being bullied.
In real societies there are severe consequences for anti-social acts; by contrast, wars involve organized fighting against external enemies, so there is actually some logic behind "factions" and open warfare between them, while having rigid rules against thieves and murderers. If there is no effective cost to being a bully (and make no mistake about it: PvP against an unwilling target who has no chance is exactly that) then the bullies will run out of victims pretty quickly, and the game will suffer. AA could fix that with logical consequences, but its pretty clear where the law of the jungle will take the game.
The 1st "problem" in AA is not people be hable to attack own faction in pvp zones, is the existence of Faction. It was the 1st thing i didnt like it when i try the game for the 1st time, i dont like pre-made faction. L2 ruleset for the win with consequences for the PKs.
The 2nd "problem" is the consequences for pks is a joke in AA, people can pk forever and never become a pirate.
Im enjoying alot the game, doesnt mean i like everthing, to this "negatives" things (imo) i just need to adapt myself.
Atm in AA:
- When i dont have a pack with me, i see all greens as a friends unless they prove the contrary.
- When i have a pack with me, everyone except my guild is enemys, everyone.
Originally posted by greatskys So much potential but spoiled by one basic game play flaw (IMO)...you can gank people of your own faction . I'm sure some people will love this but its not for me even though I like world pvp I want to know who my friends and enemies are . Very difficult to create a sociable community in such a game which is important to me in any mmo . Ahhh well Next ...
You are wrong. It is because of same faction killing that this game has potential to be one of the most sociable MMORPGs out there. See Lineage II for example. Yes, there is pointless killing...but players are also gathering and bonding together to avoid being ganked.
Lineage 2 was a far better thought out game, with more engaging world, but then NCSoft completely dropped the ball on it. I think they lost the sight of what they originally wanted out of Lineage 2. Oh well, happens.
Beside that, I love stealing trade packs in the sea with my guild regardless of the person friend or foe. There are no factions in the sea If you carry a trade pack, you are asking for it
Originally posted by Distopia To me it kinda negates the point behind having factions at all.
Im inclined to agree, remember Daoc, when you had pride in your faction?
Yep, one of the better examples to use, SWG had it as well to a lesser degree.
Its called sandbox. The individual player has more options to act even against the artificial limitation of a faction.
Pride in faction exists and in AA it shines even more cause the option is there to act against. The weak will gank for short profit and loose reputation.
SWG was a great sandbox game but had a weakness : the GCW. One of the reasons was it was too themeparky about it.
AA plans even for more sandbox for the future: player run factions !
Exactly! This is how iron strong communities grow. Not from a system where you CANT attack people in your dev. defined factions but where you CHOSE NOT TO.
This is a pipe dream... More often than not people will have chose to attack. This idea of a good community growing in such a game is ripe with problems.
The idea is sound sure, but it didn't work in UO nor what followed and it's not going to work here (I"d bet on that). The wolves always out number the prey in these games when all is said and done, hence why opt in systems work better when it comes to community building..SWG vs UO or EVE being a good example..SWG's community wasn't without wolves, plenty were in the PVP guilds, I was one as well. However our impact was only on those who wanted to PVP, breeding a better competitive nature IMO, your competition could more often than not, properly defend itself.
FFA PVP is a wolves game, prey will have a tough go at it without significant help. SO yes that pushes you into groups, out of necessity, a much different motivator, with much different results ( only those you know are seen as friendly) everyone else is a target, or you are theirs.
That's really not true at all.
This is a similar system to the one in Lineage 2 and the entire game, at least in the early years, was about guilds coming to the aid of their allies, players party protecting people in guilds at war, and guilds going out and of course "finding trouble".
The problem here is not that the current system allows this, the problem is that the players who don't like it (which is perfectly acceptable) are in the wrong game.
It's ok to have a game that allows this as long as the players are "all in".
But for SOME reason this is the hardest thing for people to understand. And it's not hard.
On a somewhat related note, today I was in an area that was, for a certain amount of time, a war zone. i was killed 3 times by level 50's even though I was only 32. did I stomp and pout and complain that I couldn't level? no. I did what I could do and then opted to come back when the zone wasn't in war. I could have called to guildies but "meh" who cares, and I don't need to drag people to my aid when nothing bad really happened.
And that's because I've opted into the rules.
When players are on board these aren't issues. They are only issues to the players who never should have been in the game in the first place if they were planning on playing in earnest (and not just "seeing" what it was like.)
My follow up addressed this, that's what I meant by "those you know". They really aren't games for those who want to see a greater community form, they are more tribe vs tribe in nature. Everything feeds into that, now if AA has measures in place to prevent that I'm all ears, but I've not heard about any thus far.
I can only blame one thing for those wrong players being in the wrong game though, marketing and buzzwords. Sandpark, Themebox..etc.. doesn't exactly sound like a war simulator if you catch my drift.
I'm not even saying these things are issues, they are what they are, and they encourage a specific type of behavior/playstyle. Which is perfectly fine, I'm just saying what such mechanics lead to and what one should expect. I just think when players hear Sandpark, they think that means do what you want at your leisure. That's not the case in this game +30. Being there or not I can assess that much. It's a game very much driven by how players treat each other, when FFA PVP is the prime game-play motivator, you get a certain type of experience, hence AA being AA, DF being DF, Eve being Eve. They are meant to be games where wolves have their prey.
A greater community can form. The problem is that "some people" can't separate the game from the community/forums and they take their issues into both. Having said that, in theory any group of people in a game is a greater community. Some just represent different ideologies. I suspect all games have this. It's just that not every game allows the player base to actively take different stances in game and attack their own people, steal from their own people, etc.
I keep seeing "I miss the days of DAoC there we had faction pride". I suspect that is very much a part of DAoC but I wonder if any other faction game ever had faction pride. Example, in Aion, there are two factions. So one would think that the players within a faction would support their own faction. Instead you have people kill stealing and bad mouthing their own people because "that's who they are".
As far as marketing "luring" players into the wrong game I say that its' still the player's fault. If they can't do their actual research and not "read into" what is being sold to them then I wonder how they manage in real life. I've never entered a game where I was completely thrown for a loop because it was a different game than I was expecting.
People need to do their homework, read everyone's comments, stop injecting their own definitions for what is being said. For example, Star Wars the Old Republic had a developer say that their combat was "epic combat". Then someone tried it and said "this isn't epic!". Well, that's subjective and should have been taken with a grain of salt but yet that player just assumed that the developer shared the same idea as he with regard to 'epic combat'.
Players are starting to become their own worst enemies.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by MMOExposed This is why having different server rulesets is such a good idea. Makes everybody happy..
How about have everthing in same world. Using AA as a exampe, we can only pve, we can only pvp or we can mix it, everytime you logg you chose what to do and how to do it.
Comments
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Most of the complaints on the forum were related to the odd hybrid nature of same-faction PvP: namely, that you could grief or attack people in circumstances where they couldn't retaliate. More broadly, this sort of PvP tends to end up in practice as being the equivalent of a mugging rather than a duel. And people, as a rule, don't enjoy being mugged, nor are they willing to pay for the joy of being bullied.
In real societies there are severe consequences for anti-social acts; by contrast, wars involve organized fighting against external enemies, so there is actually some logic behind "factions" and open warfare between them, while having rigid rules against thieves and murderers. If there is no effective cost to being a bully (and make no mistake about it: PvP against an unwilling target who has no chance is exactly that) then the bullies will run out of victims pretty quickly, and the game will suffer. AA could fix that with logical consequences, but its pretty clear where the law of the jungle will take the game.
The 1st "problem" in AA is not people be hable to attack own faction in pvp zones, is the existence of Faction. It was the 1st thing i didnt like it when i try the game for the 1st time, i dont like pre-made faction. L2 ruleset for the win with consequences for the PKs.
The 2nd "problem" is the consequences for pks is a joke in AA, people can pk forever and never become a pirate.
Im enjoying alot the game, doesnt mean i like everthing, to this "negatives" things (imo) i just need to adapt myself.
Atm in AA:
- When i dont have a pack with me, i see all greens as a friends unless they prove the contrary.
- When i have a pack with me, everyone except my guild is enemys, everyone.
Its simple.
I don't think this game need 2 faction in first place , just green player and Red player (pirates) is enough.
2 faction and the stupid quest hubs ask you come to enemy land to become "hero" , beg enemy NPC give you tasks.
Lineage 2 was a far better thought out game, with more engaging world, but then NCSoft completely dropped the ball on it. I think they lost the sight of what they originally wanted out of Lineage 2. Oh well, happens.
Beside that, I love stealing trade packs in the sea with my guild regardless of the person friend or foe. There are no factions in the sea
If you carry a trade pack, you are asking for it 
Its called sandbox. The individual player has more options to act even against the artificial limitation of a faction.
Pride in faction exists and in AA it shines even more cause the option is there to act against. The weak will gank for short profit and loose reputation.
SWG was a great sandbox game but had a weakness : the GCW. One of the reasons was it was too themeparky about it.
AA plans even for more sandbox for the future: player run factions !
A greater community can form. The problem is that "some people" can't separate the game from the community/forums and they take their issues into both. Having said that, in theory any group of people in a game is a greater community. Some just represent different ideologies. I suspect all games have this. It's just that not every game allows the player base to actively take different stances in game and attack their own people, steal from their own people, etc.
I keep seeing "I miss the days of DAoC there we had faction pride". I suspect that is very much a part of DAoC but I wonder if any other faction game ever had faction pride. Example, in Aion, there are two factions. So one would think that the players within a faction would support their own faction. Instead you have people kill stealing and bad mouthing their own people because "that's who they are".
As far as marketing "luring" players into the wrong game I say that its' still the player's fault. If they can't do their actual research and not "read into" what is being sold to them then I wonder how they manage in real life. I've never entered a game where I was completely thrown for a loop because it was a different game than I was expecting.
People need to do their homework, read everyone's comments, stop injecting their own definitions for what is being said. For example, Star Wars the Old Republic had a developer say that their combat was "epic combat". Then someone tried it and said "this isn't epic!". Well, that's subjective and should have been taken with a grain of salt but yet that player just assumed that the developer shared the same idea as he with regard to 'epic combat'.
Players are starting to become their own worst enemies.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
How about have everthing in same world. Using AA as a exampe, we can only pve, we can only pvp or we can mix it, everytime you logg you chose what to do and how to do it.
I like it.