I'm a PvE person but PvP should be possible but difficult with permanant consequences. So if you do come across a PvPer it's unlikely they will PvP you as it takes time, effort and makes life harder for the PvPer.
I think you summed up the reality of the situation in your OP: there are people that want fully open pvp with no restrictions and those that don't, therefore trying to satisfy both camps is a balancing act that seems unlikely to succeed.
Reading your other posts OP, I gather you like owpvp without consequences. I prefer war type games (RvR), or pvp to have some real consequences that make for interesting gameplay- perhaps bounties on killers, guards hunting you down etc, except in areas where it makes sense that you could in fact get away with murder.
But for me a more pressing issue is vertical progression and grind. That is what kills pvp imo, and is one reason why moba's and games like Overwatch are so much more popular than mmo pvp. There is obviously a huge population of potential players that love pvp but aren't so keen about afk mining nodes or grinding to get maximum levels and gear before they can have fun pvping.
There really is no way of combining OW FFA PvP with PvE that will work for PvE players.
It is not a question of fear, that is just nonsense from the epeen section of the PvP crowd. PvE players do not want to put up with the jerks and shenanigans that OW FFA PvP always brings.
I agree with this. Also, I play MMORPGs to unwind and relax. They're games that I have with a cup of tea. If I want a game that I need coffee for I will swap over to something like Overwatch or Smite. I don't see the need to combine the two, outside of PvP players needing more victims and the population PvE brings. No thank you.
Sidenote: How about eliminating PvP altogether from some MMORPGs? I have found it to be the cancer of unique and interesting abilities that classes could have. They're all now a homogeneous mess since they have to be 'balanced' for the PvP crowd.
If its MMORPG.. it means playing the game with other people.
Yes with, not against. :awesome:
Just like chess you can play the same game with some people and against others... but opposing everyone with objective to win. Doesn't mean you have to be a douche or put up with one. I'm sure developers would agree with even the harshest PVP game.
I think the harshest PVP you can find is when there are mostly PVE servers... because the PVP part is ignored more since it is not their main focus.
Ok, but in Chess I don't get to loot your wallet if I beat you. I don't get to take your dog home with me if I checkmate you.
To me world PvP isn't the problem. Getting ganked is annoying, but its doesn't have too much impact and there are precautions (such as grouping etc) that can be taken against it. It's when people want "consequences" like full loot or rez timers for the people that get killed that the trouble starts. By consequences they always mean that the other guy pays the consequences. Most people, whether they'll admit it or not, want the ability to murder and pillage without risk to themselves.
If you want "realistic" PvP where there are no safe areas with "consequences", then I think that the attacker should face the same uncertainty that they face in Real Life. If someone picks a fight in a bar, they don't really know what they're getting into. Their opponent might be a 205 pound Goliath who turns out to be a weenie or a 125 pound wet noodle who turns out to be an MMA superstar. They might be carrying a knife or a rubber chicken. That should be what the attacker faces in an MMO. No running around picking on people you know you can whip. You have to face the uncertainty that you don't know exactly what you're getting into and this guy might be a peasant or he might be a god. In real life you never know. If you pick on the wrong guy you could find yourself in the trunk of a car with a caved in skull on your way to a grave in the desert. It should be that way in MMOs, and unfortunately I'm unaware of any game or game mechanic where such a think is possible.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
At least this poll attempts to be neutral, I'll give you credits for that, @Sid_Vicious.
I'm totally against Open World PvP in any flavor. I don't game to compare a body-count with someone else; I'd rather focus on the story elements. Equally, I've not seen any 'consequences' that aren't defeated by a simple log-and-switch-characters operation. Consequences that can be voluntarily avoided aren't exactly consequences in my view.
Now, if a developer wants to get extremely radical, require a valid credit card to play. If attacked, the instigator is charged $20; company gets $10, victim get $10. We'd see how many people would pvp once there was a consequence they couldn't avoid.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I know that it has been said that some PvE players do lobby in a PvP game to have either a safe zone/flag or a PvE server like they did for DAoC and which they eventually got in the form of Gaheris but I seldom see a concerted effort from PvE players to persuade PvP players to play PvE games. However the opposite is not the case. I do see many threads that pop up time to time wherein a PvP player attempts to engage and persuade PvE players to come and play the PvP games or at least try to appeal to them and get them to consider it.
This is what I do not get if PvE players are happy in their PvE games why can't the PvP players be similarly happy in their games without trying to recruit PvE players. Is there something lacking in the PvP world that you would need these PvE players and I would refrain from using 'lambs', 'prey', 'targets', 'fodder' as the reason because this is a serious question.
If a type of play style is so good why do you need to persuade the PvE players from trying it out. Why not be happy with the games you have and leave the PvE players to their worlds.
Sidenote: How about eliminating PvP altogether from some MMORPGs? I have found it to be the cancer of unique and interesting abilities that classes could have. They're all now a homogeneous mess since they have to be 'balanced' for the PvP crowd.
Why experience has been the opposite: it is the pve crowd that has resulted in the vast majority of nerfs / homogenisation.
Granted, my experience may be fairly limited (swg, lotro, war and swtor are the only ones I've played long term) but in each case, the homogenisation came about due to whining by solo pvers (because apart from dps, unique roles only come into their own during group play) and the nerfs came from whining group pvers (because things like dps meters quickly highlight imbalances).
I have, obviously, seen nerfs / balancing as a result of trying to please the pvp crowd, but they seem to be very rare in pve focused MMORPGs and in the games I've played, they've always been justified.
As a final note, with regards to nerfing / balancing in general, in almost all cases that I've personally seen, the nerfs and buffs have been warranted. Devs aren't stupid people, they just can't anticipate all the unique builds that players put together, so sometimes we as a community find ways to break the balance. It is, of course, frustrating when your class gets nerfed, but the reasoning behind it is always solid.
More general balancing / homogenisation, well, yeh, I've yet to see a good example of this happening. Again, I'd never blame it on the pvp crowd as there are far more pve whiners calling for these sorts of changes, but the fault really lies with the higher-up designers. Homogenisation is a design choice, made to make it simpler to balance for solo players, but it always sucks the uniqueness out of the game.
This is what I do not get if PvE players are happy in their PvE games why can't the PvP players be similarly happy in their games without trying to recruit PvE players. Is there something lacking in the PvP world that you would need these PvE players and I would refrain from using 'lambs', 'prey', 'targets', 'fodder' as the reason because this is a serious question.
...
PVP MMO's always need more players, because other players ARE the content.
In a PVE MMO with only 10 players, those 10 will happily go forth and PVE.
In a PVP MMO with only 10 players, those 10 will quickly get bored searching for people to fight, so they'll logoff and play some quick CS:GO instead...
PVP and PVE can exist in the same game, but there has to be consequences for just attacking people, at the same time the punishment has to be measured, i do like the Karma system in BDO, it seems appropriate, but a better system imo would be that PVP'ers have to flag up for PVP.
The flagging system is the best system in pleasing everyone. However the only way to come out of PvP is to visit a safe zone. You can't just flag will-nilly.
The only PvP players unhappy about it are the ones looking for easy pickings.
I think Immodium nailed it. The flagging system is great if you are trying to mix the two together, but being forced to keep that flag on after you gank someone else who was flagged but low life would make them have to think about it a little more before doing it. Would love to see the look on the face of someone who didn't realize they couldn't unflag right away after doing it.
I do like the idea of using a safe space only to unflag also. The chance of getting killed trying to get into that safe place would become higher. Think this is better than a simple timer where people just sit and wait.
Sidenote: How about eliminating PvP altogether from some MMORPGs? I have found it to be the cancer of unique and interesting abilities that classes could have. They're all now a homogeneous mess since they have to be 'balanced' for the PvP crowd.
Why experience has been the opposite: it is the pve crowd that has resulted in the vast majority of nerfs / homogenisation.
Granted, my experience may be fairly limited (swg, lotro, war and swtor are the only ones I've played long term) but in each case, the homogenisation came about due to whining by solo pvers (because apart from dps, unique roles only come into their own during group play) and the nerfs came from whining group pvers (because things like dps meters quickly highlight imbalances).
I have, obviously, seen nerfs / balancing as a result of trying to please the pvp crowd, but they seem to be very rare in pve focused MMORPGs and in the games I've played, they've always been justified.
As a final note, with regards to nerfing / balancing in general, in almost all cases that I've personally seen, the nerfs and buffs have been warranted. Devs aren't stupid people, they just can't anticipate all the unique builds that players put together, so sometimes we as a community find ways to break the balance. It is, of course, frustrating when your class gets nerfed, but the reasoning behind it is always solid.
More general balancing / homogenisation, well, yeh, I've yet to see a good example of this happening. Again, I'd never blame it on the pvp crowd as there are far more pve whiners calling for these sorts of changes, but the fault really lies with the higher-up designers. Homogenisation is a design choice, made to make it simpler to balance for solo players, but it always sucks the uniqueness out of the game.
My main complaint is my favorite class archetype has pretty much disappeared, which I attribute to PvP. Classes that focus on control are my favorite, with my all-time favorite being the Enchanter in Everquest. Classes like this no longer exist. I even rolled a Mage in WoW as my first character just because of Polymorph. PvP players rage though about control classes. Hell, just take a look at the hate Mei gets in Overwatch. Now, you're lucky if you get a control ability as a one off in most games I have played.
I have no problem seeing that my bitterness clouds my judgement when it comes to PvP. That's because I am convinced PvP caused the death of my favorite class archetype. I get players frustration with control classes in PvP, since it can be extremely frustrating, but it's extremely fun in PvE and I miss it.
As for homogenization that has been my experience. Starting with Paladins and Shamans (Is it Shaman, Shamans, or Shamen?) in WoW being drastically changed, at least from my view, due to PvP. Same with my Frost Mage. It had drastic changes to it due to PvP. If you're looking for links for stats or hard evidence I don't have any. This is just from my own experience at the time by playing these classes and engaging with the in-game community and forums.
... but I seldom see a concerted effort from PvE players to persuade PvP players to play PvE games. However the opposite is not the case. I do see many threads that pop up time to time wherein a PvP player attempts to engage and persuade PvE players to come and play the PvP games or at least try to appeal to them and get them to consider it. .
The truth is, PvP players are a niche within the MMORPG population. Look at the results from this poll, when I last checked, almost 80% of the respondents preferred PvE. There are rarely more than 10% of the servers dedicated PvP rules, while the other 90% is generally PvE. It's been that way since EQ1. PvE games aren't hurting for people to play. PvP focused games have always had a tough time building and maintaining a viable population of players.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I don't mind consequences for PVP, but you must have safe areas. I don't care what kind of ruleset you have, without safe areas the game will die, there are just not enough dedicated PVPers to keep it going.
A PVP game that has anything in the store that gives players an advantage is also just asking to fold. '
There are a long list of games that failed to have such and are no longer available because of it.
There really is no way of combining OW FFA PvP with PvE that will work for PvE players.
It is not a question of fear, that is just nonsense from the epeen section of the PvP crowd. PvE players do not want to put up with the jerks and shenanigans that OW FFA PvP always brings.
Really they are two different crowds with totally different mindsets.....I can only remember playing one game wehre it actually worked (and cant remember the name of it now lol), but you had to be flagged for PVP and PVP players couldnt attack PVE players...Someone was saying before that SWG was that way so that might have been the game
SWG was like that, there may have been others I can't remember them though..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
PVP and PVE can exist in the same game, but there has to be consequences for just attacking people, at the same time the punishment has to be measured, i do like the Karma system in BDO, it seems appropriate, but a better system imo would be that PVP'ers have to flag up for PVP.
^Pretty much this. BDO's Karma system does a pretty good job at ensuring you can still actually get shit done in game, rather than deal with rampant ganking the moment you step out of a city.
And as someone else mentioned, the latter tends to kill player population quickly in games that allow such behavior. There's a good reason all the OW-FullPvP MMOs have tiny populations. Which is perfectly fine if the game's aiming for that niche, but dumb if the devs have higher ambitions than that.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
UO had a great system. I love pvp, I just like it when it makes sense. FFA killing for no reason is stupid and typically revolves around gankers looking for easy kills. Not pvp in my book.
If its MMORPG.. it means playing the game with other people.
Yes with, not against. :awesome:
Just like chess you can play the same game with some people and against others... but opposing everyone with objective to win. Doesn't mean you have to be a douche or put up with one. I'm sure developers would agree with even the harshest PVP game.
I think the harshest PVP you can find is when there are mostly PVE servers... because the PVP part is ignored more since it is not their main focus.
Ok, but in Chess I don't get to loot your wallet if I beat you. I don't get to take your dog home with me if I checkmate you.
To me world PvP isn't the problem. Getting ganked is annoying, but its doesn't have too much impact and there are precautions (such as grouping etc) that can be taken against it. It's when people want "consequences" like full loot or rez timers for the people that get killed that the trouble starts. By consequences they always mean that the other guy pays the consequences. Most people, whether they'll admit it or not, want the ability to murder and pillage without risk to themselves.
If you want "realistic" PvP where there are no safe areas with "consequences", then I think that the attacker should face the same uncertainty that they face in Real Life. If someone picks a fight in a bar, they don't really know what they're getting into. Their opponent might be a 205 pound Goliath who turns out to be a weenie or a 125 pound wet noodle who turns out to be an MMA superstar. They might be carrying a knife or a rubber chicken. That should be what the attacker faces in an MMO. No running around picking on people you know you can whip. You have to face the uncertainty that you don't know exactly what you're getting into and this guy might be a peasant or he might be a god. In real life you never know. If you pick on the wrong guy you could find yourself in the trunk of a car with a caved in skull on your way to a grave in the desert. It should be that way in MMOs, and unfortunately I'm unaware of any game or game mechanic where such a think is possible.
UO had this type of system. If you are not fam with it, when you reach bad enough karma in the game your name turned red. These players would always gank newbies in the starter areas. The only way you could id them as newbs were what kind of armor/wep they had since there were no levels. So me and some buds would dress in newb peasant clothes, apply deadly poison to our swords (highest level poison, no way for pkers to know) and when they would show up to gank us we would gank the shit out of them lol. Fun stuff.
UO had a great system. I love pvp, I just like it when it makes sense. FFA killing for no reason is stupid and typically revolves around gankers looking for easy kills. Not pvp in my book.
Yep, this is essentially why I've given up on most MMORPG PVP. As it seems in most games people don't even wanna fight. They're always looking for an easy win, be it keep trading in ESO/GW2 or ganking in most FFA PVP servers or FFA PVP games. The only real option for PVP seems to be EVE it just sucks the game itself is rather boring.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think you summed up the reality of the situation in your OP: there are people that want fully open pvp with no restrictions and those that don't, therefore trying to satisfy both camps is a balancing act that seems unlikely to succeed.
Reading your other posts OP, I gather you like owpvp without consequences. I prefer war type games (RvR), or pvp to have some real consequences that make for interesting gameplay- perhaps bounties on killers, guards hunting you down etc, except in areas where it makes sense that you could in fact get away with murder.
But for me a more pressing issue is vertical progression and grind. That is what kills pvp imo, and is one reason why moba's and games like Overwatch are so much more popular than mmo pvp. There is obviously a huge population of potential players that love pvp but aren't so keen about afk mining nodes or grinding to get maximum levels and gear before they can have fun pvping.
PVP without consequences can be fun... usually only found on special servers from PVE-oriented games though so usually unbalanced and a complete gankfest.
Right now I am playing mostly Conan Exiles and Darkfall but fear that Darkfall's new rules may have consequences for PVP a bit too much.... think it takes about 30 hours of effort to make up for killing just one friendly or some such.... I think there is a church that can be paid too to recover lost alignment, but worried that PVP may be a bit too rare for a game of its type.
For one thing, nobody seems to know about the changes (or even care?)... just the name Darkfall scares away most people but yeah... with new changes I doubt I will run into PVP unless I am actively taking village control points or sieging player holdings.
I am tempted to go red so that I can kill people in "safe" areas but if I do that it will be tons harder to level and live in the world... a serious set back, given the law abiding blues will have access to closer binds to better mobs all over the main map.
Should be fun regardless.. bit worried though.
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
None of your options reflect my view. I want a game where I can consciously choose the level of PvP I will be exposed to by the areas of the game I go to. Kind of like high sec, low, sec and null sec in EVE but without all the options to grief people in high sec (Wars decs, suicide ganks etc.), and practically meaningless protections in low sec that make it in many ways more dangerous than null sec etc.
I want a game where carebears and hardcore PvPs can comfortably coexist or where I can choose the level of PvP risk I feel like being exposed to on a particular day, and some meaningful options in between for people willing to tolerate a bit of risk but who don't want a total gankfest 24/7.
That being said this system MUST work on an effective risk vs. reward system. There needs to be valuable commodities in more dangerous areas that can't be accessed in the safer areas outside trade with those willing to venture into those areas. The sandbox content shouldn't be exclusive to PvPers either though. You need to give PvErs a reason to play your game too.
Comments
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
Reading your other posts OP, I gather you like owpvp without consequences. I prefer war type games (RvR), or pvp to have some real consequences that make for interesting gameplay- perhaps bounties on killers, guards hunting you down etc, except in areas where it makes sense that you could in fact get away with murder.
But for me a more pressing issue is vertical progression and grind. That is what kills pvp imo, and is one reason why moba's and games like Overwatch are so much more popular than mmo pvp. There is obviously a huge population of potential players that love pvp but aren't so keen about afk mining nodes or grinding to get maximum levels and gear before they can have fun pvping.
To me world PvP isn't the problem. Getting ganked is annoying, but its doesn't have too much impact and there are precautions (such as grouping etc) that can be taken against it. It's when people want "consequences" like full loot or rez timers for the people that get killed that the trouble starts. By consequences they always mean that the other guy pays the consequences. Most people, whether they'll admit it or not, want the ability to murder and pillage without risk to themselves.
If you want "realistic" PvP where there are no safe areas with "consequences", then I think that the attacker should face the same uncertainty that they face in Real Life. If someone picks a fight in a bar, they don't really know what they're getting into. Their opponent might be a 205 pound Goliath who turns out to be a weenie or a 125 pound wet noodle who turns out to be an MMA superstar. They might be carrying a knife or a rubber chicken. That should be what the attacker faces in an MMO. No running around picking on people you know you can whip. You have to face the uncertainty that you don't know exactly what you're getting into and this guy might be a peasant or he might be a god. In real life you never know. If you pick on the wrong guy you could find yourself in the trunk of a car with a caved in skull on your way to a grave in the desert. It should be that way in MMOs, and unfortunately I'm unaware of any game or game mechanic where such a think is possible.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
I'm totally against Open World PvP in any flavor. I don't game to compare a body-count with someone else; I'd rather focus on the story elements. Equally, I've not seen any 'consequences' that aren't defeated by a simple log-and-switch-characters operation. Consequences that can be voluntarily avoided aren't exactly consequences in my view.
Now, if a developer wants to get extremely radical, require a valid credit card to play. If attacked, the instigator is charged $20; company gets $10, victim get $10. We'd see how many people would pvp once there was a consequence they couldn't avoid.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
This is what I do not get if PvE players are happy in their PvE games why can't the PvP players be similarly happy in their games without trying to recruit PvE players. Is there something lacking in the PvP world that you would need these PvE players and I would refrain from using 'lambs', 'prey', 'targets', 'fodder' as the reason because this is a serious question.
If a type of play style is so good why do you need to persuade the PvE players from trying it out. Why not be happy with the games you have and leave the PvE players to their worlds.
Granted, my experience may be fairly limited (swg, lotro, war and swtor are the only ones I've played long term) but in each case, the homogenisation came about due to whining by solo pvers (because apart from dps, unique roles only come into their own during group play) and the nerfs came from whining group pvers (because things like dps meters quickly highlight imbalances).
I have, obviously, seen nerfs / balancing as a result of trying to please the pvp crowd, but they seem to be very rare in pve focused MMORPGs and in the games I've played, they've always been justified.
As a final note, with regards to nerfing / balancing in general, in almost all cases that I've personally seen, the nerfs and buffs have been warranted. Devs aren't stupid people, they just can't anticipate all the unique builds that players put together, so sometimes we as a community find ways to break the balance. It is, of course, frustrating when your class gets nerfed, but the reasoning behind it is always solid.
More general balancing / homogenisation, well, yeh, I've yet to see a good example of this happening. Again, I'd never blame it on the pvp crowd as there are far more pve whiners calling for these sorts of changes, but the fault really lies with the higher-up designers. Homogenisation is a design choice, made to make it simpler to balance for solo players, but it always sucks the uniqueness out of the game.
In a PVE MMO with only 10 players, those 10 will happily go forth and PVE.
In a PVP MMO with only 10 players, those 10 will quickly get bored searching for people to fight, so they'll logoff and play some quick CS:GO instead...
I do like the idea of using a safe space only to unflag also. The chance of getting killed trying to get into that safe place would become higher. Think this is better than a simple timer where people just sit and wait.
I have no problem seeing that my bitterness clouds my judgement when it comes to PvP. That's because I am convinced PvP caused the death of my favorite class archetype. I get players frustration with control classes in PvP, since it can be extremely frustrating, but it's extremely fun in PvE and I miss it.
As for homogenization that has been my experience. Starting with Paladins and Shamans (Is it Shaman, Shamans, or Shamen?) in WoW being drastically changed, at least from my view, due to PvP. Same with my Frost Mage. It had drastic changes to it due to PvP. If you're looking for links for stats or hard evidence I don't have any. This is just from my own experience at the time by playing these classes and engaging with the in-game community and forums.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
A PVP game that has anything in the store that gives players an advantage is also just asking to fold. '
There are a long list of games that failed to have such and are no longer available because of it.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
BDO's Karma system does a pretty good job at ensuring you can still actually get shit done in game, rather than deal with rampant ganking the moment you step out of a city.
And as someone else mentioned, the latter tends to kill player population quickly in games that allow such behavior. There's a good reason all the OW-FullPvP MMOs have tiny populations. Which is perfectly fine if the game's aiming for that niche, but dumb if the devs have higher ambitions than that.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
While docked in station you can't be touched. In certain circumstances you can jump between stations and no one can stop you.
These stations can never be destroyed and in Sec space you can never be kicked out.
EVE does probably one of the best jobs of any PVP game out there of letting players manage the level of risk they take, but of course isn't perfect.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
PVP without consequences can be fun... usually only found on special servers from PVE-oriented games though so usually unbalanced and a complete gankfest.
Right now I am playing mostly Conan Exiles and Darkfall but fear that Darkfall's new rules may have consequences for PVP a bit too much.... think it takes about 30 hours of effort to make up for killing just one friendly or some such.... I think there is a church that can be paid too to recover lost alignment, but worried that PVP may be a bit too rare for a game of its type.
For one thing, nobody seems to know about the changes (or even care?)... just the name Darkfall scares away most people but yeah... with new changes I doubt I will run into PVP unless I am actively taking village control points or sieging player holdings.
I am tempted to go red so that I can kill people in "safe" areas but if I do that it will be tons harder to level and live in the world... a serious set back, given the law abiding blues will have access to closer binds to better mobs all over the main map.
Should be fun regardless.. bit worried though.
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
I want a game where carebears and hardcore PvPs can comfortably coexist or where I can choose the level of PvP risk I feel like being exposed to on a particular day, and some meaningful options in between for people willing to tolerate a bit of risk but who don't want a total gankfest 24/7.
That being said this system MUST work on an effective risk vs. reward system. There needs to be valuable commodities in more dangerous areas that can't be accessed in the safer areas outside trade with those willing to venture into those areas. The sandbox content shouldn't be exclusive to PvPers either though. You need to give PvErs a reason to play your game too.
May 5 release
best open world pvp
-city build
- full loot
-no instance
-sandbox