Howdy, Stranger!

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

Care Bears Can Kill (If PVP was Fair and Competitive)

1246

Comments

  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member RarePosts: 1,482
    You know how unpopular games like UO, Mortal online, darkfall are?

    Developers don't make much mmorpg like that.

    Now a mmorpg where people can freely gank people but have reprocusion or penalty is even more unpopular in my opinion.  Interesting idea but I don't know if any developer will make a pvp focused game like that.
  • ZionBaneZionBane Member UncommonPosts: 328

    Xodic said:





    Hariken said:









    skadad said:





    "real" open world pvp players do not want to pvp, they want to gank, gank alot. With advantages such as gear or multiple people against one. There is no wonder open world pvp games are not as popular as others.










    This 100%
    PVPer's also are always trying to sell their BS about this not being a problem. Open world PVP games will never be popular. I bet most people would be ok with pvp if they could only be attacked by someone of the same lvl But this never happens. 








    If you don't apply any and all advantages within a game, then it's safe to say that you suck at playing that game.

    People who suck at a game usually don't like playing it.

    That's fine, some people prefer a game that allows them to wander out clueless, in search of opportunities to smash keys and be mesmerized by pixels.

    I'm sure that you look up the best rotation for your WoW character, or how to beat that raid boss, or what gear you should use, or the fastest way to level, or where to get that quest - but when the strategy and tactics of an open world PvP game most always involve playing with a good guild or a good group of friends, it's reduced to a bunch of gankers who don't even like to PvP.

    To say that someone beat you with an advantage.. wtf? Think about what you're saying.


    They are not talking about someone playing a slight edge, or simply having an optimal build of equal level, and facing off, What they are saying is that, in Open-World PvP games, players won't attack you, unless they vastly overpower you with either far superior gear, levels, and abilities, or in pure numbers, in the same context as 100th level character running a level 20 dungeon, or 3 people ganging up on one.


  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017
    @General-Zod - By gankers, I mean those who aren't really looking for a challenge in PvP and just want to prey on weaklings and noobs.  Or people that will repeatedly kill the same player-character for no reason other than that they're there.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 14,140







    Well, that's the point of most MMORPGs as they are currently made.  But even in pencil-and-paper Dungeons & Dragons (first released in 1974), upon which most of these games are based, the whole point was actually being able to experience what it was like to live to in a fantasy world (in D&D's case, similar to that of Tolkien's novels).  The player role-played by talking and acting how his or her character would talk or act according to said character's history and personality.  Most importantly, the character could effect and even change the game world based on his or her words or deeds.  All the stats, equipment, adventures, dungeons and campaigns were just a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves. 


    Oh I dunno about that... when my Paladin got his Holy Avenger Sword it was kind of a big deal.   Even in pen and paper I loved collecting stuff.  I loved seeing my character develop...

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017


    AAAMEOW said:


    You know how unpopular games like UO, Mortal online, darkfall are?

    Developers don't make much mmorpg like that.

    Now a mmorpg where people can freely gank people but have reprocusion or penalty is even more unpopular in my opinion.  Interesting idea but I don't know if any developer will make a pvp focused game like that.




    I didn't say they could freely gank people.  I wouldn't have the ability to become a god-like character in the game.  Basically, you would have a chance of getting killed in any battle you started.  Backstabbing from the shadows or sniping with an arrow from the distance might be some of the few ways you could possibly assassinate someone without the possibility of getting killed yourself.  Even ganging up on someone doesn't make you completely safe.  Only six people can realistically attack someone at the same time.  But for that, they'd have to be very-skilled fighters who can coordinate well together.  That means basically all their skill points would have to be put into combat, so they wouldn't be good at anything else.  And they would have to have fought together for awhile.  Even then, it's possible to take one down at least before they kill you.

    I don't like stat, level, or gear progression.  Throw it away.  It's stupid.  A human can train certain skills and actions by training or repetition, but there are definite limits.  And if you train one thing, that means you usually don't have time to train another.  Why body-builders normally aren't rocket scientists.

    Also, if you kill someone that belongs to a certain kingdom, you're basically declaring war on their entire kingdom.  Might be in your interest if you wanted to start a war between your kingdom and theirs.  Maybe not always the best idea if you're just a gang of bandits.
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    edited April 2017
    I think there is an interesting paradox in the PvP community as a whole. Let's call it "The Trammel Paradox."

    The Trammel Paradox is this:

    Many PvPers: "UO was ruined when they split it into a PvP and a PvE server."

    Same PvPers: "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game! We can't let the carebears dumb this game down!"

    In simple the idea of the Trammel Paradox is the idea that you want everyone who plays the game to be subjected to whatever forms of abuse you wish to inflict on them, and that you despise carebears. But on the same hand you feel something was lost from UO when the community was separated.

    In 2017 there are many MMOs. Most of them are catered primarily to PvEers. So if you believe that Trammel was a mistake and there shouldn't be separation it is logically inconsistent to despise carebears and want them driven from your games. They will simply say "**** this ****!" and return to carebear games continuing the divide between between PvErs and PvPers personified by the Trammel split.

    So which is it:

    A. Did the Trammel split not harm the PvP community and was it in-fact a good move?

    B. Did we lose something when we lost the carebears/crafters/PvErs?

    I am a firm believer in B. If you also believe in B, then this a situation we need solutions to. We need to find ways to curb the behaviors that drive them away and allow them to comfortably exist in our community, and we need to give actual draws to our games most PvE games can't offer.

  • TheocritusTheocritus Member LegendaryPosts: 8,650


    Might be wrong but I thought UO increased in population after the split.


    It did but I think the PVPers hated that they couldnt just kill noobs all day
  • XodicXodic Member EpicPosts: 1,346
    edited April 2017


    Eldurian said:


    I think there is an interesting paradox in the PvP community as a whole. Let's call it "The Trammel Paradox."

    The Trammel Paradox is this:

    Many PvPers: "UO was ruined when they split it into a PvP and a PvE server."

    Same PvPers: "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game! We can't let the carebears dumb this game down!"

    In simple the idea of the Trammel Paradox is the idea that you want everyone who plays the game to be subjected to whatever forms of abuse you wish to inflict on them, and that you despise carebears. But on the same hand you feel something was lost from UO when the community was separated.

    In 2017 there are many MMOs. Most of them are catered primarily to PvEers. So if you believe that Trammel was a mistake and there shouldn't be separation it is logically inconsistent to despise carebears and want them driven from your games. They will simply say "**** this ****!" and return to carebear games continuing the divide between between PvErs and PvPers personified by the Trammel split.

    So which is it:

    A. Did the Trammel split not harm the PvP community and was it in-fact a good move?

    B. Did we lose something when we lost the carebears/crafters/PvErs?

    I am a firm believer in B. If you also believe in B, then this a situation we need solutions to. We need to find ways to curb the behaviors that drive them away and allow them to comfortably exist in our community, and we need to give actual draws to our games most PvE games can't offer.





    I can agree with 'B'. However, the 'Trammel Paradox" was more than what you're making it out to be. It wasn't just about PvPers / PKers, it fundamentally changed the entire game, 3 years after release. It was Star Wars NGE. Some of the key features of the game were nullified in one fell swoop. It didn't hurt PvP, at all, in fact it made Chaos and Order fights as well as guild wars a hell of a lot more fun. What it changed was how the world felt to both carebears AND avid PKers.

    It wasn't as much as "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game!" as it was "don't change the game, change games". However, I have to admit that a solution for both types of players living in one free world sounds appealing, although seemingly impossible.
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,678

    Xodic said:




    Eldurian said:



    I think there is an interesting paradox in the PvP community as a whole. Let's call it "The Trammel Paradox."

    The Trammel Paradox is this:

    Many PvPers: "UO was ruined when they split it into a PvP and a PvE server."

    Same PvPers: "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game! We can't let the carebears dumb this game down!"

    In simple the idea of the Trammel Paradox is the idea that you want everyone who plays the game to be subjected to whatever forms of abuse you wish to inflict on them, and that you despise carebears. But on the same hand you feel something was lost from UO when the community was separated.

    In 2017 there are many MMOs. Most of them are catered primarily to PvEers. So if you believe that Trammel was a mistake and there shouldn't be separation it is logically inconsistent to despise carebears and want them driven from your games. They will simply say "**** this ****!" and return to carebear games continuing the divide between between PvErs and PvPers personified by the Trammel split.

    So which is it:

    A. Did the Trammel split not harm the PvP community and was it in-fact a good move?

    B. Did we lose something when we lost the carebears/crafters/PvErs?

    I am a firm believer in B. If you also believe in B, then this a situation we need solutions to. We need to find ways to curb the behaviors that drive them away and allow them to comfortably exist in our community, and we need to give actual draws to our games most PvE games can't offer.







    I can agree with 'B'. However, the 'Trammel Paradox" was more than what you're making it out to be. It wasn't just about PvPers / PKers, it fundamentally changed the entire game, 3 years after release. It was Star Wars NGE. Some of the key features of the game were nullified in one fell swoop. It didn't hurt PvP, at all, in fact it made Chaos and Order fights as well as guild wars a hell of a lot more fun. What it changed was how the world felt to both carebears AND avid PKers.

    It wasn't as much as "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game!" as it was "don't change the game, change games". However, I have to admit that a solution for both types of players living in one free world sounds appealing, although seemingly impossible.


    There just games. It's ok if you dont win every time...
  • hatefulpeacehatefulpeace Member UncommonPosts: 621





    Vardahoth said:



    In Lineage 2, I was called a carebear nonstop (because I wouldn't accept a challenge of 1vs100). But I was also called a raid boss, osama bin laden, best pvper, and many other hardcore crap I didn't care for.

    Carebear was a term used for people who would not be willing to defend themselves or their friends, when they actually had the power to do so. Then it became a term for people who didn't want to pvp at all. Not even sure it's a term used these days (since ever game is so god damn protective).

    Most people who used this term were trolls and griefers trying to get an emotional rise out of another player (who was always at an unfair disadvantage).






    This isn't directed toward you personally, but I added this to my original post:

    EDIT:  Unless it is in self-defense, in the line of duty for a police officer (except in cases where the perpetrator is unarmed or not fighting back), or occurs during legal warfare, killing people is generally considered a crime.  I do believe games should reflect this principle.  But, "oh, come on, it's just a game", someone may say?  That may very well be, but if that's a person's attitude, he or she (usually he) shouldn't expect me or most other reasonable people to want to participate in the psychotic, predatory fantasies of the gankers.

    I am tired of being coddled in virtual worlds, that's why I want to make pvp actually work in a way that's fun for the majority of people.



    Are you saying that women are less likly to be a ganker? I am confused as to why you would think that.
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    edited April 2017
    He is saying most gankers and griefers are male which is a pretty true statement. Just doing a quick inventory of people who I know who fit that description who's gender I can positively identify (Having heard their voice in videos or on TS) about 90% are male. In fact I can only think of two females I've known who fit the description and one of them was part of a husband/wife team.

    Most of the females I can think of that have played villainous roles in video games tend toward the use of lies, propaganda, and manipulating others to do their bidding. Griefers / gankers are generally tools for such people to use. They inhabit the same guilds but play very different roles. Infact even one of the two females I listed as a ganker was more of a manipulator than a soldier. She just did both.
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 2,256
    In a PVP game where one can kill other but other can't kill back then it failed as a PVP game .
  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017



















    Well, that's the point of most MMORPGs as they are currently made.  But even in pencil-and-paper Dungeons & Dragons (first released in 1974), upon which most of these games are based, the whole point was actually being able to experience what it was like to live to in a fantasy world (in D&D's case, similar to that of Tolkien's novels).  The player role-played by talking and acting how his or her character would talk or act according to said character's history and personality.  Most importantly, the character could effect and even change the game world based on his or her words or deeds.  All the stats, equipment, adventures, dungeons and campaigns were just a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves. 






    Oh I dunno about that... when my Paladin got his Holy Avenger Sword it was kind of a big deal.   Even in pen and paper I loved collecting stuff.  I loved seeing my character develop...





    But would is it really a big deal if all you can ever do with your paladin in a game world is follow orders (do quests), raid dungeons, or kill another player-character?  If you never need to defend your kingdom against another kingdom or monster/undead horde?  If you never have a chance of becoming a lord with his own castle or leading an army in battle?  If your chosen deity never interrupts your day and commands you to go on a specific quest to defeat evil somewhere in some far off realm or plane?
    Post edited by cantankerousmage on
  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992

    Eldurian said:

    I think there is an interesting paradox in the PvP community as a whole. Let's call it "The Trammel Paradox."

    The Trammel Paradox is this:

    Many PvPers: "UO was ruined when they split it into a PvP and a PvE server."

    Same PvPers: "If people can't tolerate consistent abuse I don't want them in my PvP game! We can't let the carebears dumb this game down!"

    In simple the idea of the Trammel Paradox is the idea that you want everyone who plays the game to be subjected to whatever forms of abuse you wish to inflict on them, and that you despise carebears. But on the same hand you feel something was lost from UO when the community was separated.

    In 2017 there are many MMOs. Most of them are catered primarily to PvEers. So if you believe that Trammel was a mistake and there shouldn't be separation it is logically inconsistent to despise carebears and want them driven from your games. They will simply say "**** this ****!" and return to carebear games continuing the divide between between PvErs and PvPers personified by the Trammel split.

    So which is it:

    A. Did the Trammel split not harm the PvP community and was it in-fact a good move?

    B. Did we lose something when we lost the carebears/crafters/PvErs?

    I am a firm believer in B. If you also believe in B, then this a situation we need solutions to. We need to find ways to curb the behaviors that drive them away and allow them to comfortably exist in our community, and we need to give actual draws to our games most PvE games can't offer.


    Finding ways to draw people into PvP games and creating a true role-playing game without the need for incredibly advanced AI or VR is what I am after.
  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017





    iixviiiix said:





    In a PVP game where one can kill other but other can't kill back then it failed as a PVP game .





    That's a true statement in general.

    Btw, I edited my original post again.  This is what I added:

    EDIT #2:  My definition of Ganker - Those who aren't really looking for a challenge in PvP and just want to prey on weaklings and noobs (or someone who has zero chance of defeating them in any case - and usually the person won't have much opportunity for revenge in the near future).  Or people that will repeatedly kill the same player-character for no reason other than that they're there.  I think killing should have a purpose beyond the pure enjoyment of killing.  But maybe that's just me.

    My definition of Unfair in MMORPG PvP: 
    Losing to someone just because they've played longer, played more hours, or paid more money and have thus become far more powerful than I can hope to be without playing for months or years or paying an equal amount of money.  I can compete with people's wallets all day long in the real world if I like.  If I haven't played a sport as long as someone else, I probably won't be placed in the same league as them.  Unless I am sort of genius or prodigy.

    Now if someone outsmarts me or outnumbers me*, fine, that can happen.  Wandering out in the wilderness alone is not the greatest idea most of the time.

    *Or maneuvers better or plans better, whatever.  Basically I want things like wits and skill, tactics and teamwork to play a larger part in PvP than anything else.

  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 2,736
    Putting in more work deserves payoffs but I think what payoffs is something that needs to be more carefully considered.

    Things I am ok with:

    1. Economically stronger players and nations being able to produce better gear more easily.
    2. Diplomatically savvy nations having more allies / less enemies.
    3. Groups that entrench themselves in an area and put resources and time into fortifications being exceptionally hard to push out.
    4. Ending up in an unwinnable fight because you made bad tactical decisions.

    Things I am not ok with:

    1. Things that give you massive stat advantages you don't lose when you die.
    2. Cities/territory that give your group a huge advantage that you can't lose because the game mechanics won't allow it to be sieged or taken by any means.
    3. Ending up in unwinnable fights because the other player simply can't be beaten by someone your level. 
  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017




    Eldurian said:




    Putting in more work deserves payoffs but I think what payoffs is something that needs to be more carefully considered.

    Things I am ok with:

    1. Economically stronger players and nations being able to produce better gear more easily.
    2. Diplomatically savvy nations having more allies / less enemies.
    3. Groups that entrench themselves in an area and put resources and time into fortifications being exceptionally hard to push out.
    4. Ending up in an unwinnable fight because you made bad tactical decisions.

    Things I am not ok with:

    1. Things that give you massive stat advantages you don't lose when you die.
    2. Cities/territory that give your group a huge advantage that you can't lose because the game mechanics won't allow it to be sieged or taken by any means.
    3. Ending up in unwinnable fights because the other player simply can't be beaten by someone your level. 








    Absolutely.

    I added this to my Edit #2: 
    There are advantages one might gain by spending more time with any particular activity, just like in the real world, but they shouldn't make a person unbeatable.  I should have a chance of moving up from the Minor Leagues to the Major Leagues rapidly if I have the talent and the skill.  Baseball players aren't allowed to use corked bats in games, and they certainly wouldn't be able to use a magical bat that always hit a home run every time they swung at a pitch. 

    And this: 
    EDIT #3:  My goal with this thread is exploring the possibilities of how an mmorpg could be made into a true role-playing game similar to pencil-and-paper rpgs, without the need for incredibly advanced artificial intelligence or virtual reality.  I believe open world PvP is an essential element in doing so.  Realm vs Realm as opposed to a free-for-all (though the community a player belongs to doesn't necessarily need to be a kingdom, there can be smaller and larger units), but people could choose to leave their community as well.  There are more details and ideas in my other posts. And in the posts of others.
  • anemoanemo Member RarePosts: 1,903
    If you're trying to add open PvPer to a "World of Everclone" game you might as well toss money somewhere else.

    ___________

    Safezone mechanics, banking, auction houses, flagging, and all those other mechanics.   Do more to help PvPers than they do to help PvEers.

    open world PvPer MMOs that I've enjoyed (Haven and Hearth, WurmOnline PvPer/beta servers, and screeps).  Are all set up to be very 'hardcore' complete with severe skill loss, map removals, no safe banking and similar.   The thing is that you don't find random PvPers since the risks are just too high for them (they don't don't have safe zones, they don't have banks, and best of all you can't really log off to protect yourself/stuff).  

    When a world is properly set up a being a random PvPer just doesn't work.   You'll need some combination of a social network to keep yourself supplied, to safely store items, to even find targets, and protect you from bigger fish.

    Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.

    "At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."

  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017



    anemo said:



    If you're trying to add open PvPer to a "World of Everclone" game you might as well toss money somewhere else.

    ___________

    Safezone mechanics, banking, auction houses, flagging, and all those other mechanics.   Do more to help PvPers than they do to help PvEers.

    open world PvPer MMOs that I've enjoyed (Haven and Hearth, WurmOnline PvPer/beta servers, and screeps).  Are all set up to be very 'hardcore' complete with severe skill loss, map removals, no safe banking and similar.   The thing is that you don't find random PvPers since the risks are just too high for them (they don't don't have safe zones, they don't have banks, and best of all you can't really log off to protect yourself/stuff).  

    When a world is properly set up a being a random PvPer just doesn't work.   You'll need some combination of a social network to keep yourself supplied, to safely store items, to even find targets, and protect you from bigger fish.






    Just like random murder for sport isn't all that common in the real world.  Especially not in the past when the members of different communities depended on each other for survival.

    But if you do have access to a bank in any given town or city, it should not be immune from attempted (and sometimes successful) robbery.

    I don't like default maps either.  A character should need skill in cartography to make a map, at least some rudimentary skills in drawing and some intelligence and/or wisdom in order to map out a dungeon, or have enough coin to buy a map somewhere or from someone.  There's no reason a map needs to be 100% reliable either.  There can be incomplete maps or fake maps.  Even fake maps made on purpose by players or npcs.  The only way one really knows if a map is accurate or not is after they he or she tries to use it.  Or a player shows the map to another player who has traveled the region before.  If they remember correctly or know or can see it corresponds to a good map they have in their possession.

    And I definitely want dying to carry a heavy penalty.

    There should be no zone, area, town, or city or whatever that is 100% safe.  Players can work to make it safer, but there is no such thing as 100% safety anywhere in the real world.
    Post edited by cantankerousmage on
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 14,140



























    Well, that's the point of most MMORPGs as they are currently made.  But even in pencil-and-paper Dungeons & Dragons (first released in 1974), upon which most of these games are based, the whole point was actually being able to experience what it was like to live to in a fantasy world (in D&D's case, similar to that of Tolkien's novels).  The player role-played by talking and acting how his or her character would talk or act according to said character's history and personality.  Most importantly, the character could effect and even change the game world based on his or her words or deeds.  All the stats, equipment, adventures, dungeons and campaigns were just a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves. 








    Oh I dunno about that... when my Paladin got his Holy Avenger Sword it was kind of a big deal.   Even in pen and paper I loved collecting stuff.  I loved seeing my character develop...







    But would is it really a big deal if all you can ever do with your paladin in a game world is follow orders (do quests), raid dungeons, or kill another player-character?  If you never need to defend your kingdom against another kingdom or monster/undead horde?  If you never have a chance of becoming a lord with his own castle or leading an army in battle?  If your chosen deity never interrupts your day and commands you to go on a specific quest to defeat evil somewhere in some far off realm or plane?


    But I can do some of that in today's PvP games.  I'll use Darkfall as an example even though I haven't played in years.  In DF we grouped together, formed an alliance, built up towns and cities, negotiated with other "nations", declared war, laid siege to enemy strongholds, lost a city that we pourred our hearts and souls into, rallied the troops, negotiated with new allies and took our home back.  In that game, not only did my character develop but so did our city.  The more you developed it, the stronger it got.

    Another great example would be Shadowbane.  You could do much of what I described above but one difference was that the GMs also got involved.  They would spawn massive PvE events and attack our cities.  One time I actually RPed my way to join this massive Demon as his lieutenant and swore allegiance to him during the fight and he gave me special blessings "buffs" and sent his troops behind me.  Again, your character would need to develop their skills.  This is what allows the emergence of heroes and legendary enemies.  This is what gives us a goal to meet and overcome the challenges posed by other players.


    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017

























































    Well, that's the point of most MMORPGs as they are currently made.  But even in pencil-and-paper Dungeons & Dragons (first released in 1974), upon which most of these games are based, the whole point was actually being able to experience what it was like to live to in a fantasy world (in D&D's case, similar to that of Tolkien's novels).  The player role-played by talking and acting how his or her character would talk or act according to said character's history and personality.  Most importantly, the character could effect and even change the game world based on his or her words or deeds.  All the stats, equipment, adventures, dungeons and campaigns were just a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves. 














    Oh I dunno about that... when my Paladin got his Holy Avenger Sword it was kind of a big deal.   Even in pen and paper I loved collecting stuff.  I loved seeing my character develop...













    But would is it really a big deal if all you can ever do with your paladin in a game world is follow orders (do quests), raid dungeons, or kill another player-character?  If you never need to defend your kingdom against another kingdom or monster/undead horde?  If you never have a chance of becoming a lord with his own castle or leading an army in battle?  If your chosen deity never interrupts your day and commands you to go on a specific quest to defeat evil somewhere in some far off realm or plane?








    But I can do some of that in today's PvP games.  I'll use Darkfall as an example even though I haven't played in years.  In DF we grouped together, formed an alliance, built up towns and cities, negotiated with other "nations", declared war, laid siege to enemy strongholds, lost a city that we pourred our hearts and souls into, rallied the troops, negotiated with new allies and took our home back.  In that game, not only did my character develop but so did our city.  The more you developed it, the stronger it got.

    Another great example would be Shadowbane.  You could do much of what I described above but one difference was that the GMs also got involved.  They would spawn massive PvE events and attack our cities.  One time I actually RPed my way to join this massive Demon as his lieutenant and swore allegiance to him during the fight and he gave me special blessings "buffs" and sent his troops behind me.  Again, your character would need to develop their skills.  This is what allows the emergence of heroes and legendary enemies.  This is what gives us a goal to meet and overcome the challenges posed by other players.





    That's cool that such things have been possible in games you've played.  But I still don't want the ability to become a god.  Or for other players to become gods.  Gods don't usually walk the earth and go around killing random people for fun.  If gods decide to end someone's life, they usually have a purpose and reason behind it.



  • ZionBaneZionBane Member UncommonPosts: 328
    @anemo and @cantankerousmage

    Lets say you build this Open PvP world, that requires all these means to play, and there are no safe spots, etc.

    What motive would I.. as a Carebear... have to play this game? Why would I even bother to play it?


  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    @ZionBane - FREEDOM!  More fun, more challenge, opportunities for true role-playing, the ability to effect and change the world with words and deeds.  No need to repeat the same actions over and over while waiting for new content to be released.  The players will create most of the game's content themselves.  You will most likely never play the same game twice.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,600
    edited April 2017
    If he doesn't PvP then he has all the same freedom he would have if he participated in in a pve game. Freedom to PvP would not interest him, role playing through PvP would not interest him, changing the world through PvP would not interest him.

    Your answer was basically you can PvP. That doesn't interest that person. 

    What is the draw to a person not interested in PvP?

    If your going to draw the pve crowd your going to have to explain how your game positively impact pve.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • cantankerousmagecantankerousmage Member UncommonPosts: 992
    edited April 2017






    If he doesn't PvP then he has all the same freedom he would have if he participated in in a pve game. Freedom to PvP would not interest him, role playing through PvP would not interest him, changing the world through PvP would not interest him.

    Your answer was basically you can PvP. That doesn't interest that person. 

    What is the draw to a person not interested in PvP?






    No, that is not what I said at all.

    You could effect and change the world without having to kill people in a well-made PvP world.  There are things like diplomacy, making trade deals, forming alliances, breaking alliances, remaining neutral during a time of war between two other kingdoms or choosing to side with one against another.  Gathering enough resources, growing enough food, crafting enough essential items in order for your community to prosper or failing to do so.  Fixing a damaged wall before invaders arrive.  All kinds of things.  So many, many possibilities.  And just because there wouldn't be quest givers, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be adventures or dungeons or the ability to find some magical item (though magic should be rare, as in most people might never encounter it or find it).  There aren't many wizards or magical items in the Lord of the Rings, which all these medieval fantasy games are based on.

    If you read the rest of this thread, you might get some other ideas.  Anyway, it doesn't matter right now.  The important thing would be to make the game first.  Many times, people don't know whether or not they would like something until they try it.

    Oh, and you already have to the freedom to choose to PvP in most mmorpgs.  It's just that PvP in most mmorpgs is horribly implemented.

    EDIT:  If you're really smart, wise, and/or careful, you may never or rarely ever have to engage in battle.  Fighting is usually a last resort for most people.  Or they have some important goal in mind that they believe is worth fighting and even dying for. 

    Also, resurrection should not be commonplace.  The raising of someone from the dead is a pretty miraculous event.
Sign In or Register to comment.