My thought in your original example is that to me introducing these choke points at mining camps does not encourage pvp...it encourages griefing.
Encouraging pvp against a crafter is about stupid. I can hear the defense of this now...well the crafter should join a guild and bring a whole bunch of people to defend him. For what? So they can stand there and watch him mine? That's fun.....
The question is, why do people play these games when the shouldn't be playing these games?
On the other hand I would ask...why bother killing these people at all. There is no challenge to it but my thought is that is exactly why they do it. If you need to play whack a mole with targets that provide no challenge then the game has bigger problems.
In EVE if you came to my alliances home in 0,0 then you would be killed. I never particularly found it interesting to go to high sec and kill someone in a mining barge. Woohoo I just killed someone doing the most mind numbing thing the game has to offer!!!!!! I am AWESOME!!!!!!
My alliance drew a ton of hate and we were not always well behaved but I never saw the point or use of mindless killing of people who could not fight back. I could find pvp where I wanted and did not need to incite it by killing miners and hoping they call in the calvary.
Well, there are two answers there.
One, it does stoke the fires of animosity/claims resources.
Two, there are people who have issues.
I should add that in Lineage 2 I got pretty high for the time and I never pk'ed people who didn't deserve it. But that still doesn't mean I complained if someone offed me.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's more like going to a water park that doesn't have a rules of conduct and getting upset when another kid tries to drown yours.
Devs that leave griefing opportunities wide open rarely succeed, and the ones that have generally appear to have succeeded by providing options to avoid it completely (private servers) or by being old enough to have diehard fanbases.
No, it isn't like that at all.
First, the game does have a ruleset. The ruleset includes (and you are warned numerous times) that if you step outside of guard protection you may get ganked. That isn't 'griefing', that is PvP in an open world PvP game.
Second, in the game I mentioned private servers are available and yet people still complain.
To define a choke point as 'griefing' - a choke point (I presume) was designed to encourage PvP, in a PvP game, is silly.
And again, I'm not trying to justify the behavior of mental midgets who think 6v1 against someone who cannot defend themselves is 'fun'. I am only expressing exasperation at people who refuse to read the box and then complain when they get burned.
It's more like going to a water park that doesn't have a rules of conduct and getting upset when another kid tries to drown yours.
Devs that leave griefing opportunities wide open rarely succeed, and the ones that have generally appear to have succeeded by providing options to avoid it completely (private servers) or by being old enough to have diehard fanbases.
No, it isn't like that at all.
First, the game does have a ruleset. The ruleset includes (and you are warned numerous times) that if you step outside of guard protection you may get ganked. That isn't 'griefing', that is PvP in an open world PvP game.
Second, in the game I mentioned private servers are available and yet people still complain.
To define a choke point as 'griefing' - a choke point (I presume) was designed to encourage PvP, in a PvP game, is silly.
No, but even devs with OWPvP don't encourage griefing. Things like corpse camping lowbies. Because they know that it's a death knell to support such behavior, and it doesn't matter if you advertise your game as a literal psycho shit show.
Encouraging PvP and enabling and encouraging griefing are two different things, something those who try to defend and puff up OWPvP refuse to acknowledge.
I am not sure anyone complains about getting killed once or twice. I believe the loudest people are the ones getting constantly ganked by people who get their low self esteem rocks off by doing it. I can completely get that because no one plays a game to play dead for a majority of their playtime.
I don't think it is fair to attribute low self esteem to people who are just playing the game per the rules.
It would be just as fair to claim that people who spend most of their time dead are masochists.
To go back to the water park example: ALL water parks would laugh at you for complaining about getting wet. They would kick out a kid who repeatedly tried to drown others in said water.
I have to agree with Sovrath but make a detailed distinction.
I think if you join a PvP game, then you should be okay with whatever happens within allowed rules. EVE is a perfect example in that regard. Also, EVE is a great example where you can control your level of risk.
What I don't like, is getting PK'd due to cheats (a.l.a Diablo 2 and their cheats to go to town, hostile, while having arrows in the air) or games that are poorly designed as not to allow newbies to get a foothold in the game.
To further Sovrath.
If i'm in EVE and I get ganked. It's like being in the ocean, if a shark attacks you, dont' blame the shark, that is what it does. Every one plays a role in a role playing game. Some play the A-hole role, which is fine. (I do have a problem with people scamming, lying, and cheating though)
I actually like to gank people in PvP games more to my level or those that are higher level than me. I wouldn't gank noobs mercilessly in a noob zone.
I just don't play full loot PvP games because what I detest is losing gear as acquiring good gear is the main reason I play, so losing it, deters me. But if there was a good game with PvP that I didn't lose my gear, then yes, I'd gank. Perhaps, you lose your inventory (like project entropia), but not your gear.
I once lost $50 in inventory in Project Entropia when i went to a PvP zone by accident lol. Too bad in Entropia, the only people that really PvP are so much higher level than me that i'd get owned hardcore.
Cryomatrix
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
No, but even devs with OWPvP don't encourage griefing. Things like corpse camping lowbies. Because they know that it's a death knell to support such behavior, and it doesn't matter if you advertise your game as a literal psycho shit show.
Encouraging PvP and enabling and encouraging griefing are two different things, something those who try to defend and puff up OWPvP refuse to acknowledge.
IMHO, substantial progression in an open world PVP (full loot, no less) is a recipe for disaster. There is no debate on that point - it has been proven many times.
However, this thread isn't about that since it has been beaten to death about 1,000 times in this forum.
The thread is about players who hate [insert feature] buying a game that advertises itself as [insert feature] and then demanding that the game be changed to no longer support [insert feature].
To go back to the water park example: ALL water parks would laugh at you for complaining about getting wet. They would kick out a kid who repeatedly tried to drown others in said water.
truuuuueee ...
On the drowning thing that is ... But that equates to something different for this example. That's causing someone direct harm.
So if a person were playing an online game and were trying to cause a player direct harm then they would also be arrested.
But in a video game that touts open pvp?
In any case, players need to know what they are getting into. It's true that developers want everyone to buy but, and I've said this before, players need to know what they are buying.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I am not sure anyone complains about getting killed once or twice. I believe the loudest people are the ones getting constantly ganked by people who get their low self esteem rocks off by doing it. I can completely get that because no one plays a game to play dead for a majority of their playtime.
I don't think it is fair to attribute low self esteem to people who are just playing the game per the rules.
It would be just as fair to claim that people who spend most of their time dead are masochists.
Let's leave the mind-reading to the pros.
I think you are lumping the entire pvp community into one messy steaming pile when there are 2 very different groups.
There is a reason pvp games become a wasteland and it is not because they are all horrible games.
EVE very much got this right and all play types can play and have an enjoyable time. I get the game itself is not for everyone however if I was a pve player or high sec trader I could have a very lucrative and more or less good gaming experience. I could also be a pirate, worm hole explorer or myriad of other things. Yes there was some high sec griefers but ultimately they died horrible deaths.
When you advertise your sandbox saying it has all these amazing features then you must have balance. Balance makes the game better for everyone. Do not advertise deep crafting and pve experiences and not expect to draw that crowd. It boggles the mind why people do not see that. If it was only the hardest core pvp crowd in the game then it would be a very lonely game long term
Most reds or griefers I have run across are very much the I was beat up in the boys bathroom in high school and now look at me picking on pixels people. I hold to what I said and was not even trying to be insulting actually.
We cant assume that that devs are always seprating this ..
Whos to say that the Crafting And PVE are not there for the PVPers .. they can do all 3 .. Its the person that just wants to craft or just PVE that is sticking there toes in water they dont belong in some cases.. PvPers enjoy and will participate in all 3 aspects of a PVP sandbox , the problem is players who only want to participate in PVE/Crafting... They are in the wrong sandbox
If a gamer wants just PVE and or crafting experience there is an endless list for that to participate in .. SO if a game includes PVP you are not the target audience and should expect the rest of the coomunity to cater to there casual desires..
To go back to the water park example: ALL water parks would laugh at you for complaining about getting wet. They would kick out a kid who repeatedly tried to drown others in said water.
truuuuueee ...
On the drowning thing that is ... But that equates to something different for this example. That's causing someone direct harm.
So if a person were playing an online game and were trying to cause a player direct harm then they would also be arrested.
But in a video game that touts open pvp?
In any case, players need to know what they are getting into. It's true that developers want everyone to buy but, and I've said this before, players need to know what they are buying.
Doesn't have to be drowning. You think they wouldn't take issue with a kid following another kid around throwing buckets of water into his face over and over?
In essence what it boils down to is this: if you're causing a disruption to the point it's evident and interfering with others' experience in a way they can't reasonably engage with the product or avoid, you will be removed because you're bad for business.
Most reds or griefers I have run across are very much the I was beat up in the boys bathroom in high school and now look at me picking on pixels people. I hold to what I said and was not even trying to be insulting actually.
So you have extended conversations with these people? Enough to know about their childhood experiences?
I think not.
I'm sorry, but the mind reading into other people's motivations crosses a line. It isn't fair.
Is there an audience for these type of games? Absolutely. Is there a large enough audience for a "good game?" Abstaf**kingtutely. Is there a large enough audience to keep an expensive game afloat?
No idea. I'm going to say "possibly" but they will need to look toward EVE numbers and not World of Warcraft numbers.
Here is the thing I notice about the pvp crowd.
NOTHING makes them happy. Look at the plethora of pvp games which have come out in the last 10 years that the crowd jumped on and said how awesome it was only to be a ghost town.
For that matter a good amount never even had the sales to match the hype. If you have to pve then they are unhappy, if you have to craft they are unhappy, if you have to do anything except mindlessly kill everyone in your path for no reason they are not happy. And especially when there are no easy target sheep to kill they are unhappy. When it comes down to those left who just want the pvp aspect the game then promptly dies.
A law system needs put in place for it to work. Most pve players do not mind the random pvp encounter. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking that is what happens. No they are camped and bothered until they log out and do not log in anymore. A good system for that has not been done but pvp players have had plenty to choose from, they just do not like the options and population is one of the constant complaints.
They would rather play Fortnite at this point and maybe that is what they need. They have constant pvp 24/7.
Maybe Fortnite is the answer. But for my taste, there really haven't been many great pvp games in the last 10 years.
I loved Tera pvp but that was more of a proof of concept game than an actual game.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
MUD was generally heavy when it came to PvE grind and had some PK rules. Most of them never were PvP games. The same can be said about UO and its clones.
UO suffered a lot due to PK, it stopped new players joining the game and as much as people hated the change that happened to the game the player base increased due to them catering to PvE players.
20+ years later and developers forgot the lesson.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
The problem isn't always that cut and dry as people not reading and understanding the type of game they are buying and playing. The developers themselves make concessions like offering immunity items in their cash shop that will make players immune or allow areas in the game to be PvP safe zones. They want the very players you keep saying shouldn't be playing these games. Why are they marketing to them if they don't? So now people are crying foul when the players are complaining about things they are unhappy with but shouldn't you been angry with the developers who wanted these players to play their games in the first place. Why are you blaming the player who wanted to play in an open world with a side dish of PvP?
Don't hold out that your game can be played by a PvE player or a player who is interested in PvP but not when they are unable to fight back. See making sure you create situations that are unbalanced that places the character engaging in an activity you encouraged and then artificially placing them in jeopardy seems to be a cruel somehow to me. It is perfectly natural for players to feel put upon and their complaints seems a natural consequence.
From your point of view you say the player should never have tried to play this game. Then does not it also follow that game developers should not be trying to get these players to play their game. It's a double edged sword you want more players but on the other hand you don't want to deal with the complaints and the baggage they bring.
The best part is when the developer caves in and tries to placate the people complaining and pisses off both sides with half baked solutions that ultimately make the game unpalatable to both sides.
The sad reality is the low-budget attempts at open world PvP has so stigmatized the label that devs can't lean fully into that feature and expect anything less than total irrelevance.
It's gonna take some rehabbing of the feature for devs to lean into that as a marquis feature without also making concessions to less hardcore features that are more widely popular.
Well op your statements held a lot of water back a few years ago but now,all the developers are claiming EARLY ACCESS.
They are saying we are helping them build the game,being early means lots more to come right? So under the current pretense i would say it is perfectly fine to ask devs to design something,they say they listen well then let's prove it. Now of course if we are seeing a finished product then you shouldn't expect a certain design decision to change but still no harm in asking.Some game design ideas can't be foreseen in the early or even testing stages so we and the developers need to keep an open mind several days...weeks into a game.
On the subject of "player conflict",we should remember these games and their designs are NOT meant to be played 100% of time player killing.Think of the extreme,a clan of 20 players just stood at your home doorway 24/7 and kept you from ever eating,is that be design MEANT to happen?Obviously no because the game and the developer would lose players. There NEEDS to be a rule set,a sort of law within any pk game otherwise it turns out a mess because unlike real life,there are no phones to call 911 or the cops or the sheriff or Dudley Doright and the mounties to come and save the day.
Now there is a different way,allow players or groups of to make claims,if you are trying to harvest/mine inside their claim,then yeah open season.Then if you want "incentive"by design,i have a very good solution.Normal harvesting rares is maybe 0.5-1%,well if you harvest inside an enemy claim make that % maybe 5-10% or even 20%.The problem with getting too carried away is then large clans will always go to YOUR claim to harvest for the higher% so you need a few tweaks to the rule set.Idk w/o a lot of thought perhaps +1% for each more people than those harvesting.So if a single player harvesting in a zone versus 10 foes then the % is maybe higher like 20% more rares.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Is there an audience for these type of games? Absolutely. Is there a large enough audience for a "good game?" Abstaf**kingtutely. Is there a large enough audience to keep an expensive game afloat?
No idea. I'm going to say "possibly" but they will need to look toward EVE numbers and not World of Warcraft numbers.
Here is the thing I notice about the pvp crowd.
NOTHING makes them happy. Look at the plethora of pvp games which have come out in the last 10 years that the crowd jumped on and said how awesome it was only to be a ghost town.
For that matter a good amount never even had the sales to match the hype. If you have to pve then they are unhappy, if you have to craft they are unhappy, if you have to do anything except mindlessly kill everyone in your path for no reason they are not happy. And especially when there are no easy target sheep to kill they are unhappy. When it comes down to those left who just want the pvp aspect the game then promptly dies.
A law system needs put in place for it to work. Most pve players do not mind the random pvp encounter. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking that is what happens. No they are camped and bothered until they log out and do not log in anymore. A good system for that has not been done but pvp players have had plenty to choose from, they just do not like the options and population is one of the constant complaints.
They would rather play Fortnite at this point and maybe that is what they need. They have constant pvp 24/7.
Maybe Fortnite is the answer. But for my taste, there really haven't been many great pvp games in the last 10 years.
I loved Tera pvp but that was more of a proof of concept game than an actual game.
I think there's a distinct difference between what I would consider Fortnite's "massive" PvP and an MMORPG's.
I feel devs are too hastily dropping any hint of the RPG when they start talking PvP systems. That's a mistake. You won't compete with Fortnite in an arena battle. Stop trying. You're running on an engine not built to support that twitch-based, ultra-fast gameplay style (talking the pure MMORPG genre here). Stop trying to retrofit that shit.
Make a PvP system that includes objectives, environments, and tactical features that pull from RPG systems so you don't need to try and rewrite reality by trying to create a workable system where folks can PvE level like it's an RPG and then jump into a battle of hundreds of people like they're playing one big CoD match. Those two game types are not compatible in a purely online game.
Create environments players won't encounter elsewhere; why the hell can't giants or dragons show up sometimes in a PvP/RvR lake to attempt to lay waste to both armies while they're weakened fighting one another? You won't find that in Fortnite.
Create objectives that make sense. Get rid of this capture the flag, team deathmatch, or point control bullshit we see in every competitive online game ever. Capture a relic that can be used by the owner to channel magic into a powerful one-time use weapon that can lay waste to a battlefield. Hell, at this point, I'd take a damn ring that turns the wearer invisible but has a chance to draw out a band of orcs and a small group of wraiths attempting to recover the ring for their dark master.
To me, the most frustrating part of the MMORPG community are the ones who act like everyone else in the game exists to be their victims, then act surprised when everyone else in the game either demands changes to the game or stops playing it entirely.
I mean, seriously: if it happened in the last ten games you tanked, what makes you think that the current game will be any different?
I don't know why developers keep trying to mix substantive progression with PvP. When I see those two features advertised together I give the game a hard pass.
That aside, can you blame the players viewing others as victims when the game advertises that you can be an outcast and prey on the weak? Again, it is an advertised feature of the game that you can make other players your target - so I don't see how players to buy that game for that feature would be irritating to anyone.
Full disclosure: I don't PvP. Period. So my post isn't a veiled attempt to defend ganking.
I'm just puzzled by people who buy a game that advertises feature X and then immediately petition the developers to remove feature X.
It is like buying Madden 2019 and petitioning the developers to stop making the game all about football and to add more car theft and gunplay.
Well it would be helpful if developers quit designing their games with activites such as mining which clearly (but not exclusively) appeal to the more PVE minded player (aka as "prey" or "sheep") in order to "encourage" player conflict.
It's a terrible mechanic which has oft been repeated and failed in far too many games especially when the victim has no chance to fight or flee.
I am "Prey" (might make that the name of my next alt) and I will play in PVP centric games as long as there is a way for me to control my level of risk and strong mechanics to avoid being caught.
EVE does this very well, providing several warning mechanisms such a local, ship scanning, and player corps often set up Intel networks to track enemy ship movements.
PVPers often complain it's too difficult to catch PVERs unaware but I just view that as crocodile tears considering I'm normally the only one who loses much of anything in such encounters.
while mining might appeal to pvp minded players more, it's not put in there to lure pve players out. Even if the game was 100% pvp minded players, someone would have to mine the ore in order to make the weapons. This lures anyone out and create hot spots.
I am not advocating for such hot spots or against them, just pointing out that just because there is mining it doesn't mean it was put there to appease the PVE players, but rather a part of immersion. Typically the type of player this game is designed for a mixed breed of PVP and PVE lovers. Some people sway more one way than the other, but that's the general target demographic.
My thought in your original example is that to me introducing these choke points at mining camps does not encourage pvp...it encourages griefing.
Encouraging pvp against a crafter is about stupid. I can hear the defense of this now...well the crafter should join a guild and bring a whole bunch of people to defend him. For what? So they can stand there and watch him mine? That's fun.....
We used to have a lot of fun in lineage 2 defending our clan mates while they are getting rid of "red"
There was the time, in Cruma where an alliance took over the entire dungeon and wouldn't allow people to get in.
It took a lot of people to break their way into it and fight that alliance.
What you don't get, and others who share the same view, is that "open pvp" is exactly about those moments. It's about hunting a red down over the desert or running to the noob area to take out a group of reds who are hunting low level players.
It IS fun.
The question is, why do people play these games when the shouldn't be playing these games?
You are using a "poor" example as you are holding up a PVP game which had considerable design controls to discourage rampant griefing, which resulted in the "fun" PVP experiences you enjoyed without driving most others away.
As stated previously, some of us enjoy PVP games which are well thought out such as L2 DAOC, (I played on FFA servers or EVE) even if we are more carebears at heart.
Gankboxes such as DF never held any appeal, nor did WOW PVE servers, I played on Kel Thuzad, PVP server back in the day for the extra challenge.
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
Well it would be helpful if developers quit designing their games with activites such as mining which clearly (but not exclusively) appeal to the more PVE minded player (aka as "prey" or "sheep") in order to "encourage" player conflict.
It's a terrible mechanic which has oft been repeated and failed in far too many games especially when the victim has no chance to fight or flee.
I am "Prey" (might make that the name of my next alt) and I will play in PVP centric games as long as there is a way for me to control my level of risk and strong mechanics to avoid being caught.
EVE does this very well, providing several warning mechanisms such a local, ship scanning, and player corps often set up Intel networks to track enemy ship movements.
PVPers often complain it's too difficult to catch PVERs unaware but I just view that as crocodile tears considering I'm normally the only one who loses much of anything in such encounters.
Your description sounds a lot like Uncharted Waters Online. It's nearly impossible to catch a player who is actively trying not to get caught, no matter how much higher level and better gear you have. Much of the world is open PVP, but the penalties for it are harsh enough that most players won't attack you.
My thought in your original example is that to me introducing these choke points at mining camps does not encourage pvp...it encourages griefing.
Encouraging pvp against a crafter is about stupid. I can hear the defense of this now...well the crafter should join a guild and bring a whole bunch of people to defend him. For what? So they can stand there and watch him mine? That's fun.....
We used to have a lot of fun in lineage 2 defending our clan mates while they are getting rid of "red"
There was the time, in Cruma where an alliance took over the entire dungeon and wouldn't allow people to get in.
It took a lot of people to break their way into it and fight that alliance.
What you don't get, and others who share the same view, is that "open pvp" is exactly about those moments. It's about hunting a red down over the desert or running to the noob area to take out a group of reds who are hunting low level players.
It IS fun.
The question is, why do people play these games when the shouldn't be playing these games?
You are using a "poor" example as you are holding up a PVP game which had considerable design controls to discourage rampant griefing, which resulted in the "fun" PVP experiences you enjoyed without driving most others away.
As stated previously, some of us enjoy PVP games which are well thought out such as L2 DAOC, (I played on FFA servers or EVE) even if we are more carebears at heart.
Gankboxes such as DF never held any appeal, nor did WOW PVE servers, I played on Kel Thuzad, PVP server back in the day for the extra challenge.
Ok, I'm at a loss. Name a game that has open pvp that isn't considered a "pvp game."
EVE? Seems like a pvp game to me. I also remember, the twice I tried it, getting killed in the sector for noobs. And he took my ore. No idea how that happened.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Well it would be helpful if developers quit designing their games with activites such as mining which clearly (but not exclusively) appeal to the more PVE minded player (aka as "prey" or "sheep") in order to "encourage" player conflict.
It's a terrible mechanic which has oft been repeated and failed in far too many games especially when the victim has no chance to fight or flee.
I think it is fair to question why someone would build a game like in the first place; however, this thread is more along the lines of "Why would someone buy a game a major element of which they detest?"
I don't really want this thread to be about ganking because I think we all agree that is unappealing.
What is frustrating is when a game runs an ad like this:
GAME: Medieval Village ADVERTISEMENT: Play this game to enjoy a really detailed and accurate roleplay of what like would be like to live, prosper, and die in a 1400 A.D. medieval village.
Next day on Medieval Village Forums:This game needs more mech warriors. The developers need to do this NOW or the game will die. What noobs built this game leaving out people who like to drive mech warriors? Are you all racists or what?
So then someone points out the name of the game is "Medieval Village" and how the ads made it clear what the game was about and the response is "Oh, so we have to play the game your way do we?" About 500 people who shouldn't even be in the game chime in with "BUT WE PAID GOOD MONEY FOR THIS GAME" and somehow it is a civil rights violation to not take their criticism seriously.
At some point I think it is fair to say: You are an idiot for not understanding that feature X means that feature X will be in the game. If you don't like feature X (when foundational to the game) then GTFO.
How many features are foundational to a game? If someone gets upset about the single, core, most important feature of a game, then yeah, he's being ridiculous. But if there are ten things you're looking for in a game, no game has all ten, and a particular game has nine of the ten, you might play it anyway even though that tenth thing on your list is definitely not what you're looking for.
For me the most frustrating part of the gaming community, aside from the hackers and griefers, would be people who don't seem to comprehend the marketing materials and game FAQs. I admit there was a time when I suffered from this problem - I'd buy a game, be surprised by the content, and then insist that the developers make changes to the game to meet my requirements.
I honestly feel bad for developers on this point. They're in a tough spot.
For example, I'm posting on a game forum where people are complaining about 'choke points' in mining. They're upset that players are forced to mine rare ores in well known locations that have limited entrances and exits. They don't like this design because PKs make a nuisance of themselves and mining is difficult. The suggested fix by the playerbase: Spread rare ores out all over the map so that we can avoid PKs. This is in a PvP game, people.
Naturally, there is nothing wrong with making suggestions to the developers on how to improve a game; however, this suggestion seems to fly in the face of an obviously intentional design choice that encourages player conflict. In a PvP game the mechanics are supposed to encourage PvP - not work to avoid it. Again, If you buy a PvP game then understand that it is going to be put together in such a way as to force player conflict.
To me this is almost as ignorant as loading up Camelot Unchained and asking the developers when they'll implement intergalactic travel, trading, and space warfare. Hey developers, thanks for the new chainmail armor, but I'm really wanting to get some cybernetic implants - when does that update drop?
Reflexively I want to blame the developers in that they need to do a better job of communicating; however, for the game I'm talking about (Legends of Aria) the website brags about player vs. player conflict and that the world will be dangerous out in the wilds. If you don't 'get it' after viewing the website then I don't know what the developers could do to make it clear.
There is a corollary to this common and puzzling issue; namely the common idea that ones subjective preferences, say that "grinding" is bad, or that combat should be action packed and twitchy, are objectively better.
But have you seen a successful game do that in the past ten years?
I'm thinking this is as much a consumer tastes shift as anything else. These days, "reds" don't exist without a full guild of buddies on Discord to back them up should someone give them a bit of resistance.
Chasing off a red is fun, but when he returns with a group full or more as necessary to ensure they ruin the game for anyone in that zone, it's fun for no one but the group chasing people down they know can't defend themselves against their mini-zerg.
In the end, wide open PvP is a very basic design philosophy. No dev has had the creativity and/or guts the implement a law system that appropriately discourages random ganking to the point where PvP is relegated to meaningful encounters within the purview of the game world itself.
The trick is to make it so that the mini-zerg of gankers doesn't work. That way, the would-be ganker can get ten of his buddies to go chase around some intended prey. But then they can't catch the prey, who gets away. Knowing that that's probably going to happen, the mini-zerg never forms. Easier to go kill some botter who won't flee.
If that hasn't been your experience with open-world non-consensual PVP, then you haven't played Uncharted Waters Online. Among the advantages that someone trying to escape has are:
1) You don't need a big crew to just sail around. Between fishing and collecting rain, you can sail around pretty much indefinitely if you're not geared up for combat. But you do need a big crew for combat, and they'll burn through your resources fast, so you'd better put into port to restock often.
2) Acceleration is about inversely proportional to the capacity of a ship. For an adventuring ship, you go with the smallest capacity possible, so as to get the highest acceleration. For a combat ship, you go with maximum capacity, so as to be able to load more crew, more cannons, more supplies, and so forth. Higher level ships also tend to be larger, so the attacker tends to have much slower acceleration than the intended prey. Weaker prey can thus often escape. When a battle starts, both ships completely stop, so acceleration from a dead stop is enormously important.
3) You can query all of the players in your zone. If you're not a pirate (or privateer, but let's just call them pirates for simplicity), you can hide your name from the query. Pirates can't hide themselves from the query, nor their red name status as a pirate. Potential prey can thus ask if there are any pirates in the zone and have the game tell him. Pirates can ask about prey, but the game won't necessary answer.
4) The penalties for piracy are pretty harsh. Most ports won't let you in without paying a large sum of money. Other players will get a reward for sinking you. If you don't have that bounty on you, it will take it out of your bank. If you don't have the money in the bank, it will start vendoring items from your bank to generate it. This can be worked around to some degree with alts, but still, it's a pain to be a pirate. Meanwhile, attacking and sinking just one non-pirate player is enough to brand you as a pirate. Others can attack and pillage you while you're a pirate without any such penalties.
5) You can log off in 15 seconds so long as you don't interact with the game in that time. Turning will interrupt the logoff sequence, but continuing to sail along at full speed won't. If you see a pirate coming for you and start logging off, he has 15 seconds to catch you and initiate combat before you're gone. In a slow travel game, that's not very long. Oh, and when you log back on, you recover your momentum exactly as it was before, so if the pirate decides to stop and wait where you logged off, you'll shoot past him and quickly be out of range.
The upshot is that for the PVE player, the non-consensual PVP doesn't mean that you get ganked. It means that you have to pay attention when you care if you get sunk, but nothing more. I played the game for years, and likely put more hours into it than any other game ever. I think I only lost a ship battle three times ever, all of which were because I wasn't particularly trying to be evasive. Obvious bots, on the other hand, get pillaged quite a bit.
The ganking problem isn't merely when other players can kill you. It's when you have no way to escape or fight back. Asking players to die a lot until they get sick of a game and quit is just terrible design. For players to ask for other options besides dying hopelessly is a completely reasonable request, even if asking for PVP to be removed from a game whose entire point is PVP is not.
Comments
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
First, the game does have a ruleset. The ruleset includes (and you are warned numerous times) that if you step outside of guard protection you may get ganked. That isn't 'griefing', that is PvP in an open world PvP game.
Second, in the game I mentioned private servers are available and yet people still complain.
To define a choke point as 'griefing' - a choke point (I presume) was designed to encourage PvP, in a PvP game, is silly.
And again, I'm not trying to justify the behavior of mental midgets who think 6v1 against someone who cannot defend themselves is 'fun'. I am only expressing exasperation at people who refuse to read the box and then complain when they get burned.
Encouraging PvP and enabling and encouraging griefing are two different things, something those who try to defend and puff up OWPvP refuse to acknowledge.
It would be just as fair to claim that people who spend most of their time dead are masochists.
Let's leave the mind-reading to the pros.
I think if you join a PvP game, then you should be okay with whatever happens within allowed rules. EVE is a perfect example in that regard. Also, EVE is a great example where you can control your level of risk.
What I don't like, is getting PK'd due to cheats (a.l.a Diablo 2 and their cheats to go to town, hostile, while having arrows in the air) or games that are poorly designed as not to allow newbies to get a foothold in the game.
To further Sovrath.
If i'm in EVE and I get ganked. It's like being in the ocean, if a shark attacks you, dont' blame the shark, that is what it does. Every one plays a role in a role playing game. Some play the A-hole role, which is fine. (I do have a problem with people scamming, lying, and cheating though)
I actually like to gank people in PvP games more to my level or those that are higher level than me. I wouldn't gank noobs mercilessly in a noob zone.
I just don't play full loot PvP games because what I detest is losing gear as acquiring good gear is the main reason I play, so losing it, deters me. But if there was a good game with PvP that I didn't lose my gear, then yes, I'd gank. Perhaps, you lose your inventory (like project entropia), but not your gear.
I once lost $50 in inventory in Project Entropia when i went to a PvP zone by accident lol. Too bad in Entropia, the only people that really PvP are so much higher level than me that i'd get owned hardcore.
Cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
There is no debate on that point - it has been proven many times.
However, this thread isn't about that since it has been beaten to death about 1,000 times in this forum.
The thread is about players who hate [insert feature] buying a game that advertises itself as [insert feature] and then demanding that the game be changed to no longer support [insert feature].
That seems insane to me.
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
In essence what it boils down to is this: if you're causing a disruption to the point it's evident and interfering with others' experience in a way they can't reasonably engage with the product or avoid, you will be removed because you're bad for business.
Enough to know about their childhood experiences?
I think not.
I'm sorry, but the mind reading into other people's motivations crosses a line.
It isn't fair.
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
UO suffered a lot due to PK, it stopped new players joining the game and as much as people hated the change that happened to the game the player base increased due to them catering to PvE players.
20+ years later and developers forgot the lesson.
Don't hold out that your game can be played by a PvE player or a player who is interested in PvP but not when they are unable to fight back. See making sure you create situations that are unbalanced that places the character engaging in an activity you encouraged and then artificially placing them in jeopardy seems to be a cruel somehow to me. It is perfectly natural for players to feel put upon and their complaints seems a natural consequence.
From your point of view you say the player should never have tried to play this game. Then does not it also follow that game developers should not be trying to get these players to play their game. It's a double edged sword you want more players but on the other hand you don't want to deal with the complaints and the baggage they bring.
The best part is when the developer caves in and tries to placate the people complaining and pisses off both sides with half baked solutions that ultimately make the game unpalatable to both sides.
The sad reality is the low-budget attempts at open world PvP has so stigmatized the label that devs can't lean fully into that feature and expect anything less than total irrelevance.
It's gonna take some rehabbing of the feature for devs to lean into that as a marquis feature without also making concessions to less hardcore features that are more widely popular.
They are saying we are helping them build the game,being early means lots more to come right?
So under the current pretense i would say it is perfectly fine to ask devs to design something,they say they listen well then let's prove it.
Now of course if we are seeing a finished product then you shouldn't expect a certain design decision to change but still no harm in asking.Some game design ideas can't be foreseen in the early or even testing stages so we and the developers need to keep an open mind several days...weeks into a game.
On the subject of "player conflict",we should remember these games and their designs are NOT meant to be played 100% of time player killing.Think of the extreme,a clan of 20 players just stood at your home doorway 24/7 and kept you from ever eating,is that be design MEANT to happen?Obviously no because the game and the developer would lose players.
There NEEDS to be a rule set,a sort of law within any pk game otherwise it turns out a mess because unlike real life,there are no phones to call 911 or the cops or the sheriff or Dudley Doright and the mounties to come and save the day.
Now there is a different way,allow players or groups of to make claims,if you are trying to harvest/mine inside their claim,then yeah open season.Then if you want "incentive"by design,i have a very good solution.Normal harvesting rares is maybe 0.5-1%,well if you harvest inside an enemy claim make that % maybe 5-10% or even 20%.The problem with getting too carried away is then large clans will always go to YOUR claim to harvest for the higher% so you need a few tweaks to the rule set.Idk w/o a lot of thought perhaps +1% for each more people than those harvesting.So if a single player harvesting in a zone versus 10 foes then the % is maybe higher like 20% more rares.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I feel devs are too hastily dropping any hint of the RPG when they start talking PvP systems. That's a mistake. You won't compete with Fortnite in an arena battle. Stop trying. You're running on an engine not built to support that twitch-based, ultra-fast gameplay style (talking the pure MMORPG genre here). Stop trying to retrofit that shit.
Make a PvP system that includes objectives, environments, and tactical features that pull from RPG systems so you don't need to try and rewrite reality by trying to create a workable system where folks can PvE level like it's an RPG and then jump into a battle of hundreds of people like they're playing one big CoD match. Those two game types are not compatible in a purely online game.
Create environments players won't encounter elsewhere; why the hell can't giants or dragons show up sometimes in a PvP/RvR lake to attempt to lay waste to both armies while they're weakened fighting one another? You won't find that in Fortnite.
Create objectives that make sense. Get rid of this capture the flag, team deathmatch, or point control bullshit we see in every competitive online game ever. Capture a relic that can be used by the owner to channel magic into a powerful one-time use weapon that can lay waste to a battlefield. Hell, at this point, I'd take a damn ring that turns the wearer invisible but has a chance to draw out a band of orcs and a small group of wraiths attempting to recover the ring for their dark master.
As stated previously, some of us enjoy PVP games which are well thought out such as L2 DAOC, (I played on FFA servers or EVE) even if we are more carebears at heart.
Gankboxes such as DF never held any appeal, nor did WOW PVE servers, I played on Kel Thuzad, PVP server back in the day for the extra challenge.
"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
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
If that hasn't been your experience with open-world non-consensual PVP, then you haven't played Uncharted Waters Online. Among the advantages that someone trying to escape has are:
1) You don't need a big crew to just sail around. Between fishing and collecting rain, you can sail around pretty much indefinitely if you're not geared up for combat. But you do need a big crew for combat, and they'll burn through your resources fast, so you'd better put into port to restock often.
2) Acceleration is about inversely proportional to the capacity of a ship. For an adventuring ship, you go with the smallest capacity possible, so as to get the highest acceleration. For a combat ship, you go with maximum capacity, so as to be able to load more crew, more cannons, more supplies, and so forth. Higher level ships also tend to be larger, so the attacker tends to have much slower acceleration than the intended prey. Weaker prey can thus often escape. When a battle starts, both ships completely stop, so acceleration from a dead stop is enormously important.
3) You can query all of the players in your zone. If you're not a pirate (or privateer, but let's just call them pirates for simplicity), you can hide your name from the query. Pirates can't hide themselves from the query, nor their red name status as a pirate. Potential prey can thus ask if there are any pirates in the zone and have the game tell him. Pirates can ask about prey, but the game won't necessary answer.
4) The penalties for piracy are pretty harsh. Most ports won't let you in without paying a large sum of money. Other players will get a reward for sinking you. If you don't have that bounty on you, it will take it out of your bank. If you don't have the money in the bank, it will start vendoring items from your bank to generate it. This can be worked around to some degree with alts, but still, it's a pain to be a pirate. Meanwhile, attacking and sinking just one non-pirate player is enough to brand you as a pirate. Others can attack and pillage you while you're a pirate without any such penalties.
5) You can log off in 15 seconds so long as you don't interact with the game in that time. Turning will interrupt the logoff sequence, but continuing to sail along at full speed won't. If you see a pirate coming for you and start logging off, he has 15 seconds to catch you and initiate combat before you're gone. In a slow travel game, that's not very long. Oh, and when you log back on, you recover your momentum exactly as it was before, so if the pirate decides to stop and wait where you logged off, you'll shoot past him and quickly be out of range.
The upshot is that for the PVE player, the non-consensual PVP doesn't mean that you get ganked. It means that you have to pay attention when you care if you get sunk, but nothing more. I played the game for years, and likely put more hours into it than any other game ever. I think I only lost a ship battle three times ever, all of which were because I wasn't particularly trying to be evasive. Obvious bots, on the other hand, get pillaged quite a bit.
The ganking problem isn't merely when other players can kill you. It's when you have no way to escape or fight back. Asking players to die a lot until they get sick of a game and quit is just terrible design. For players to ask for other options besides dying hopelessly is a completely reasonable request, even if asking for PVP to be removed from a game whose entire point is PVP is not.