We have seen so many games coming out during the years that promise great gameplay and full loot PVP.
Has it ever worked I mean really?
We can take an example, a classic indi sandbox full loot mantra we have all heard.
Be a crafter
Be a villian
Be a hunter of rare animals
Be a trader and make your fortune by trade.
Be a guildleader and stake your claim on a land and prosper to create a kingdom
Yadda Yadda Yadda
We have all heard these classic commercial phrases, but really they all have come down to pure pvp nothing about pve just pvp with a very small gaming community that hails it for the win.
It dosent matter how much pve activity you put into your game the game will die with full loot pvp due to the simple reason the majority don't like full loot pvp and those who enjoys it are the ones who stick around hence the lable MMO full loot pvp arena for a game that suppose to be an adventure with trade, craft, exploration, building ect.
So sad really that indi developers never can understand the basics that full loot ppv never works no matter how much pve content you provide due to pvper gonna hurt your game and scare away the pve player and you end up with a pvp arena mmo that will burn slowly until the pvper finds another game and do it all over again.
There is an entire sub genre called "survival games" which seem to challenge some of your assertions.
Now as to why full loot is acceptable in survival games but not MMORPGs I'm still trying to figure out.
Full loot is awesome. It makes things worth protecting and literally increases value. An item worth trading for 10 million credits eight years ago is now trading for 40 million credits.
Now, what does this tell us about mercantilism?
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
While I enjoy full loot conceptually, in practice it's a terrible idea.
I play PvP games for the challenge, unpredictability and excitement of fighting other players. All that full loot does in a PvP game is turn everyone into a coward who runs from every fight they're not certain they're going to win. Chasing people down as they try to escape is not challenging, their decision to flee when attacked is not unpredictable, and the act of killing them in not exciting.
Shadowbane struck a decent balance with inventory only looting, but that created its own problems. The person who was out grinding gold, or hunting runes was taking all the risk. The PK who tries to kill them risked nothing. SB arguably would have been a better game without it.
We have seen so many games coming out during the years that promise great gameplay and full loot PVP.
Has it ever worked I mean really?
We can take an example, a classic indi sandbox full loot mantra we have all heard.
Be a crafter
Be a villian
Be a hunter of rare animals
Be a trader and make your fortune by trade.
Be a guildleader and stake your claim on a land and prosper to create a kingdom
Yadda Yadda Yadda
We have all heard these classic commercial phrases, but really they all have come down to pure pvp nothing about pve just pvp with a very small gaming community that hails it for the win.
It dosent matter how much pve activity you put into your game the game will die with full loot pvp due to the simple reason the majority don't like full loot pvp and those who enjoys it are the ones who stick around hence the lable MMO full loot pvp arena for a game that suppose to be an adventure with trade, craft, exploration, building ect.
So sad really that indi developers never can understand the basics that full loot ppv never works no matter how much pve content you provide due to pvper gonna hurt your game and scare away the pve player and you end up with a pvp arena mmo that will burn slowly until the pvper finds another game and do it all over again.
There is an entire sub genre called "survival games" which seem to challenge some of your assertions.
Now as to why full loot is acceptable in survival games but not MMORPGs I'm still trying to figure out.
With most survival games you can host personal servers and foster the community YOU want for that server. On MMOs you deal with immature douchebags whether you like it or not.
It goes a long way towards giving one the potential to be entertaining, while the other is often doomed to be an exercise in frustration.
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.)
We have seen so many games coming out during the years that promise great gameplay and full loot PVP.
Has it ever worked I mean really?
We can take an example, a classic indi sandbox full loot mantra we have all heard.
Be a crafter
Be a villian
Be a hunter of rare animals
Be a trader and make your fortune by trade.
Be a guildleader and stake your claim on a land and prosper to create a kingdom
Yadda Yadda Yadda
We have all heard these classic commercial phrases, but really they all have come down to pure pvp nothing about pve just pvp with a very small gaming community that hails it for the win.
It dosent matter how much pve activity you put into your game the game will die with full loot pvp due to the simple reason the majority don't like full loot pvp and those who enjoys it are the ones who stick around hence the lable MMO full loot pvp arena for a game that suppose to be an adventure with trade, craft, exploration, building ect.
So sad really that indi developers never can understand the basics that full loot ppv never works no matter how much pve content you provide due to pvper gonna hurt your game and scare away the pve player and you end up with a pvp arena mmo that will burn slowly until the pvper finds another game and do it all over again.
There is an entire sub genre called "survival games" which seem to challenge some of your assertions.
Now as to why full loot is acceptable in survival games but not MMORPGs I'm still trying to figure out.
With most survival games you can host personal servers and foster the community YOU want for that server. On MMOs you deal with immature douchebags whether you like it or not.
It goes a long way towards giving one the potential to be entertaining, while the other is often doomed to be an exercise in frustration.
Not necessarily; immature douchebags tend to get banned.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
There is not a conflict between the MMOs and the full loot. The conflict is between the solo players and the MMOs. So if you want to play solo, with no care and frustration about the others players, obviously the full loot, any loot or any player's impact will be a problem.
But then, why do you play MMOs? The only difference between the MMO and the solo game are the players. The illusions of competition, attention and cooperation give to the MMOs the longevity and the meaning above the script of the solo game.
And if you remove the player's impact - the competition, the attention and the cooperation become delusional. You may imagine you play with other players, but they actually will not care. So you will collect gear, levels, achievements for nothing. Most players will not pay attention, as the impact, the consequences are missing.
You may lose, who cares, when you lose nothing. You may win, but again, who cares when your opponent lose nothing. That PvP is simply pointless. And the PvE, where you build your character for the PvP becomes pointless. In such a game only the script - the personal quest story will be meaningful. Like it is in any singleplayer game. That is why, to have MMO, you need impact. And bigger risk means bigger win. So the full loot is something good in general, except if you are a solo player.
But then again, if you PvP for the loot your enemy is carrying, what's the point to carry anything if everyone will attack the player in shiny magical armor and hope they can get away with it.
There has to be some other reason to inititate PvP than the loot, something so much more important it's worth to gear up as well as possible and take the risk to lose everything, and to be frank i'm not sure if there has ever been a game that has such a meaningful PvP.
It's not "Full Loot", it's "Fully Looted Time After Time."
It really is a case of self blindness to the lunatic extreme. None of these games have the two things that you'd absolutely need to make an Open World, Full Loot Game. A ) - A Justice System that really works to keep senseless PKing down B ) - Lots and lots of money to make a great world of PvE, Many forms of MOBs and Critters, Magic or Sci Fi, Crafting, Economy, Housing, Exploration and Discovery, Deep Lore and Mystery, and anything else that makes for a truly great world simulation including Player Supported Laws.
We have seen so many games coming out during the years that promise great gameplay and full loot PVP.
Has it ever worked I mean really?
We can take an example, a classic indi sandbox full loot mantra we have all heard.
Be a crafter
Be a villian
Be a hunter of rare animals
Be a trader and make your fortune by trade.
Be a guildleader and stake your claim on a land and prosper to create a kingdom
Yadda Yadda Yadda
We have all heard these classic commercial phrases, but really they all have come down to pure pvp nothing about pve just pvp with a very small gaming community that hails it for the win.
It dosent matter how much pve activity you put into your game the game will die with full loot pvp due to the simple reason the majority don't like full loot pvp and those who enjoys it are the ones who stick around hence the lable MMO full loot pvp arena for a game that suppose to be an adventure with trade, craft, exploration, building ect.
So sad really that indi developers never can understand the basics that full loot ppv never works no matter how much pve content you provide due to pvper gonna hurt your game and scare away the pve player and you end up with a pvp arena mmo that will burn slowly until the pvper finds another game and do it all over again.
There is an entire sub genre called "survival games" which seem to challenge some of your assertions.
Now as to why full loot is acceptable in survival games but not MMORPGs I'm still trying to figure out.
With most survival games you can host personal servers and foster the community YOU want for that server. On MMOs you deal with immature douchebags whether you like it or not.
It goes a long way towards giving one the potential to be entertaining, while the other is often doomed to be an exercise in frustration.
Not necessarily; immature douchebags tend to get banned.
And on private servers , you end up seeing people ..erhmmm Bend the Rules to help themselves and or guild .. Or there doing it and you dont see it .. happens alot
I agree with the OP, I have no idea why they keep making Full loot PvP games, I have no idea why they keep making games with harsh death penalties.. nobody likes that shit. They say that they like it, but then the games die.
I think the bigger stunning question is, why isn't anybody making a quality PvP game like DAOC where you don't lose your stuff, that act of dying is enough for you not wanting to die. Realm pride etc. RvR, where in the hell are you.. that's what I don't understand.
Because PvP is way cheaper to develop than PvE. No AI. There's the answer.
It initially looks cheaper.
Though PvP and the balance you're required to make/maintain for it is pretty expensive in design time and continuous design time.
The costs of getting it wrong will hurt your game more than getting end game raids wrong. improperly balanced PvP, especially open PvP, will damage your game's reputation beyond repair.
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."
As to the question of why developers keep making those types of games, I don't really know. I actually think part of it goes back to the beginnings of MMORPGs and the idea of making a virtual world. If you are trying to make a virtual world it does make sense that players should be able to take any action they choose to take.
The reasons why it doesn't work out very well have all been pointed out already by other people but I guess I'll rehash it. It all ties in to the fact that it's not a real world it's a virtual world game. So even if they trying to make it feel like a world it is still a game and things work differently in a game than they do in the real world.
So why doesn't it work?
1. Power gaps between players. One guy is much higher level than the other guy or has far better equipment so when they encounter each other there isn't any chance for a fight there is just one guy trying to murder the much weaker guy and the weaker guy can only try to escape. For some people being the stronger guy in that situation is fun but nobody finds it fun being the weaker guy. This is the result of it being a game and it's not realistic. In the real world if you gave two random healthy adults each a sword and forced them to fight there would at least be some chance that the less experienced guy would win.
2. Lack of consequences. In the real world could you hang around a public park ambushing people and killing them at will with no consequences? No. But in a game you can. I don't know of any PvP game that has ever come up with any good solution for this. I have thought that maybe some type of faction system that really matters would help. Kill another player and for every faction he has positive standing with you will take a negative hit equal to his positive standing with that faction.
But then it would need to be a fairly involved and deep faction system. It couldn't just be a simple light versus dark, pick one or the other system. You would need lots of factions so that a player might have positive standing with a multitude of factions that actually matter in a game. This way, anyone contemplating murder would have to wonder how they are going to screw up their own faction standings if they do it. For this to work the factions would have to really mean something in the game and not just be something you could shrug off.
3. Unacceptable loss. It's been mentioned before but if you lose many hours worth of progress because some gank squad or higher level guy killed you...it sucks hard. If it happens repeatedly, well, most people in that situation will just stop playing that game.
4. Harassment. Even if the loss upon death is not so bad it's no fun being killed every time you step out away from the guards or whatever. And we all know there are people who will hang around just to do that sort of thing. Hang around an area where they know they can find weaker characters just so they can make the game a miserable experience for them.
Basically, trying make a MMORPG that strives to be like a virtual world but also has unrestriced PvP just doesn't work and it never will. The two things just don't fit together.
It's not "Full Loot", it's "Fully Looted Time After Time."
It really is a case of self blindness to the lunatic extreme. None of these games have the two things that you'd absolutely need to make an Open World, Full Loot Game. A ) - A Justice System that really works to keep senseless PKing down B ) - Lots and lots of money to make a great world of PvE, Many forms of MOBs and Critters, Magic or Sci Fi, Crafting, Economy, Housing, Exploration and Discovery, Deep Lore and Mystery, and anything else that makes for a truly great world simulation including Player Supported Laws.
We have seen so many games coming out during the years that promise great gameplay and full loot PVP.
Has it ever worked I mean really?
We can take an example, a classic indi sandbox full loot mantra we have all heard.
Be a crafter
Be a villian
Be a hunter of rare animals
Be a trader and make your fortune by trade.
Be a guildleader and stake your claim on a land and prosper to create a kingdom
Yadda Yadda Yadda
We have all heard these classic commercial phrases, but really they all have come down to pure pvp nothing about pve just pvp with a very small gaming community that hails it for the win.
It dosent matter how much pve activity you put into your game the game will die with full loot pvp due to the simple reason the majority don't like full loot pvp and those who enjoys it are the ones who stick around hence the lable MMO full loot pvp arena for a game that suppose to be an adventure with trade, craft, exploration, building ect.
So sad really that indi developers never can understand the basics that full loot ppv never works no matter how much pve content you provide due to pvper gonna hurt your game and scare away the pve player and you end up with a pvp arena mmo that will burn slowly until the pvper finds another game and do it all over again.
There is an entire sub genre called "survival games" which seem to challenge some of your assertions.
Now as to why full loot is acceptable in survival games but not MMORPGs I'm still trying to figure out.
none of these survival games is an actual MMO and none of them are even very popular unless they have private servers where Rp geeks can get it on. Which basically negates the whole full loot aspect of the game.
I would also say there arent nay full loot PvP games that have been made that arent basically defunct. Sure a lot are TRYING to be made but none have been made that are even a blip on a radar.
Each one of these developers is myopic enough to think they can be THE one to make THE game that is THE full loot PvP game that everyone wants. But no one really wants it. The true psychos all get their sociopathic fix with the plethora of BRs out there. And theyre fast enough and you can die instantly that there is no real sense of loss or worry when you do die, unless its a top 5 situation then some mental break downs can occur.
Bottomline is people have to stop wishing and hoping for something that is never ever going to come. This isnt like the NFL in LA (which 99% of the population around the area couldnt care less about) where it wasnt necessarily going to happen unless some 'perfect' scenario took place. Only took 20 years....
It been about 5 years since the last playable MMO was released (ESO) so there are 15 more I guess if youre holding out hope. But with every release its a swing and a miss.
ANY but the guys who made it deliver Life is Feudal and it had the most potential. Definitely the best world to play in land manipulation like no other. (at least non pixilated minecraft looking crap). But they refused to listen and also put out a full loot system with major flaws all around and even the niche fanboys abandoned it. Mostly because its a grind.
But everyone of these so called 'sandbox' games needs developer supported platforms...trading, auction house, banking, caravans/shipping, some sort of storyline, and maybe even a few quests. All they have done is make a crafting and building system than anyone using unreal engine can implement. Not exactly pushing the envelope.
Thats why I say stop hoping and just take what they give and if thats not enough there are still a lot of games with modders and basement developers creating content for them. Fall out 4 basically has guys working on it that are better than Bethesda (which isnt saying much right now) obviously not an MMO, but what is these days, at least something not half a decade old at least.
that's why all these BR games are so popular. it's basically a full loot pvp game with no grinding. full loot straight to the action. full loot pvp is super fun when done right.
the problem becomes when you try and merge grinding/leveling with full loot ganking. when you force pvp onto people that just want to pve.
i agree that EvE online found the best balance to date. can't think of a single game that did it better. Aion came close with their rift system. for the life of me cannot understand why no other mmo developer hasn't gone the way of EvE. it's just so perfect. it allows all types of playstyles to interact, without forcing either pvpers or pvers onto each other. you can literally choose how much risk you want to take, and those players hell bent on doing nothing but ganking are forced to stay far away from pvers.
the only issue that EvE has really is the fact that you are always a ship. such a shame that they abandoned walking in space stations. that was truly the next step for that game.
PVP-focused games get made because I think, the devs want quick cash, or they don't know how to read a crowd. Bunches of games have tried this and only end up being "flash in the pan", one-hit-wonders and such.
Aion flopped because pvp is forced and the majority of players like pvp on the side.
Mortal Online, Warhammer Online (the only game I actually liked pvp in), Lineage 2 - probably the only one that was successful for a while, Age of Conan was pve focused, but they tried to make it more about the pvp and it didn't do so well.
PVP-focused games get made because I think, the devs want quick cash, or they don't know how to read a crowd. Bunches of games have tried this and only end up being "flash in the pan", one-hit-wonders and such.
Aion flopped because pvp is forced and the majority of players like pvp on the side.
Mortal Online, Warhammer Online (the only game I actually liked pvp in), Lineage 2 - probably the only one that was successful for a while, Age of Conan was pve focused, but they tried to make it more about the pvp and it didn't do so well.
I played Aion for a long time symply because I enjoyed the PvE so much, the zones were interesting, a lot of the quests were well done, and I liked the flying gimmick, so I played it in spite of the PvP. L2 I loved because I thought it was done fairly. If you didn't want to PvP just use a blessed escaped scroll and get instantly transported to town when you saw a red name coming at you. So give me an instant teleport out of combat and I'll probably play any PvP game. I still play AoC every once in awhile.
I once read a Dev wrote he likes making PvP games because they make the players more active. Or something like that.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
It's a proven niche market. Right now the battle royal which is pretty much a full loot game, not really an MMO though is the king of the hill for pulling in money. No they will never be the main stream for PVE type players that want to play an MMO.
I don't mind PVP myself but I don't play a single full loot game anymore. I started out my MMO time really with Ultima Online, it is a gamestyle that I would never play again to be honest, because the work and time it took to get great gear got overshadowed by the PK population for a long time.
Yes PVP centric MMO's don't seem to stand the test of time anymore. One of the issues I see with these games isn't the PVP itself, it is the lack of things other than just killing each other. They are the cheapest form of MMO to make because you are not worrying about making new content all the time. The content is killing each other, which for me get boring really fast.
My gripe isn't with full loot PVP more so it is with having PVE all the way till the end and all the sudden you must PVP to keep playing. If it is going to be PVP then make it PVP from day one not a month or two into playing.
As to the question of why developers keep making those types of games, I don't really know. I actually think part of it goes back to the beginnings of MMORPGs and the idea of making a virtual world. If you are trying to make a virtual world it does make sense that players should be able to take any action they choose to take.
The reasons why it doesn't work out very well have all been pointed out already by other people but I guess I'll rehash it. It all ties in to the fact that it's not a real world it's a virtual world game. So even if they trying to make it feel like a world it is still a game and things work differently in a game than they do in the real world.
So why doesn't it work?
1. Power gaps between players. One guy is much higher level than the other guy or has far better equipment so when they encounter each other there isn't any chance for a fight there is just one guy trying to murder the much weaker guy and the weaker guy can only try to escape. For some people being the stronger guy in that situation is fun but nobody finds it fun being the weaker guy. This is the result of it being a game and it's not realistic. In the real world if you gave two random healthy adults each a sword and forced them to fight there would at least be some chance that the less experienced guy would win.
2. Lack of consequences. In the real world could you hang around a public park ambushing people and killing them at will with no consequences? No. But in a game you can. I don't know of any PvP game that has ever come up with any good solution for this. I have thought that maybe some type of faction system that really matters would help. Kill another player and for every faction he has positive standing with you will take a negative hit equal to his positive standing with that faction.
But then it would need to be a fairly involved and deep faction system. It couldn't just be a simple light versus dark, pick one or the other system. You would need lots of factions so that a player might have positive standing with a multitude of factions that actually matter in a game. This way, anyone contemplating murder would have to wonder how they are going to screw up their own faction standings if they do it. For this to work the factions would have to really mean something in the game and not just be something you could shrug off.
3. Unacceptable loss. It's been mentioned before but if you lose many hours worth of progress because some gank squad or higher level guy killed you...it sucks hard. If it happens repeatedly, well, most people in that situation will just stop playing that game.
4. Harassment. Even if the loss upon death is not so bad it's no fun being killed every time you step out away from the guards or whatever. And we all know there are people who will hang around just to do that sort of thing. Hang around an area where they know they can find weaker characters just so they can make the game a miserable experience for them.
Basically, trying make a MMORPG that strives to be like a virtual world but also has unrestriced PvP just doesn't work and it never will. The two things just don't fit together.
Neanderthal, this is exceptional among some exceptional posts in this thread. My contention is that a true virtual world MUST have open world PvP and Full Loot. The whole point is that: 1) a few players will always abuse the rules, and players need a means to take action against other if that occurs. 2) A world does not feel true to simulation with artificial boundaries. And direct PvP restrictions or toggles does not lend to that feel of "realism" that a simulation needs.
But to get to this virtual world, you also have to have a way of keeping the Wild West (rampant PKing) out of it. It makes no sense that a smaller percentage of players can kill all the time with no consequence, especially that they care about. Most of them accept being killed from time to time, as long as they win most of the time.
1) A True Justice System, one that affects the PKers to an extent that they actually care to avoide the consequences, is absolutely needed. 2) Sanctioned Warfare is where they can be set loose for their game thrills. BOTH of the above need to be handled with care, and has to somehow be inclusive of the rest of the player population. For example, in Sanctioned Warfare, the outcome should affect the rest of the players as in a simulation of a "real" world, i.e. what would it be like in a Fantasy world setting. Not 100%, the game has to be interesting and maintain that fun feeling. But something that makes sense.
I'm am very impressed with you idea of many factions and a deep system. I think this has high potential to minimize PKing and Full Looting. I've had ideas on this sort of thing to use for Sanctioned Warfare, as a means to drive it in an in-lore way. And maintaining the "worldly" and "virtual world" setting.
But yes, I think there's a huge potential in controlling PKing too. I think that it would have to affect the player also, on top of affecting his faction. I'm just toying with the idea at this point, but let me set an example....
Suppose the game has deities like the Greek (or other wide set) gods. You have gods of: War Commerce Luck Love Rivers, lakes, and streams Woodlands Hunting Seas Storms etc.
Some of these god factions are naturally aligned. Such as Woodlands and Hunting. So a player PKs a Hunter, and now he has bad Karma with all those who follow Both the Hunting god AND the Woodland god. On top of that, said PKer may gain bad Karma with the victim's City Faction.
The effects of having too much bad Karma with a Faction should affect the player's character. And it should be enough to cause said player to think that maybe it's not worth it to PK. In this case, each Faction Deity might start giving small penalties to the PK character. He/she may start out with:
1) Hunting God Faction -1 to missile weapon hit chances and damage -1 to chances or effects pertaining to hunting, such as Tracking, Stealth, etc.
2) Woodland God Faction -1 to Foraging, woodland resource gathering, and the like -1 to food and water benefits while in any woodlands setting +1 to Compass direction (malfunction), as each time the player turns his/her compass may spin 1 degree extra, the cumulative effects throwing him off and eventually making the compass totally useless. Said PKer would have to then navigate by terrain features only.
3) City Faction -to all selling prices + to all buying prices (The two above would be done through an invisible "tax", so that it affects these actions with other player's as well as NPC shops. ---whatever else.
Just an example. Now these penalties can increase with repeated actions and increased Faction bad Karma. "Kill On Sight" would be the end result of too much bad Faction Karma, together with some added permanent penalties such as skill reduction and loss of HPs.
From there the game could allow for these penalties to wear off, or have Faction quests to remove a set number of penalty points. These quests would be to benefit the offended Faction in some way (typically financially).
PVP is the most popular form of online play... by far !
Just not in MMORPG's...
Attempts at making virtual worlds always fail, because some players like to control their risk (PVE), which means they'll avoid games where that's not possible (non-consensual PVP).
Comments
Now, what does this tell us about mercantilism?
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
It goes a long way towards giving one the potential to be entertaining, while the other is often doomed to be an exercise in frustration.
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/
...oh wait...
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Joined - July 2004
There has to be some other reason to inititate PvP than the loot, something so much more important it's worth to gear up as well as possible and take the risk to lose everything, and to be frank i'm not sure if there has ever been a game that has such a meaningful PvP.
It really is a case of self blindness to the lunatic extreme.
None of these games have the two things that you'd absolutely need to make an Open World, Full Loot Game.
A ) - A Justice System that really works to keep senseless PKing down
B ) - Lots and lots of money to make a great world of PvE, Many forms of MOBs and Critters, Magic or Sci Fi, Crafting, Economy, Housing, Exploration and Discovery, Deep Lore and Mystery, and anything else that makes for a truly great world simulation including Player Supported Laws.
Once upon a time....
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."
The reasons why it doesn't work out very well have all been pointed out already by other people but I guess I'll rehash it. It all ties in to the fact that it's not a real world it's a virtual world game. So even if they trying to make it feel like a world it is still a game and things work differently in a game than they do in the real world.
So why doesn't it work?
1. Power gaps between players. One guy is much higher level than the other guy or has far better equipment so when they encounter each other there isn't any chance for a fight there is just one guy trying to murder the much weaker guy and the weaker guy can only try to escape. For some people being the stronger guy in that situation is fun but nobody finds it fun being the weaker guy. This is the result of it being a game and it's not realistic. In the real world if you gave two random healthy adults each a sword and forced them to fight there would at least be some chance that the less experienced guy would win.
2. Lack of consequences. In the real world could you hang around a public park ambushing people and killing them at will with no consequences? No. But in a game you can. I don't know of any PvP game that has ever come up with any good solution for this. I have thought that maybe some type of faction system that really matters would help. Kill another player and for every faction he has positive standing with you will take a negative hit equal to his positive standing with that faction.
But then it would need to be a fairly involved and deep faction system. It couldn't just be a simple light versus dark, pick one or the other system. You would need lots of factions so that a player might have positive standing with a multitude of factions that actually matter in a game. This way, anyone contemplating murder would have to wonder how they are going to screw up their own faction standings if they do it. For this to work the factions would have to really mean something in the game and not just be something you could shrug off.
3. Unacceptable loss. It's been mentioned before but if you lose many hours worth of progress because some gank squad or higher level guy killed you...it sucks hard. If it happens repeatedly, well, most people in that situation will just stop playing that game.
4. Harassment. Even if the loss upon death is not so bad it's no fun being killed every time you step out away from the guards or whatever. And we all know there are people who will hang around just to do that sort of thing. Hang around an area where they know they can find weaker characters just so they can make the game a miserable experience for them.
Basically, trying make a MMORPG that strives to be like a virtual world but also has unrestriced PvP just doesn't work and it never will. The two things just don't fit together.
Why is there always some type of sodium or sugar found in processed food we buy off the counter?
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
John Lennon
I would also say there arent nay full loot PvP games that have been made that arent basically defunct. Sure a lot are TRYING to be made but none have been made that are even a blip on a radar.
Each one of these developers is myopic enough to think they can be THE one to make THE game that is THE full loot PvP game that everyone wants. But no one really wants it. The true psychos all get their sociopathic fix with the plethora of BRs out there. And theyre fast enough and you can die instantly that there is no real sense of loss or worry when you do die, unless its a top 5 situation then some mental break downs can occur.
Bottomline is people have to stop wishing and hoping for something that is never ever going to come. This isnt like the NFL in LA (which 99% of the population around the area couldnt care less about) where it wasnt necessarily going to happen unless some 'perfect' scenario took place. Only took 20 years....
It been about 5 years since the last playable MMO was released (ESO) so there are 15 more I guess if youre holding out hope. But with every release its a swing and a miss.
ANY but the guys who made it deliver Life is Feudal and it had the most potential. Definitely the best world to play in land manipulation like no other. (at least non pixilated minecraft looking crap). But they refused to listen and also put out a full loot system with major flaws all around and even the niche fanboys abandoned it. Mostly because its a grind.
But everyone of these so called 'sandbox' games needs developer supported platforms...trading, auction house, banking, caravans/shipping, some sort of storyline, and maybe even a few quests. All they have done is make a crafting and building system than anyone using unreal engine can implement. Not exactly pushing the envelope.
Thats why I say stop hoping and just take what they give and if thats not enough there are still a lot of games with modders and basement developers creating content for them. Fall out 4 basically has guys working on it that are better than Bethesda (which isnt saying much right now) obviously not an MMO, but what is these days, at least something not half a decade old at least.
that's why all these BR games are so popular. it's basically a full loot pvp game with no grinding. full loot straight to the action. full loot pvp is super fun when done right.
the problem becomes when you try and merge grinding/leveling with full loot ganking. when you force pvp onto people that just want to pve.
i agree that EvE online found the best balance to date. can't think of a single game that did it better. Aion came close with their rift system. for the life of me cannot understand why no other mmo developer hasn't gone the way of EvE. it's just so perfect. it allows all types of playstyles to interact, without forcing either pvpers or pvers onto each other. you can literally choose how much risk you want to take, and those players hell bent on doing nothing but ganking are forced to stay far away from pvers.
the only issue that EvE has really is the fact that you are always a ship. such a shame that they abandoned walking in space stations. that was truly the next step for that game.
I played Aion for a long time symply because I enjoyed the PvE so much, the zones were interesting, a lot of the quests were well done, and I liked the flying gimmick, so I played it in spite of the PvP. L2 I loved because I thought it was done fairly. If you didn't want to PvP just use a blessed escaped scroll and get instantly transported to town when you saw a red name coming at you. So give me an instant teleport out of combat and I'll probably play any PvP game. I still play AoC every once in awhile.
I once read a Dev wrote he likes making PvP games because they make the players more active. Or something like that.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
My contention is that a true virtual world MUST have open world PvP and Full Loot.
The whole point is that:
1) a few players will always abuse the rules, and players need a means to take action against other if that occurs.
2) A world does not feel true to simulation with artificial boundaries. And direct PvP restrictions or toggles does not lend to that feel of "realism" that a simulation needs.
But to get to this virtual world, you also have to have a way of keeping the Wild West (rampant PKing) out of it. It makes no sense that a smaller percentage of players can kill all the time with no consequence, especially that they care about. Most of them accept being killed from time to time, as long as they win most of the time.
1) A True Justice System, one that affects the PKers to an extent that they actually care to avoide the consequences, is absolutely needed.
2) Sanctioned Warfare is where they can be set loose for their game thrills.
BOTH of the above need to be handled with care, and has to somehow be inclusive of the rest of the player population.
For example, in Sanctioned Warfare, the outcome should affect the rest of the players as in a simulation of a "real" world, i.e. what would it be like in a Fantasy world setting.
Not 100%, the game has to be interesting and maintain that fun feeling. But something that makes sense.
I'm am very impressed with you idea of many factions and a deep system.
I think this has high potential to minimize PKing and Full Looting.
I've had ideas on this sort of thing to use for Sanctioned Warfare, as a means to drive it in an in-lore way. And maintaining the "worldly" and "virtual world" setting.
But yes, I think there's a huge potential in controlling PKing too.
I think that it would have to affect the player also, on top of affecting his faction.
I'm just toying with the idea at this point, but let me set an example....
Suppose the game has deities like the Greek (or other wide set) gods. You have gods of:
War
Commerce
Luck
Love
Rivers, lakes, and streams
Woodlands
Hunting
Seas
Storms
etc.
Some of these god factions are naturally aligned.
Such as Woodlands and Hunting.
So a player PKs a Hunter, and now he has bad Karma with all those who follow Both the Hunting god AND the Woodland god.
On top of that, said PKer may gain bad Karma with the victim's City Faction.
The effects of having too much bad Karma with a Faction should affect the player's character.
And it should be enough to cause said player to think that maybe it's not worth it to PK.
In this case, each Faction Deity might start giving small penalties to the PK character.
He/she may start out with:
1) Hunting God Faction
-1 to missile weapon hit chances and damage
-1 to chances or effects pertaining to hunting, such as Tracking, Stealth, etc.
2) Woodland God Faction
-1 to Foraging, woodland resource gathering, and the like
-1 to food and water benefits while in any woodlands setting
+1 to Compass direction (malfunction), as each time the player turns his/her compass may spin 1 degree extra, the cumulative effects throwing him off and eventually making the compass totally useless. Said PKer would have to then navigate by terrain features only.
3) City Faction
-to all selling prices
+ to all buying prices
(The two above would be done through an invisible "tax", so that it affects these actions with other player's as well as NPC shops.
---whatever else.
Just an example.
Now these penalties can increase with repeated actions and increased Faction bad Karma.
"Kill On Sight" would be the end result of too much bad Faction Karma, together with some added permanent penalties such as skill reduction and loss of HPs.
From there the game could allow for these penalties to wear off, or have Faction quests to remove a set number of penalty points. These quests would be to benefit the offended Faction in some way (typically financially).
Once upon a time....
Just not in MMORPG's...
Attempts at making virtual worlds always fail, because some players like to control their risk (PVE), which means they'll avoid games where that's not possible (non-consensual PVP).