This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game.
...attacking people for no other reason than to hurt them, inflicting pain purely to inflict pain, that is in the purest way, violence for the sake of it.
You don't think that sounds like a Sociopath, to attack someone purely just to hurt them, because it will cause them duress, maybe.. you get the greatest victory of all and drive them from the game?
You don't see a problem with that set up and design?
Thats exactly how I play chess though. I’m out to murder the other team just because they are a different color. It’s all about perspective. They are both games that can often be taken way too seriously
You don't actually play much chess do you? While the objective of the game is to "kill the king", that never actually happens. Checkmate is called when it becomes inevitable, and in fact in most games a resignation happens much earlier than that. OK, but what about all the pieces you "kill"? Actually that is not highly regarded, taking pieces for the sake of "killing" them is actually considered bad play. Chess is all about planning, position, and carefullness.
The single feature missing from mmorpg's and especially full loot games is encumbrance. If players cannot CARRY all of the items on a corpse then even the ganked player has not lost everything. There was a time when some games tried this, now its a forgotten concept and almost all games rely on loot/bag/ capacity. Maybe if a developer linked a stat to the ability to carry more storage them players would have a NEGATIVE impact to stats if they wanted the ability to carry off loot from every player they kill.
If I am in a full suit of armor, carrying a weapon and then slay another player in similar gear there should be no way for me to carry all of their items AND carry on fighting others.
In answer to the OP, it comes down to BAD DESIGN, not the fact that a particular feature is BAD> for every problem there is a solution, problem is players dont like restrictions and hence why this kind of system has never been popular.
If players movement and attack speed was slowed the more they were carrying then they become, in turn, and easier target for someone else. People will say that players will abuse the system by fighting naked, then that is just yet another problem that will have another reasonable solution.
Game developers are problem solvers, thats their job. Just because nobody has yet found a solution for every game, doesnt mean that an individual game cannot find systems that DO work.
You don't actually play much chess do you? While the objective of the game is to "kill the king", that never actually happens. Checkmate is called when it becomes inevitable, and in fact in most games a resignation happens much earlier than that. OK, but what about all the pieces you "kill"? Actually that is not highly regarded, taking pieces for the sake of "killing" them is actually considered bad play. Chess is all about planning, position, and carefullness.
The exact reverse of PvP actually.
When my knight takes your pawn, that is murder. Perspective. To me, the game is about two armies going to war. To you it may be about picking the right stall in a public bathroom, idk.
Post edited by Palebane on
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
The reason full PVP games dont work is that people hate loosing their stuff.period. Having said that, if you were ok with loosing your hard work occasionally, the experience was well worth it, and very fulfilling . but, alas, just as in real life, there are more sheep than predators, and people vote with their cash.
Problem is, there is just so many different ways to skin a cat, and having played mmorpgs for literally 20 years now since UO ( Dread Lord den of earth ! yarr!), the only stories I remember from all that time playing, when reminising with friends are PVP stories, from UO, EVE,DAOC, ect. There is nothing new , nowdays. its just the same reskin with a new idea here, and bad idea there.
I hope that one day there will be a successful PVP style mmorpg , but doubt it. which, is too damn bad.
You don't actually play much chess do you? While the objective of the game is to "kill the king", that never actually happens. Checkmate is called when it becomes inevitable, and in fact in most games a resignation happens much earlier than that. OK, but what about all the pieces you "kill"? Actually that is not highly regarded, taking pieces for the sake of "killing" them is actually considered bad play. Chess is all about planning, position, and carefullness.
The exact reverse of PvP actually.
When my knight takes your pawn, that is murder. Perspective. To me, the game is about two armies going to war. To you it may be about picking the right stall in a public bathroom, idk.
Yep, you don't actually play chess at all. Making your whole analogy pointless.
The thing is, its very hard to implement in a fantasy environment in which you're supposed to support a very broad range of playstyles.
I dont like the idea of getting ganked by random players merely because they choose a class thats good at PvP (like, traditionally, necromancer / rogue / archer) while I went for a class thats good for grouping (such as tank or worse healer). Or, if the game goes for a rock paper scissors approach to classes, whatever classes would be the scissors to my current paper class.
In order for PvP to be fun it needs to be sportive and balanced. Everyone needs to have the same chance, it needs to be down to skill who wins. That means PvP events should be specific events, such as arena fights, battlegrounds, castle sieges, guild wars.
Not unregulated "oh this guy is low on health because he just fought a tough mob, so lets gank him for his stuff".
You don't actually play much chess do you? While the objective of the game is to "kill the king", that never actually happens. Checkmate is called when it becomes inevitable, and in fact in most games a resignation happens much earlier than that. OK, but what about all the pieces you "kill"? Actually that is not highly regarded, taking pieces for the sake of "killing" them is actually considered bad play. Chess is all about planning, position, and carefullness.
The exact reverse of PvP actually.
When my knight takes your pawn, that is murder. Perspective. To me, the game is about two armies going to war. To you it may be about picking the right stall in a public bathroom, idk.
You are somewhat correct, Chess is in fact representative of two armies going war. As such, every move should have a purpose, with the goal being to win the war. Taking my pawn with your knight, unless done a part of a greater plan with the goal of checkmating the King is bad play, as it is nothing but violence for the sake of it, no greater goal other than to take the pawn for the sake of taking the pawn, it is a pointless purposeless plebeian move. Players who are at this level of play never progress in the game ranks, staying at the bottom of the skill brackets, this is because they mistake piece trading for winning.
But that is what most PvP MMO are at the core of their design, just piece trading.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
If indie devs wanted to make popular games, they wouldn't touch open PvP / FFA sandboxes with a 10 foot pole.
I don't think they are looking to make popular games. Oh sure, people who make things want others to like them and who wouldn't want to make something that was a critical and commercial darling?
But actually do things just because they like them and know full well that they aren't going to have large audiences.
They are making games they want to play. I think some are confused as to the popularity of their chosen game types but you have to believe in what you are doing in order to do it. Can't be half ass.
Friends of mine played in a new music group (20th century "classical" music) and they never had any illusions that they were going to get anything more than 15 guys in the audience, some of whom dragged their girlfriends with them.
I have never met or even heard a game dev say anything like "Man I love games where I can get ganked and have all the shit I collected stolen from me"
In fact, I will bet you, most of the devs for full-loot pvp MMO's don't actually play their own games for fun, and in reality are looking to make the next break-out hit, hoping to be the next Fortnight, or WoW, or something.
Which will not happen if they keep making games with designs that have already failed in the past.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
If indie devs wanted to make popular games, they wouldn't touch open PvP / FFA sandboxes with a 10 foot pole.
I don't think they are looking to make popular games. Oh sure, people who make things want others to like them and who wouldn't want to make something that was a critical and commercial darling?
But actually do things just because they like them and know full well that they aren't going to have large audiences.
They are making games they want to play. I think some are confused as to the popularity of their chosen game types but you have to believe in what you are doing in order to do it. Can't be half ass.
Friends of mine played in a new music group (20th century "classical" music) and they never had any illusions that they were going to get anything more than 15 guys in the audience, some of whom dragged their girlfriends with them.
I have never met or even heard a game dev say anything like "Man I love games where I can get ganked and have all the shit I collected stolen from me"
In fact, I will bet you, most of the devs for full-loot pvp MMO's don't actually play their own games for fun, and in reality are looking to make the next break-out hit, hoping to be the next Fortnight, or WoW, or something.
Which will not happen if they keep making games with designs that have already failed in the past.
Maybe if a developer linked a stat to the ability to carry more storage them players would have a NEGATIVE impact to stats if they wanted the ability to carry off loot from every player they kill.
If I am in a full suit of armor, carrying a weapon and then slay another player in similar gear there should be no way for me to carry all of their items AND carry on fighting others.
In answer to the OP, it comes down to BAD DESIGN, not the fact that a particular feature is BAD> for every problem there is a solution, problem is players dont like restrictions and hence why this kind of system has never been popular.
I really like this answer. Agree completely. What made full loot in UO "work" is that loot didn't matter, everything was easily replaceable... which also made full loot pointless.
The only people full loot actually hurt was noobs - who couldn't replace their gear and/or gold so easily. Thus full loot only proved to scare off new players.
Hence, the developers (very, very smart ones) did Renaissance and the Trammel split - giving noobs an opportunity to learn the game and become invested in the relative safety of the PvE side.
Still, the idea of magic bags that can hold infinite treasure is great for PvE, but for PvP with loot enabled, yeah if there are limits it will further enrich the experience.
For example, you die in PvP maybe your coin could be looted (who would be carrying a lot of coin into combat anyway?) and then someone could loot maybe 1 item from you, a weapon, a shield, one piece of armor, or a stack of reagents etc. but that was it.
I think games have done this previously, which is where (I think) the idea of "soul bound" items originally came from.
Maybe if a developer linked a stat to the ability to carry more storage them players would have a NEGATIVE impact to stats if they wanted the ability to carry off loot from every player they kill.
If I am in a full suit of armor, carrying a weapon and then slay another player in similar gear there should be no way for me to carry all of their items AND carry on fighting others.
In answer to the OP, it comes down to BAD DESIGN, not the fact that a particular feature is BAD> for every problem there is a solution, problem is players dont like restrictions and hence why this kind of system has never been popular.
I really like this answer. Agree completely. What made full loot in UO "work" is that loot didn't matter, everything was easily replaceable... which also made full loot pointless.
The only people full loot actually hurt was noobs - who couldn't replace their gear and/or gold so easily. Thus full loot only proved to scare off new players.
Hence, the developers (very, very smart ones) did Renaissance and the Trammel split - giving noobs an opportunity to learn the game and become invested in the relative safety of the PvE side.
Still, the idea of magic bags that can hold infinite treasure is great for PvE, but for PvP with loot enabled, yeah if there are limits it will further enrich the experience.
For example, you die in PvP maybe your coin could be looted (who would be carrying a lot of coin into combat anyway?) and then someone could loot maybe 1 item from you, a weapon, a shield, one piece of armor, or a stack of reagents etc. but that was it.
I think games have done this previously, which is where (I think) the idea of "soul bound" items originally came from.
I too think this is a good idea as then if you win in a PvP fight you can pick which loot to loot and of course you would pick the best and this introduces an element of strategy meaning depriving someone of a good weapon is better than a piece of armour for instance. Definitely also decreases the idea of completely looting someone for the sake of it of course players will simply loot and destroy everything the other player has instead so not sure how effective this would be as far as consequences go.
If indie devs wanted to make popular games, they wouldn't touch open PvP / FFA sandboxes with a 10 foot pole.
I don't think they are looking to make popular games. Oh sure, people who make things want others to like them and who wouldn't want to make something that was a critical and commercial darling?
But actually do things just because they like them and know full well that they aren't going to have large audiences.
They are making games they want to play. I think some are confused as to the popularity of their chosen game types but you have to believe in what you are doing in order to do it. Can't be half ass.
Friends of mine played in a new music group (20th century "classical" music) and they never had any illusions that they were going to get anything more than 15 guys in the audience, some of whom dragged their girlfriends with them.
I have never met or even heard a game dev say anything like "Man I love games where I can get ganked and have all the shit I collected stolen from me"
In fact, I will bet you, most of the devs for full-loot pvp MMO's don't actually play their own games for fun, and in reality are looking to make the next break-out hit, hoping to be the next Fortnight, or WoW, or something.
Which will not happen if they keep making games with designs that have already failed in the past.
I think that's a rather arrogant stance.
The idea that you can't accept that people have different tastes is pretty self centered. That people can't possibly make things, spend time creating, things that you can't possibly find interesting.
I've heard players say (on these forums no less) that they find the idea of being attacked in the open exciting and that having their stuff on the line makes their encounters more intense and worth fighting for.
I don't see any reason not to believe them.
The world has different people who like different things. You should probably accept it or else you are just going to find everything insufferable.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Will it work better if game developers create "safe zones" in those games?
To help new players get on their feet first before they venture to unsafe area...
Or carebears who want to stay in safe zones the entire time?
Does that still fall under open world PvP? If there are places PvP can't happen, is it still open world? It's this factor that keeps me from saying EVE Online is Open World PvP, thanks to null-sec (is that the right term?).
The trouble with OWPvP is that as soon as you start putting "restrictions" on it, it no longer qualifies
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Maybe if a developer linked a stat to the ability to carry more storage them players would have a NEGATIVE impact to stats if they wanted the ability to carry off loot from every player they kill.
If I am in a full suit of armor, carrying a weapon and then slay another player in similar gear there should be no way for me to carry all of their items AND carry on fighting others.
In answer to the OP, it comes down to BAD DESIGN, not the fact that a particular feature is BAD> for every problem there is a solution, problem is players dont like restrictions and hence why this kind of system has never been popular.
I really like this answer. Agree completely. What made full loot in UO "work" is that loot didn't matter, everything was easily replaceable... which also made full loot pointless.
The only people full loot actually hurt was noobs - who couldn't replace their gear and/or gold so easily. Thus full loot only proved to scare off new players.
Hence, the developers (very, very smart ones) did Renaissance and the Trammel split - giving noobs an opportunity to learn the game and become invested in the relative safety of the PvE side.
Still, the idea of magic bags that can hold infinite treasure is great for PvE, but for PvP with loot enabled, yeah if there are limits it will further enrich the experience.
For example, you die in PvP maybe your coin could be looted (who would be carrying a lot of coin into combat anyway?) and then someone could loot maybe 1 item from you, a weapon, a shield, one piece of armor, or a stack of reagents etc. but that was it.
I think games have done this previously, which is where (I think) the idea of "soul bound" items originally came from.
I really like Tablix's idea too. Players (non-PKers) could use pack horses to carry loads, while PKers would have to tow along pack horses, which means they would lose their ill-gotten gains more often to others and never make it back with that loot. It would also slow them down. I'd make pack horses much stronger, so they didn't die so fast, and also able to fight well so that they basically act as another combatant, opnly somewhat weaker. Also give them a player speed escape run, adding to the difficulty of both sides to gain said loot.
I really don't like "soul bound" ideas, I have to say. I think there are many other options that are much more "realistic" and add much more to game play than that.
If indie devs wanted to make popular games, they wouldn't touch open PvP / FFA sandboxes with a 10 foot pole.
I don't think they are looking to make popular games. Oh sure, people who make things want others to like them and who wouldn't want to make something that was a critical and commercial darling?
But actually do things just because they like them and know full well that they aren't going to have large audiences.
They are making games they want to play. I think some are confused as to the popularity of their chosen game types but you have to believe in what you are doing in order to do it. Can't be half ass.
Friends of mine played in a new music group (20th century "classical" music) and they never had any illusions that they were going to get anything more than 15 guys in the audience, some of whom dragged their girlfriends with them.
I have never met or even heard a game dev say anything like "Man I love games where I can get ganked and have all the shit I collected stolen from me"
In fact, I will bet you, most of the devs for full-loot pvp MMO's don't actually play their own games for fun, and in reality are looking to make the next break-out hit, hoping to be the next Fortnight, or WoW, or something.
Which will not happen if they keep making games with designs that have already failed in the past.
I think that's a rather arrogant stance.
The idea that you can't accept that people have different tastes is pretty self centered. That people can't possibly make things, spend time creating, things that you can't possibly find interesting.
I've heard players say (on these forums no less) that they find the idea of being attacked in the open exciting and that having their stuff on the line makes their encounters more intense and worth fighting for.
I don't see any reason not to believe them.
The world has different people who like different things. You should probably accept it or else you are just going to find everything insufferable.
I have never met any MMO player that likes losing their stuff to another player.
Anyone want to step up and say they like it when someone steals their stuff ?
As for various likes, Personally, I'd play a Perma-Death MMO long before I would ever play a Full-Loot PvP MMO with the ability to respawn.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Will it work better if game developers create "safe zones" in those games?
To help new players get on their feet first before they venture to unsafe area...
Or carebears who want to stay in safe zones the entire time?
Does that still fall under open world PvP? If there are places PvP can't happen, is it still open world? It's this factor that keeps me from saying EVE Online is Open World PvP, thanks to null-sec (is that the right term?).
The trouble with OWPvP is that as soon as you start putting "restrictions" on it, it no longer qualifies
I dont' see the problem with that. Eve have high security zone right?
Legend of Aria have half of the world being safe zone.
People choose where they want to be, safe zone or unsafe zone(where reward are usually better).
Risk vs Reward is a choice. You can stay in safe zone where your progress is slower or take a chance to gain more in risker area.
Will it work better if game developers create "safe zones" in those games?
To help new players get on their feet first before they venture to unsafe area...
Or carebears who want to stay in safe zones the entire time?
Does that still fall under open world PvP? If there are places PvP can't happen, is it still open world? It's this factor that keeps me from saying EVE Online is Open World PvP, thanks to null-sec (is that the right term?).
The trouble with OWPvP is that as soon as you start putting "restrictions" on it, it no longer qualifies
I dont' see the problem with that. Eve have high security zone right?
Legend of Aria have half of the world being safe zone.
People choose where they want to be, safe zone or unsafe zone(where reward are usually better).
Risk vs Reward is a choice. You can stay in safe zone where your progress is slower or take a chance to gain more in risker area.
But where did the "open world PvP" go in these "safe zone" games? Or do I read OWPvP differently, as in PvP in the open world, instead of an open world with PvP, sometimes.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Will it work better if game developers create "safe zones" in those games?
To help new players get on their feet first before they venture to unsafe area...
Or carebears who want to stay in safe zones the entire time?
Does that still fall under open world PvP? If there are places PvP can't happen, is it still open world? It's this factor that keeps me from saying EVE Online is Open World PvP, thanks to null-sec (is that the right term?).
The trouble with OWPvP is that as soon as you start putting "restrictions" on it, it no longer qualifies
I dont' see the problem with that. Eve have high security zone right?
Legend of Aria have half of the world being safe zone.
People choose where they want to be, safe zone or unsafe zone(where reward are usually better).
Risk vs Reward is a choice. You can stay in safe zone where your progress is slower or take a chance to gain more in risker area.
But where did the "open world PvP" go in these "safe zone" games? Or do I read OWPvP differently, as in PvP in the open world, instead of an open world with PvP, sometimes.
If you want to argue having safe zones remove the game from being eligible to be called open world pvp... that is totally fine.
I'm just saying developers can make mmorpg where part of the zones have ffa pvp and part of the zones are safe zones where you can't pvp. This eliminate people from ganking new players and people who prefer to play in safe zones.
Will it work better if game developers create "safe zones" in those games?
To help new players get on their feet first before they venture to unsafe area...
Or carebears who want to stay in safe zones the entire time?
Does that still fall under open world PvP? If there are places PvP can't happen, is it still open world? It's this factor that keeps me from saying EVE Online is Open World PvP, thanks to null-sec (is that the right term?).
The trouble with OWPvP is that as soon as you start putting "restrictions" on it, it no longer qualifies
This is a good question but.. For example in an OWpvp game devs could create zones where, if you attack another player, 5 npc guards instantly summon to the spot of aggression and attack the aggressor, if these guards are attacked another 5 summon etc in an open world pvp game it might be a waste of resources to create these kinds of safe zones instead of just prohibiting mechanically pcs from attacking each other
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
If indie devs wanted to make popular games, they wouldn't touch open PvP / FFA sandboxes with a 10 foot pole.
I don't think they are looking to make popular games. Oh sure, people who make things want others to like them and who wouldn't want to make something that was a critical and commercial darling?
But actually do things just because they like them and know full well that they aren't going to have large audiences.
They are making games they want to play. I think some are confused as to the popularity of their chosen game types but you have to believe in what you are doing in order to do it. Can't be half ass.
Friends of mine played in a new music group (20th century "classical" music) and they never had any illusions that they were going to get anything more than 15 guys in the audience, some of whom dragged their girlfriends with them.
I have never met or even heard a game dev say anything like "Man I love games where I can get ganked and have all the shit I collected stolen from me"
In fact, I will bet you, most of the devs for full-loot pvp MMO's don't actually play their own games for fun, and in reality are looking to make the next break-out hit, hoping to be the next Fortnight, or WoW, or something.
Which will not happen if they keep making games with designs that have already failed in the past.
I think that's a rather arrogant stance.
The idea that you can't accept that people have different tastes is pretty self centered. That people can't possibly make things, spend time creating, things that you can't possibly find interesting.
I've heard players say (on these forums no less) that they find the idea of being attacked in the open exciting and that having their stuff on the line makes their encounters more intense and worth fighting for.
I don't see any reason not to believe them.
The world has different people who like different things. You should probably accept it or else you are just going to find everything insufferable.
I have never met any MMO player that likes losing their stuff to another player.
Anyone want to step up and say they like it when someone steals their stuff ?
As for various likes, Personally, I'd play a Perma-Death MMO long before I would ever play a Full-Loot PvP MMO with the ability to respawn.
Hi!
Sure, it makes it more exciting, by the very tokens @Sovrath mentioned. It also goes both ways. It's a very power-flat game with an extremely high skill ceiling (think fencing or saber fighting).
I also believe it literally helps the game economy for archaic reasons, as I mentioned back on page 2 of this thread.
"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
If indie devs wanted to make popular games, they wouldn't touch open PvP / FFA sandboxes with a 10 foot pole.
I don't think they are looking to make popular games. Oh sure, people who make things want others to like them and who wouldn't want to make something that was a critical and commercial darling?
But actually do things just because they like them and know full well that they aren't going to have large audiences.
They are making games they want to play. I think some are confused as to the popularity of their chosen game types but you have to believe in what you are doing in order to do it. Can't be half ass.
Friends of mine played in a new music group (20th century "classical" music) and they never had any illusions that they were going to get anything more than 15 guys in the audience, some of whom dragged their girlfriends with them.
I have never met or even heard a game dev say anything like "Man I love games where I can get ganked and have all the shit I collected stolen from me"
In fact, I will bet you, most of the devs for full-loot pvp MMO's don't actually play their own games for fun, and in reality are looking to make the next break-out hit, hoping to be the next Fortnight, or WoW, or something.
Which will not happen if they keep making games with designs that have already failed in the past.
I think that's a rather arrogant stance.
The idea that you can't accept that people have different tastes is pretty self centered. That people can't possibly make things, spend time creating, things that you can't possibly find interesting.
I've heard players say (on these forums no less) that they find the idea of being attacked in the open exciting and that having their stuff on the line makes their encounters more intense and worth fighting for.
I don't see any reason not to believe them.
The world has different people who like different things. You should probably accept it or else you are just going to find everything insufferable.
I have never met any MMO player that likes losing their stuff to another player.
Anyone want to step up and say they like it when someone steals their stuff ?
As for various likes, Personally, I'd play a Perma-Death MMO long before I would ever play a Full-Loot PvP MMO with the ability to respawn.
But again, you aren't understanding the mechanism that is in these games.
Of course people don't like when other's take their stuff. But that's not the issue.
That's like saying "tell me one person who likes to lose. Therefore people should always win."
Getting items taken in a full loot game is the losing condition. And what others firmly ignore even though it's been said numerous times, full loot games are generally centered around you being able to make a come back after losing items.
People cried over the idea in Darkfall. I can say that Darkfall was pretty tame as you just go to your bank, get out your extra stuff, and continue. But those who are crying and gnashing their teeth can only imagine that they are playing world of Warcraft and that they have done everything imaginable and spent all the time in the world accumulating items only to lose them.
That's not what happens in a full loot game. Even in EVE you are told that you should only fly what you can afford to lose. If players play that way then they are good to go.
So "I" don't like losing items but that certainly didn't stop me from trying Darkfall. The key phrase is "I don't have a problem with people taking my stuff." So "I don't like to lose my stuff I don't have a problem with it."
Again, stop viewing this through your own lens and you will actually understand it better.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
If indie devs wanted to make popular games, they wouldn't touch open PvP / FFA sandboxes with a 10 foot pole.
I don't think they are looking to make popular games. Oh sure, people who make things want others to like them and who wouldn't want to make something that was a critical and commercial darling?
But actually do things just because they like them and know full well that they aren't going to have large audiences.
They are making games they want to play. I think some are confused as to the popularity of their chosen game types but you have to believe in what you are doing in order to do it. Can't be half ass.
Friends of mine played in a new music group (20th century "classical" music) and they never had any illusions that they were going to get anything more than 15 guys in the audience, some of whom dragged their girlfriends with them.
I have never met or even heard a game dev say anything like "Man I love games where I can get ganked and have all the shit I collected stolen from me"
In fact, I will bet you, most of the devs for full-loot pvp MMO's don't actually play their own games for fun, and in reality are looking to make the next break-out hit, hoping to be the next Fortnight, or WoW, or something.
Which will not happen if they keep making games with designs that have already failed in the past.
I think that's a rather arrogant stance.
The idea that you can't accept that people have different tastes is pretty self centered. That people can't possibly make things, spend time creating, things that you can't possibly find interesting.
I've heard players say (on these forums no less) that they find the idea of being attacked in the open exciting and that having their stuff on the line makes their encounters more intense and worth fighting for.
I don't see any reason not to believe them.
The world has different people who like different things. You should probably accept it or else you are just going to find everything insufferable.
I have never met any MMO player that likes losing their stuff to another player.
Anyone want to step up and say they like it when someone steals their stuff ?
As for various likes, Personally, I'd play a Perma-Death MMO long before I would ever play a Full-Loot PvP MMO with the ability to respawn.
But again, you aren't understanding the mechanism that is in these games.
Of course people don't like when other's take their stuff. But that's not the issue.
That's like saying "tell me one person who likes to lose. Therefore people should always win."
Getting items taken in a full loot game is the losing condition. And what others firmly ignore even though it's been said numerous times, full loot games are generally centered around you being able to make a come back after losing items.
People cried over the idea in Darkfall. I can say that Darkfall was pretty tame as you just go to your bank, get out your extra stuff, and continue. But those who are crying and gnashing their teeth can only imagine that they are playing world of Warcraft and that they have done everything imaginable and spent all the time in the world accumulating items only to lose them.
That's not what happens in a full loot game. Even in EVE you are told that you should only fly what you can afford to lose. If players play that way then they are good to go.
So "I" don't like losing items but that certainly didn't stop me from trying Darkfall. The key phrase is "I don't have a problem with people taking my stuff." So "I don't like to lose my stuff I don't have a problem with it."
Again, stop viewing this through your own lens and you will actually understand it better.
i dont care when i lose stuff , been playing UO 21 years have lost lots of stuff and if your smart , the stuff you lose is pretty negligble , ive also looted lots of stuff over the years from reds , its Very very Rare you actually get soemthing of any real value , smart players dont run around with good stuff alone .. The only time i gear real good stuff is on guild runs , and even then you run a risk , but thats what is fun , Die with style , then try to learn from your mistakes , coming out on top the next encounter is quite satisfying..
Figure out builds to counter others is quite satisfying , this has been explained in this thread numerous times by multiple people in this thread from several different approches but Some just do not get it ..
They think that if they dont like something how can anyone else ..
and ill add to the OP , there is a market for this style of gameplay , granted the community is fragmented over many games live and private servers catering to folks that want this playstyle , if a dev could put together a really good game , they may be to capture a strong part of that community .. thats the reason they try ..
If indie devs wanted to make popular games, they wouldn't touch open PvP / FFA sandboxes with a 10 foot pole.
I don't think they are looking to make popular games. Oh sure, people who make things want others to like them and who wouldn't want to make something that was a critical and commercial darling?
But actually do things just because they like them and know full well that they aren't going to have large audiences.
They are making games they want to play. I think some are confused as to the popularity of their chosen game types but you have to believe in what you are doing in order to do it. Can't be half ass.
Friends of mine played in a new music group (20th century "classical" music) and they never had any illusions that they were going to get anything more than 15 guys in the audience, some of whom dragged their girlfriends with them.
I have never met or even heard a game dev say anything like "Man I love games where I can get ganked and have all the shit I collected stolen from me"
In fact, I will bet you, most of the devs for full-loot pvp MMO's don't actually play their own games for fun, and in reality are looking to make the next break-out hit, hoping to be the next Fortnight, or WoW, or something.
Which will not happen if they keep making games with designs that have already failed in the past.
I think that's a rather arrogant stance.
The idea that you can't accept that people have different tastes is pretty self centered. That people can't possibly make things, spend time creating, things that you can't possibly find interesting.
I've heard players say (on these forums no less) that they find the idea of being attacked in the open exciting and that having their stuff on the line makes their encounters more intense and worth fighting for.
I don't see any reason not to believe them.
The world has different people who like different things. You should probably accept it or else you are just going to find everything insufferable.
I have never met any MMO player that likes losing their stuff to another player.
Anyone want to step up and say they like it when someone steals their stuff ?
As for various likes, Personally, I'd play a Perma-Death MMO long before I would ever play a Full-Loot PvP MMO with the ability to respawn.
But again, you aren't understanding the mechanism that is in these games.
Of course people don't like when other's take their stuff. But that's not the issue.
That's like saying "tell me one person who likes to lose. Therefore people should always win."
Getting items taken in a full loot game is the losing condition. And what others firmly ignore even though it's been said numerous times, full loot games are generally centered around you being able to make a come back after losing items.
People cried over the idea in Darkfall. I can say that Darkfall was pretty tame as you just go to your bank, get out your extra stuff, and continue. But those who are crying and gnashing their teeth can only imagine that they are playing world of Warcraft and that they have done everything imaginable and spent all the time in the world accumulating items only to lose them.
That's not what happens in a full loot game. Even in EVE you are told that you should only fly what you can afford to lose. If players play that way then they are good to go.
So "I" don't like losing items but that certainly didn't stop me from trying Darkfall. The key phrase is "I don't have a problem with people taking my stuff." So "I don't like to lose my stuff I don't have a problem with it."
Again, stop viewing this through your own lens and you will actually understand it better.
i dont care when i lose stuff , been playing UO 21 years have lost lots of stuff and if your smart , the stuff you lose is pretty negligble , ive also looted lots of stuff over the years from reds , its Very very Rare you actually get soemthing of any real value , smart players dont run around with good stuff alone .. The only time i gear real good stuff is on guild runs , and even then you run a risk , but thats what is fun , Die with style , then try to learn from your mistakes , coming out on top the next encounter is quite satisfying..
Figure out builds to counter others is quite satisfying , this has been explained in this thread numerous times by multiple people in this thread from several different approches but Some just do not get it ..
They think that if they dont like something how can anyone else ..
and ill add to the OP , there is a market for this style of gameplay , granted the community is fragmented over many games live and private servers catering to folks that want this playstyle , if a dev could put together a really good game , they may be to capture a strong part of that community .. thats the reason they try ..
Just to add to this: in the full-loot PvP game I'm in, player-dependent commerce and trade is flourishing. That's a good thing. This isn't hypothetical; I've watched it happen.
It may have something to do with the irreplaceability and relative indestructibility of items; sure something might represent hundreds of hours of work, but even if it's lost it doesn't disappear: it just changes hands. Things have a funny way of coming back around in a persistent world.
"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
Comments
While the objective of the game is to "kill the king", that never actually happens. Checkmate is called when it becomes inevitable, and in fact in most games a resignation happens much earlier than that. OK, but what about all the pieces you "kill"? Actually that is not highly regarded, taking pieces for the sake of "killing" them is actually considered bad play. Chess is all about planning, position, and carefullness.
The exact reverse of PvP actually.
If I am in a full suit of armor, carrying a weapon and then slay another player in similar gear there should be no way for me to carry all of their items AND carry on fighting others.
In answer to the OP, it comes down to BAD DESIGN, not the fact that a particular feature is BAD> for every problem there is a solution, problem is players dont like restrictions and hence why this kind of system has never been popular.
If players movement and attack speed was slowed the more they were carrying then they become, in turn, and easier target for someone else. People will say that players will abuse the system by fighting naked, then that is just yet another problem that will have another reasonable solution.
Game developers are problem solvers, thats their job. Just because nobody has yet found a solution for every game, doesnt mean that an individual game cannot find systems that DO work.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Having said that, if you were ok with loosing your hard work occasionally, the experience was well worth it, and very fulfilling . but, alas, just as in real life, there are more sheep than predators, and people vote with their cash.
Problem is, there is just so many different ways to skin a cat, and having played mmorpgs for literally 20 years now since UO ( Dread Lord den of earth ! yarr!), the only stories I remember from all that time playing, when reminising with friends are PVP stories, from UO, EVE,DAOC, ect. There is nothing new , nowdays. its just the same reskin with a new idea here, and bad idea there.
I hope that one day there will be a successful PVP style mmorpg , but doubt it. which, is too damn bad.
over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting...
To help new players get on their feet first before they venture to unsafe area...
Or carebears who want to stay in safe zones the entire time?
But that is what most PvP MMO are at the core of their design, just piece trading.
In fact, I will bet you, most of the devs for full-loot pvp MMO's don't actually play their own games for fun, and in reality are looking to make the next break-out hit, hoping to be the next Fortnight, or WoW, or something.
Which will not happen if they keep making games with designs that have already failed in the past.
The only people full loot actually hurt was noobs - who couldn't replace their gear and/or gold so easily. Thus full loot only proved to scare off new players.
Hence, the developers (very, very smart ones) did Renaissance and the Trammel split - giving noobs an opportunity to learn the game and become invested in the relative safety of the PvE side.
Still, the idea of magic bags that can hold infinite treasure is great for PvE, but for PvP with loot enabled, yeah if there are limits it will further enrich the experience.
For example, you die in PvP maybe your coin could be looted (who would be carrying a lot of coin into combat anyway?) and then someone could loot maybe 1 item from you, a weapon, a shield, one piece of armor, or a stack of reagents etc. but that was it.
I think games have done this previously, which is where (I think) the idea of "soul bound" items originally came from.
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
The trouble with OWPvP is that as soon as you start putting "restrictions" on it, it no longer qualifies
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I'd make pack horses much stronger, so they didn't die so fast, and also able to fight well so that they basically act as another combatant, opnly somewhat weaker. Also give them a player speed escape run, adding to the difficulty of both sides to gain said loot.
I really don't like "soul bound" ideas, I have to say. I think there are many other options that are much more "realistic" and add much more to game play than that.
Once upon a time....
Anyone want to step up and say they like it when someone steals their stuff ?
As for various likes, Personally, I'd play a Perma-Death MMO long before I would ever play a Full-Loot PvP MMO with the ability to respawn.
Legend of Aria have half of the world being safe zone.
People choose where they want to be, safe zone or unsafe zone(where reward are usually better).
Risk vs Reward is a choice. You can stay in safe zone where your progress is slower or take a chance to gain more in risker area.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I'm just saying developers can make mmorpg where part of the zones have ffa pvp and part of the zones are safe zones where you can't pvp. This eliminate people from ganking new players and people who prefer to play in safe zones.
For example in an OWpvp game devs could create zones where, if you attack another player, 5 npc guards instantly summon to the spot of aggression and attack the aggressor, if these guards are attacked another 5 summon etc
in an open world pvp game it might be a waste of resources to create these kinds of safe zones instead of just prohibiting mechanically pcs from attacking each other
Sure, it makes it more exciting, by the very tokens @Sovrath mentioned. It also goes both ways. It's a very power-flat game with an extremely high skill ceiling (think fencing or saber fighting).
I also believe it literally helps the game economy for archaic reasons, as I mentioned back on page 2 of this thread.
"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
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
It may have something to do with the irreplaceability and relative indestructibility of items; sure something might represent hundreds of hours of work, but even if it's lost it doesn't disappear: it just changes hands. Things have a funny way of coming back around in a persistent world.
"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
MAGA