Who cares about Chronicles of Elyria? Just because some similar ideas were presented by a person or persons involved in a project that didn't come to fruition, that doesn't mean that all such ideas should now be abandoned.
That was not my point.
But to be honest.. if that was your take away. Eh..
I know what your point is, and I don't agree. We've been through this a few times already.
Ok.. let me help you out and make this simple.
Like many others have said:
Answers: No.
It's not that simple. lol
Really, it is that simple.
Look at the thread title again: "Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing "
- 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
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
I believe that is the general consensus, yes. Open world pvp is typically defined as pvp anywhere in the world and player A has no say if player B wants to attack him or not.
That feels like such a "glass half empty" explanation. How About player A expects that they will be attacked at any time and has either prepared for it or has accepted the consequences for not preparing for it?"
That could be true if they were both toggled on as well, where my explanation points out there is no toggle.
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
I believe that is the general consensus, yes. Open world pvp is typically defined as pvp anywhere in the world and player A has no say if player B wants to attack him or not.
That feels like such a "glass half empty" explanation. How About player A expects that they will be attacked at any time and has either prepared for it or has accepted the consequences for not preparing for it?"
That could be true if they were both toggled on as well, where my explanation points out there is no toggle.
Why would there be a toggle?
Just like, in a Dark Souls game (follow me now I know that's not an mmorpg) they decided not to have difficulty settings. They were after a very specific experience.
So is an ffa pvp game. It's a very specific experience. No toggle required.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
I believe that is the general consensus, yes. Open world pvp is typically defined as pvp anywhere in the world and player A has no say if player B wants to attack him or not.
That feels like such a "glass half empty" explanation. How About player A expects that they will be attacked at any time and has either prepared for it or has accepted the consequences for not preparing for it?"
That could be true if they were both toggled on as well, where my explanation points out there is no toggle.
Why would there be a toggle?
Just like, in a Dark Souls game (follow me now I know that's not an mmorpg) they decided not to have difficulty settings. They were after a very specific experience.
So is an ffa pvp game. It's a very specific experience. No toggle required.
I’m saying that your explanation works for a toggle pvp game as well where mine it can’t. He toggled and accepts the risk. That’s why I use the, “you have no choice” aspect.
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
I believe that is the general consensus, yes. Open world pvp is typically defined as pvp anywhere in the world and player A has no say if player B wants to attack him or not.
That feels like such a "glass half empty" explanation. How About player A expects that they will be attacked at any time and has either prepared for it or has accepted the consequences for not preparing for it?"
That could be true if they were both toggled on as well, where my explanation points out there is no toggle.
Why would there be a toggle?
Just like, in a Dark Souls game (follow me now I know that's not an mmorpg) they decided not to have difficulty settings. They were after a very specific experience.
So is an ffa pvp game. It's a very specific experience. No toggle required.
I’m saying that your explanation works for a toggle pvp game as well where mine it can’t. He toggled and accepts the risk. That’s why I use the, “you have no choice” aspect.
I don't like the "have no choice" explanation because your choice IS to have that experience. That's why you are there. You've made your choice. That's part of the fun.
Yes, it's true, there is a contingent of players who can't handle it and they go out of their way to sh*t on the experience, but the experience is why you go into that type of game.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
I believe that is the general consensus, yes. Open world pvp is typically defined as pvp anywhere in the world and player A has no say if player B wants to attack him or not.
That feels like such a "glass half empty" explanation. How About player A expects that they will be attacked at any time and has either prepared for it or has accepted the consequences for not preparing for it?"
That could be true if they were both toggled on as well, where my explanation points out there is no toggle.
Why would there be a toggle?
Just like, in a Dark Souls game (follow me now I know that's not an mmorpg) they decided not to have difficulty settings. They were after a very specific experience.
So is an ffa pvp game. It's a very specific experience. No toggle required.
I’m saying that your explanation works for a toggle pvp game as well where mine it can’t. He toggled and accepts the risk. That’s why I use the, “you have no choice” aspect.
I don't like the "have no choice" explanation because your choice IS to have that experience. That's why you are there. You've made your choice. That's part of the fun.
Yes, it's true, there is a contingent of players who can't handle it and they go out of their way to sh*t on the experience, but the experience is why you go into that type of game.
Right, but then when you read that you (or anyone) can be attacked at any time you know that’s what you want. I don’t sees reason to sugar coat it.
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
I believe that is the general consensus, yes. Open world pvp is typically defined as pvp anywhere in the world and player A has no say if player B wants to attack him or not.
That feels like such a "glass half empty" explanation. How About player A expects that they will be attacked at any time and has either prepared for it or has accepted the consequences for not preparing for it?"
That could be true if they were both toggled on as well, where my explanation points out there is no toggle.
Why would there be a toggle?
Just like, in a Dark Souls game (follow me now I know that's not an mmorpg) they decided not to have difficulty settings. They were after a very specific experience.
So is an ffa pvp game. It's a very specific experience. No toggle required.
I’m saying that your explanation works for a toggle pvp game as well where mine it can’t. He toggled and accepts the risk. That’s why I use the, “you have no choice” aspect.
I don't like the "have no choice" explanation because your choice IS to have that experience. That's why you are there. You've made your choice. That's part of the fun.
Yes, it's true, there is a contingent of players who can't handle it and they go out of their way to sh*t on the experience, but the experience is why you go into that type of game.
Exactly , the choice started when you logged into said game knowing the game mechainics and rules ..
If you dont like them , dont log into those its really so fucking simple i do not understand some people , there are plenty of PVE games out there go play one if you do not have the stomach for OWPVP ..
Who cares about Chronicles of Elyria? Just because some similar ideas were presented by a person or persons involved in a project that didn't come to fruition, that doesn't mean that all such ideas should now be abandoned.
That was not my point.
But to be honest.. if that was your take away. Eh..
I know what your point is, and I don't agree. We've been through this a few times already.
Ok.. let me help you out and make this simple.
Like many others have said:
Answers: No.
It's not that simple. lol
Really, it is that simple.
Look at the thread title again: "Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing "
Let me put it this way.
If PKing is more costly than what they can get out of it, they won't do it. That's "justice." And it will work if there are no "outs." Which has never been done in any OWPvP any-time-any-where game.
Let the PvPers PvP in meaningful ways (another thing missing from most of PvP) in a game built for that.
It only seems simple if you ignore this basic logic.
Who cares about Chronicles of Elyria? Just because some similar ideas were presented by a person or persons involved in a project that didn't come to fruition, that doesn't mean that all such ideas should now be abandoned.
That was not my point.
But to be honest.. if that was your take away. Eh..
I know what your point is, and I don't agree. We've been through this a few times already.
Ok.. let me help you out and make this simple.
Like many others have said:
Answers: No.
It's not that simple. lol
Really, it is that simple.
Look at the thread title again: "Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing "
Let me put it this way.
If PKing is more costly than what they can get out of it, they won't do it.
Thanks for the laugh today.. I needed it.
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.
Who cares about Chronicles of Elyria? Just because some similar ideas were presented by a person or persons involved in a project that didn't come to fruition, that doesn't mean that all such ideas should now be abandoned.
That was not my point.
But to be honest.. if that was your take away. Eh..
I know what your point is, and I don't agree. We've been through this a few times already.
Ok.. let me help you out and make this simple.
Like many others have said:
Answers: No.
It's not that simple. lol
Really, it is that simple.
Look at the thread title again: "Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing "
Let me put it this way.
If PKing is more costly than what they can get out of it, they won't do it.
Thanks for the laugh today.. I needed it.
Please explain your sense of humor. Because I don't get the sense of it.
Who cares about Chronicles of Elyria? Just because some similar ideas were presented by a person or persons involved in a project that didn't come to fruition, that doesn't mean that all such ideas should now be abandoned.
That was not my point.
But to be honest.. if that was your take away. Eh..
I know what your point is, and I don't agree. We've been through this a few times already.
Ok.. let me help you out and make this simple.
Like many others have said:
Answers: No.
It's not that simple. lol
Really, it is that simple.
Look at the thread title again: "Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing "
Let me put it this way.
If PKing is more costly than what they can get out of it, they won't do it. That's "justice." And it will work if there are no "outs." Which has never been done in any OWPvP any-time-any-where game.
Let the PvPers PvP in meaningful ways (another thing missing from most of PvP) in a game built for that.
It only seems simple if you ignore this basic logic.
This will not work ..
The PVPers will, not play under that rule set and you end up with a PVE game ..
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
I believe that is the general consensus, yes. Open world pvp is typically defined as pvp anywhere in the world and player A has no say if player B wants to attack him or not.
That feels like such a "glass half empty" explanation. How About player A expects that they will be attacked at any time and has either prepared for it or has accepted the consequences for not preparing for it?"
That could be true if they were both toggled on as well, where my explanation points out there is no toggle.
Why would there be a toggle?
Just like, in a Dark Souls game (follow me now I know that's not an mmorpg) they decided not to have difficulty settings. They were after a very specific experience.
So is an ffa pvp game. It's a very specific experience. No toggle required.
I’m saying that your explanation works for a toggle pvp game as well where mine it can’t. He toggled and accepts the risk. That’s why I use the, “you have no choice” aspect.
I don't like the "have no choice" explanation because your choice IS to have that experience. That's why you are there. You've made your choice. That's part of the fun.
Yes, it's true, there is a contingent of players who can't handle it and they go out of their way to sh*t on the experience, but the experience is why you go into that type of game.
Exactly , the choice started when you logged into said game knowing the game mechainics and rules ..
If you dont like them , dont log into those its really so fucking simple i do not understand some people , there are plenty of PVE games out there go play one if you do not have the stomach for OWPVP ..
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
I believe that is the general consensus, yes. Open world pvp is typically defined as pvp anywhere in the world and player A has no say if player B wants to attack him or not.
That feels like such a "glass half empty" explanation. How About player A expects that they will be attacked at any time and has either prepared for it or has accepted the consequences for not preparing for it?"
That could be true if they were both toggled on as well, where my explanation points out there is no toggle.
Why would there be a toggle?
Just like, in a Dark Souls game (follow me now I know that's not an mmorpg) they decided not to have difficulty settings. They were after a very specific experience.
So is an ffa pvp game. It's a very specific experience. No toggle required.
I’m saying that your explanation works for a toggle pvp game as well where mine it can’t. He toggled and accepts the risk. That’s why I use the, “you have no choice” aspect.
I don't like the "have no choice" explanation because your choice IS to have that experience. That's why you are there. You've made your choice. That's part of the fun.
Yes, it's true, there is a contingent of players who can't handle it and they go out of their way to sh*t on the experience, but the experience is why you go into that type of game.
Exactly , the choice started when you logged into said game knowing the game mechainics and rules ..
If you dont like them , dont log into those its really so fucking simple i do not understand some people , there are plenty of PVE games out there go play one if you do not have the stomach for OWPVP ..
Calm down bro lol. Where this come from?
ohh , Im calm , this is just simple logic that seems to evade alot of people ...
Who cares about Chronicles of Elyria? Just because some similar ideas were presented by a person or persons involved in a project that didn't come to fruition, that doesn't mean that all such ideas should now be abandoned.
That was not my point.
But to be honest.. if that was your take away. Eh..
I know what your point is, and I don't agree. We've been through this a few times already.
Ok.. let me help you out and make this simple.
Like many others have said:
Answers: No.
It's not that simple. lol
Really, it is that simple.
Look at the thread title again: "Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing "
Let me put it this way.
If PKing is more costly than what they can get out of it, they won't do it.
Thanks for the laugh today.. I needed it.
Please explain your sense of humor. Because I don't get the sense of it.
LOL.. You obviously vastly underestimate the level of total depravity that exist in the game world.
But hey, don't feel bad, the Devs for New World were just as naive', but then again, I laughed my ass off at them too, and it was a real wake up call at how clueless game devs really are.. I can't wait to see what shitstorm fuck up they end up making in the end of things.
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.
Who cares about Chronicles of Elyria? Just because some similar ideas were presented by a person or persons involved in a project that didn't come to fruition, that doesn't mean that all such ideas should now be abandoned.
That was not my point.
But to be honest.. if that was your take away. Eh..
I know what your point is, and I don't agree. We've been through this a few times already.
Ok.. let me help you out and make this simple.
Like many others have said:
Answers: No.
It's not that simple. lol
Really, it is that simple.
Look at the thread title again: "Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing "
Let me put it this way.
If PKing is more costly than what they can get out of it, they won't do it. That's "justice." And it will work if there are no "outs." Which has never been done in any OWPvP any-time-any-where game.
Let the PvPers PvP in meaningful ways (another thing missing from most of PvP) in a game built for that.
It only seems simple if you ignore this basic logic.
This will not work ..
The PVPers will, not play under that rule set and you end up with a PVE game ..
They'd still have meaningful PvP. So, and I stress this next part, LACKING ANYTHING ELSE OF VALUE TO PLAY, I'm pretty sure they'd play. For those that must have a gankfest, sure, let them go play their dead games with gank festing.
Who cares about Chronicles of Elyria? Just because some similar ideas were presented by a person or persons involved in a project that didn't come to fruition, that doesn't mean that all such ideas should now be abandoned.
That was not my point.
But to be honest.. if that was your take away. Eh..
I know what your point is, and I don't agree. We've been through this a few times already.
Ok.. let me help you out and make this simple.
Like many others have said:
Answers: No.
It's not that simple. lol
Really, it is that simple.
Look at the thread title again: "Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing "
Let me put it this way.
If PKing is more costly than what they can get out of it, they won't do it. That's "justice." And it will work if there are no "outs." Which has never been done in any OWPvP any-time-any-where game.
Let the PvPers PvP in meaningful ways (another thing missing from most of PvP) in a game built for that.
It only seems simple if you ignore this basic logic.
This will not work ..
The PVPers will, not play under that rule set and you end up with a PVE game ..
PVPers won't play in a game world wherein there can be consequences for actions such as murder if they are caught (depending on who they killed, where, and when)? Obviously, no one is going to get in trouble for killing an enemy in war. Or at least not the vast majority of the time. But PVPers don't ever want to play in a virtual world that has systems of law, order, and justice in certain provinces (factional territory) akin to the real world? Why? Do PVPers not like to be challenged in that way? Or do they not like the sort of challenge that represents? Do PVPers have no desire to ever actually Role-Play a villain or criminal or w/e and have a reason for killing the people they kill? Or accept the possible consequences if they kill indiscriminately? Do PVPers not want to ever need to play smart villains or criminals?
Of course, it won't only be the people on the opposite side of the law or those of evil alignments who will be participating in PVP. But it's evident that those who choose to play good-aligned characters or heroes would have different reasons for attacking or killing other player characters than criminals and villains would.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
So a pve game that is enticing to pvpers Or a pvp game that is enticing to pvers
Think of it as two circles that are far apart but has a small area that overlap each other. That is what your looking at. Any mention of a pve game and pvpers don't want to touch it cause its too casual, mention a pvp game and you have pvers come with the pitchforks for the evil people. That overlapping area is a small percentage of the two groups that are interested in a game like that.
Until a big aaa dev that is trusted comes along with a phenomenal system like it was said before most people are not going to trust it. And when money is on the line they don't want the risk, they want the ROI that is guaranteed.
There is a chance something could happen but its in the future, not close now. No imagination anymore really. The vision isn't really there for the industry anymore.
I don't know at what point the developers of GW2 decided to incorporate some kind of Living World or dynamic passing of time into their project. However, I do know that if a game world is not designed from the ground up to incorporate that system, then, yes, it is not going to work.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
Logging out is a big issue when it comes to catching them. But I think Roguewiz's primary point is that it wasn't enough so they could pretty much just ignore the penalty. It didn't matter enough.
Okay, how about making it so that a character who has committed a certain type or a certain amount of crimes against other players will remain in the game world whether the player logs out or not?
Or all characters remain in the game world 24/7. So they had better make sure they camp out in a safe location where they are protected by NPCs of their own faction. Or their own NPC hirelings/henchmen/subordinates.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
Logging out is a big issue when it comes to catching them. But I think Roguewiz's primary point is that it wasn't enough so they could pretty much just ignore the penalty. It didn't matter enough.
Okay, how about making it so that a character who has committed a certain type or a certain amount of crimes against other players will remain in the game world whether the player logs out or not?
Or all characters remain in the game world 24/7. So they had better make sure they camp out in a safe location where they are protected by NPCs of their own faction. Or their own NPC hirelings/henchmen/subordinates.
I always thought that the best way is to have a tracking ability that can follow a character to where they logged out. Not a sure fire tracking, something that's playable in a tactical sort of way. At that point, if they aren't in a safe place (behind locked doors) then some means to bring the character into the game as an NPC, and with the primary action to run away and escape.
Maybe the owning player can set a game provided macro too in order to do a specific set of actions, and then if they are still at risk the NPC takes over and runs/fights.
This allows the bad guy to take refuge in a friends house or a guild headquarters. It adds to game play, hopefully.
A smart player would figure out an escape rout to set a macro to. But after that first time, if they escape, it may not work against the same people the next time.
Hopefully, the whole thing starts feeling like a RP game.
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
Logging out is a big issue when it comes to catching them. But I think Roguewiz's primary point is that it wasn't enough so they could pretty much just ignore the penalty. It didn't matter enough.
Okay, how about making it so that a character who has committed a certain type or a certain amount of crimes against other players will remain in the game world whether the player logs out or not?
Or all characters remain in the game world 24/7. So they had better make sure they camp out in a safe location where they are protected by NPCs of their own faction. Or their own NPC hirelings/henchmen/subordinates.
I always thought that the best way is to have a tracking ability that can follow a character to where they logged out. Not a sure fire tracking, something that's playable in a tactical sort of way. At that point, if they aren't in a safe place (behind locked doors) then some means to bring the character into the game as an NPC, and with the primary action to run away and escape.
Maybe the owning player can set a game provided macro too in order to do a specific set of actions, and then if they are still at risk the NPC takes over and runs/fights.
This allows the bad guy to take refuge in a friends house or a guild headquarters. It adds to game play, hopefully.
A smart player would figure out an escape rout to set a macro to. But after that first time, if they escape, it may not work against the same people the next time.
Hopefully, the whole thing starts feeling like a RP game.
Something like that could work. I was also thinking that a player could choose specific actions for a character to perform while the player is logged out. One of those would have to be sleep, then training a skill, crafting an item, etc. If the game allowed for character's to be lords or even kings, then holding court might be one of those activities. The only thing a character wouldn't do while the player is logged/camped out is adventure or travel. And, of course, those activities Would be interrupted if the player logged back in.
So, we could have scenarios where an assassin (NPC or PC) might even catch a PC while sleeping. Could AI track a player's choices and actions throughout the game so that the NPC version of the camped out player behaves like the player or not?
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
The PVPers will, not play under that rule set and you end up with a PVE game ..
But it will discourage the griefers, right? That's what this topic is for, essentially. Mitigating griefing. Metagame griefing doesn't matter because it's psychological at its core. Either the victim has thick skin or not. Either the griefer is playing a character or not.
Judging by the replies and back-and-forths, I definitely should have worded the topic better. Just to be clear, I favor Open PVP and regularly participate, but I don't like how most games enable griefing or do nothing to discourage it, which drives other players away. If I were a PVE player and wanted to get ganked 24/7 by other players, especially as a latecomer or casual player, I'd play a battle royale or Escape From Tarkov.
So a pve game that is enticing to pvpers Or a pvp game that is enticing to pvers
No imagination anymore really. The vision isn't really there for the industry anymore.
I don't think we've seen a PVP game enticing to PVEers yet apart from Crowfall, but even then, there's a lack of PVE content. Maybe Camelot: Unchained would suffice? ArcheAge could have been it, but yeah. I wouldn't know since I barely keep up with MMOs anymore due to not encouraging socialization though having matchamde dungeon groups and similar features.
Blame the people in game development. Most of them are in the industry because of a passion of wanting to work on games, but won't stand up for their ideas or improved workplace conditions. I wish that would change, but at least some indie devs are doing innovation for us, even if it's not as enormous and fantastical as we'd want it to be.
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
Logging out is a big issue when it comes to catching them. But I think Roguewiz's primary point is that it wasn't enough so they could pretty much just ignore the penalty. It didn't matter enough.
Okay, how about making it so that a character who has committed a certain type or a certain amount of crimes against other players will remain in the game world whether the player logs out or not?
Or all characters remain in the game world 24/7. So they had better make sure they camp out in a safe location where they are protected by NPCs of their own faction. Or their own NPC hirelings/henchmen/subordinates.
I always thought that the best way is to have a tracking ability that can follow a character to where they logged out. Not a sure fire tracking, something that's playable in a tactical sort of way. At that point, if they aren't in a safe place (behind locked doors) then some means to bring the character into the game as an NPC, and with the primary action to run away and escape.
Maybe the owning player can set a game provided macro too in order to do a specific set of actions, and then if they are still at risk the NPC takes over and runs/fights.
This allows the bad guy to take refuge in a friends house or a guild headquarters. It adds to game play, hopefully.
A smart player would figure out an escape rout to set a macro to. But after that first time, if they escape, it may not work against the same people the next time.
Hopefully, the whole thing starts feeling like a RP game.
Something like that could work. I was also thinking that a player could choose specific actions for a character to perform while the player is logged out. One of those would have to be sleep, then training a skill, crafting an item, etc. If the game allowed for character's to be lords or even kings, then holding court might be one of those activities. The only thing a character wouldn't do while the player is logged/camped out is adventure or travel. And, of course, those activities Would be interrupted if the player logged back in.
So, we could have scenarios where an assassin (NPC or PC) might even catch a PC while sleeping. Could AI track a player's choices and actions throughout the game so that the NPC version of the camped out player behaves like the player or not?
Being able to set a macroed schedule for all characters would be pretty cool. Crafters could make things, sleep, etc. RPers might enjoy having their characters cook and eat too. Not that it would be necessary, just a fun thing to do to liven up the village.
There was a guy, I can't remember his name, who had a private UO server running. He had a system where you could start the program, do a set number of actions, and his server recorded it and then you could play it on a loop while you were logged off.
I had a character that chopped wood (and collected logs too), then walked around, going up to the bakery window and saying "is that pie for me?". Stopping under a large tree, looking up (text as *looks up*) then *points up*, then said "was that an owl?"
There was another player who set up a man and a woman character to sneak away and meet for a kiss and a few words of romance. The timing is challenging but doable, and it livened up our area.
Unrestricted, Open PVP will inherently cause issues for those that would rather sit back and farm or do something else instead of PVP. I haven't played an open world PVP game since Shadowbane. However, my experience in there was that you will almost always find someone that doesn't mind clubbing the proverbial "baby seal". One of my friends loved Shadowbane for its character advancement, but despised the game because he couldn't level once he left newbie island. Given his play times, he rarely could run with a pack.
Some other games have introduced mitigating factors such as penalties for killing people substantially below your level, or repeatedly killing them. Honestly though? These penalties are negligible. The player could just log off or ignore the penalty (unless it was excessive)
If a game wants to be accessible to both the PVP Crowd and the PVE Crowd, then it just needs to suck it up and keep the playerbase separate. Battlegrounds, Arenas, and heck what Crowfall is doing; are good examples.
Did the OP state that the Open World PVP should be Unrestricted? I don't remember.
Anyway, if the Griefer/Stalker/Abusive Player logs out, isn't that a good thing?
Logging out is a big issue when it comes to catching them. But I think Roguewiz's primary point is that it wasn't enough so they could pretty much just ignore the penalty. It didn't matter enough.
Okay, how about making it so that a character who has committed a certain type or a certain amount of crimes against other players will remain in the game world whether the player logs out or not?
Or all characters remain in the game world 24/7. So they had better make sure they camp out in a safe location where they are protected by NPCs of their own faction. Or their own NPC hirelings/henchmen/subordinates.
I always thought that the best way is to have a tracking ability that can follow a character to where they logged out. Not a sure fire tracking, something that's playable in a tactical sort of way. At that point, if they aren't in a safe place (behind locked doors) then some means to bring the character into the game as an NPC, and with the primary action to run away and escape.
Maybe the owning player can set a game provided macro too in order to do a specific set of actions, and then if they are still at risk the NPC takes over and runs/fights.
This allows the bad guy to take refuge in a friends house or a guild headquarters. It adds to game play, hopefully.
A smart player would figure out an escape rout to set a macro to. But after that first time, if they escape, it may not work against the same people the next time.
Hopefully, the whole thing starts feeling like a RP game.
Something like that could work. I was also thinking that a player could choose specific actions for a character to perform while the player is logged out. One of those would have to be sleep, then training a skill, crafting an item, etc. If the game allowed for character's to be lords or even kings, then holding court might be one of those activities. The only thing a character wouldn't do while the player is logged/camped out is adventure or travel. And, of course, those activities Would be interrupted if the player logged back in.
So, we could have scenarios where an assassin (NPC or PC) might even catch a PC while sleeping. Could AI track a player's choices and actions throughout the game so that the NPC version of the camped out player behaves like the player or not?
Being able to set a macroed schedule for all characters would be pretty cool. Crafters could make things, sleep, etc. RPers might enjoy having their characters cook and eat too. Not that it would be necessary, just a fun thing to do to liven up the village.
There was a guy, I can't remember his name, who had a private UO server running. He had a system where you could start the program, do a set number of actions, and his server recorded it and then you could play it on a loop while you were logged off.
I had a character that chopped wood (and collected logs too), then walked around, going up to the bakery window and saying "is that pie for me?". Stopping under a large tree, looking up (text as *looks up*) then *points up*, then said "was that an owl?"
There was another player who set up a man and a woman character to sneak away and meet for a kiss and a few words of romance. The timing is challenging but doable, and it livened up our area.
Stuff like that would be cool. Someone who owned a shop could be tending it while the player was offline as well. Though I suppose he or she might have an NPC assistant who could handle that as well.
I do think some of the ideas in Chronicle of Elyria were interesting. Though if player characters eventually dies, I would rather have the possibility of playing as a child of the player character rather than being reincarnated. Building a family line could be an interesting part of an MMORPG. Accumulating (or losing and trying to regain) wealth, power, property, and influence over the course of a few generations.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Something like that could work. I was also thinking that a player could choose specific actions for a character to perform while the player is logged out. One of those would have to be sleep, then training a skill, crafting an item, etc. If the game allowed for character's to be lords or even kings, then holding court might be one of those activities. The only thing a character wouldn't do while the player is logged/camped out is adventure or travel. And, of course, those activities Would be interrupted if the player logged back in.
So, we could have scenarios where an assassin (NPC or PC) might even catch a PC while sleeping. Could AI track a player's choices and actions throughout the game so that the NPC version of the camped out player behaves like the player or not?
Being able to set a macroed schedule for all characters would be pretty cool. Crafters could make things, sleep, etc. RPers might enjoy having their characters cook and eat too. Not that it would be necessary, just a fun thing to do to liven up the village.
There was a guy, I can't remember his name, who had a private UO server running. He had a system where you could start the program, do a set number of actions, and his server recorded it and then you could play it on a loop while you were logged off.
I had a character that chopped wood (and collected logs too), then walked around, going up to the bakery window and saying "is that pie for me?". Stopping under a large tree, looking up (text as *looks up*) then *points up*, then said "was that an owl?"
There was another player who set up a man and a woman character to sneak away and meet for a kiss and a few words of romance. The timing is challenging but doable, and it livened up our area.
Stuff like that would be cool. Someone who owned a shop could be tending it while the player was offline as well. Though I suppose he or she might have an NPC assistant who could handle that as well.
I do think some of the ideas in Chronicle of Elyria were interesting. Though if player characters eventually dies, I would rather have the possibility of playing as a child of the player character rather than being reincarnated. Building a family line could be an interesting part of an MMORPG. Accumulating (or losing and trying to regain) wealth, power, property, and influence over the course of a few generations.
That's interesting. But what about this scenario...
"I knew your great great great great great grandfather, we fought together many times." lol I think a lot of gamers would rather keep their character through resurrection. But maybe a set number of deaths, a large number, like 100, would be acceptable. Some of these ideas are cool sounding, but not what a lot of gamers would want. A key to success of a game is keeping players invested. Their character is the most important part of that, IMO.
Also, going back to players running a taped program, there would be a lot of abuse with that, I'm sure. That can be a real downer for a lot of players.
But setting you craftsman to sell items along with your NPC seller, that would be safe and cool. Setting a Lord to sit on the throne for a few hours, then go to their chambers and sleep, that would be cool. If it's kept to limited actions that are "safe" then it could work out. Maybe something like telling a story, while it could be abused, it could also be more manageable if that's the only "unsafe" things players can do. It could be safe if there are in-game books that a player can be set to tell verbally (in text).
Answers
Look at the thread title again:
"Can Sandbox Open PVP MMOs be accessible for both PVE and Casual audiences? Aka Solving Griefing "
- 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
Just like, in a Dark Souls game (follow me now I know that's not an mmorpg) they decided not to have difficulty settings. They were after a very specific experience.
So is an ffa pvp game. It's a very specific experience. No toggle required.
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
Yes, it's true, there is a contingent of players who can't handle it and they go out of their way to sh*t on the experience, but the experience is why you go into that type of game.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If PKing is more costly than what they can get out of it, they won't do it.
That's "justice." And it will work if there are no "outs." Which has never been done in any OWPvP any-time-any-where game.
Let the PvPers PvP in meaningful ways (another thing missing from most of PvP) in a game built for that.
It only seems simple if you ignore this basic logic.
Once upon a time....
Thanks for the laugh today.. I needed it.
Once upon a time....
But hey, don't feel bad, the Devs for New World were just as naive', but then again, I laughed my ass off at them too, and it was a real wake up call at how clueless game devs really are.. I can't wait to see what shitstorm fuck up they end up making in the end of things.
For those that must have a gankfest, sure, let them go play their dead games with gank festing.
Once upon a time....
Or a pvp game that is enticing to pvers
Think of it as two circles that are far apart but has a small area that overlap each other. That is what your looking at. Any mention of a pve game and pvpers don't want to touch it cause its too casual, mention a pvp game and you have pvers come with the pitchforks for the evil people. That overlapping area is a small percentage of the two groups that are interested in a game like that.
Until a big aaa dev that is trusted comes along with a phenomenal system like it was said before most people are not going to trust it. And when money is on the line they don't want the risk, they want the ROI that is guaranteed.
There is a chance something could happen but its in the future, not close now. No imagination anymore really. The vision isn't really there for the industry anymore.
Not a sure fire tracking, something that's playable in a tactical sort of way.
At that point, if they aren't in a safe place (behind locked doors) then some means to bring the character into the game as an NPC, and with the primary action to run away and escape.
Maybe the owning player can set a game provided macro too in order to do a specific set of actions, and then if they are still at risk the NPC takes over and runs/fights.
This allows the bad guy to take refuge in a friends house or a guild headquarters.
It adds to game play, hopefully.
A smart player would figure out an escape rout to set a macro to.
But after that first time, if they escape, it may not work against the same people the next time.
Hopefully, the whole thing starts feeling like a RP game.
Once upon a time....
Crafters could make things, sleep, etc.
RPers might enjoy having their characters cook and eat too. Not that it would be necessary, just a fun thing to do to liven up the village.
There was a guy, I can't remember his name, who had a private UO server running.
He had a system where you could start the program, do a set number of actions, and his server recorded it and then you could play it on a loop while you were logged off.
I had a character that chopped wood (and collected logs too), then walked around, going up to the bakery window and saying "is that pie for me?". Stopping under a large tree, looking up (text as *looks up*) then *points up*, then said "was that an owl?"
There was another player who set up a man and a woman character to sneak away and meet for a kiss and a few words of romance. The timing is challenging but doable, and it livened up our area.
Once upon a time....
"I knew your great great great great great grandfather, we fought together many times."
lol
I think a lot of gamers would rather keep their character through resurrection. But maybe a set number of deaths, a large number, like 100, would be acceptable.
Some of these ideas are cool sounding, but not what a lot of gamers would want.
A key to success of a game is keeping players invested. Their character is the most important part of that, IMO.
Also, going back to players running a taped program, there would be a lot of abuse with that, I'm sure. That can be a real downer for a lot of players.
But setting you craftsman to sell items along with your NPC seller, that would be safe and cool.
Setting a Lord to sit on the throne for a few hours, then go to their chambers and sleep, that would be cool.
If it's kept to limited actions that are "safe" then it could work out.
Maybe something like telling a story, while it could be abused, it could also be more manageable if that's the only "unsafe" things players can do.
It could be safe if there are in-game books that a player can be set to tell verbally (in text).
Once upon a time....