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).
Oh, I definitely wouldn't give players total freedom with the amount of offline activities their characters could perform.
I was thinking more of a number of built-in options they could perform. Different options available depending on what skills and abilities their characters possess, and according to their social, economic, political, and military status.
And, yes, it would probably be better to have the players continue to play a single character.
However, a different kind of MMORPG could be designed around the idea of building a familial dynasty.
"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).
Oh, I definitely wouldn't give players total freedom with the amount of offline activities their characters could perform.
I was thinking more of a number of built-in options they could perform. Different options available depending on what skills and abilities their characters possess, and according to their social, economic, political, and military status.
And, yes, it would probably be better to have the players continue to play a single character.
However, a different kind of MMORPG could be designed around the idea of building a familial dynasty.
That would be a good way to go. You've put some thought into this. Now, I've been up all night and my RL avatar needs to hit the sleep macro.
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).
Oh, I definitely wouldn't give players total freedom with the amount of offline activities their characters could perform.
I was thinking more of a number of built-in options they could perform. Different options available depending on what skills and abilities their characters possess, and according to their social, economic, political, and military status.
And, yes, it would probably be better to have the players continue to play a single character.
However, a different kind of MMORPG could be designed around the idea of building a familial dynasty.
That would be a good way to go. You've put some thought into this. Now, I've been up all night and my RL avatar needs to hit the sleep macro.
Have a good night, bro.
"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.)
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Nah. Though it may be a startling example of how some people are totally closed-minded.
"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.)
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Nah. Though it may be a startling example of how some people are totally closed-minded.
I agree. People speaking about massively multiplayer games as if they are the only ones in a world of thousands.
"Let's bandy ideas about how a PvP AND PvE game can punish PvPers so they won't play and still meet my/our needs."
Square peg, meet round hole.
- 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
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Nah. Though it may be a startling example of how some people are totally closed-minded.
So out there in the big world where all the players exist that might play these games aren't they also close minded to some extent?
I only play games with clear areas for PvP like BGs and I don't PvP if it is open world. If I can avoid it I do in open world games like BDO or Archeage. I don't however go on the game boards and complain about it I just don't buy the game that does not cater to my desires. I think most people are like me they just skip games that have PvP if they have no desire to play them. I don't think a lot of PvE players put much thought into it they are not going to play a game where they might end up as prey so they just don't play it, no matter what system you try to entice them with because they are all too familiar with the success(failure) of those systems.
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Well I can only speak for myself and my own experiences with MMO's for the last 30 some odd years on this.
Originally they did CoExist, back in the days of AOL online game, where they were text based games, Gemstone IV, being a great example of this, where there was a single game world where thousands of players coexisted, that had open world PvP. But keep in mind, in these games, there was a strong drive for realism, like needing to have a sheath to store a dagger, and having belt pouches that you attached to your belt, Etc. Back then, PvP was considered a "Necessary part of Role Play" this is because, well in games like D&D, PvP was in fact allowed, you could attack anyone and anything, including other players. So players were in fact able to settle their differences through violence if that is how they wanted to handle things, and the idea of PvP being a part of role play was in fact started in those Pen&Paper games. However, keep in mind those games were often small groups of reoccuring people, typically the same 4 - 10 people every week for game night. So it was a very controlled group.
Even later in online games like Gemstone IV and Dragonrealms, while yes, you went from 4 - 10 people now to a world full of 1,000+ people all playing at the same time, it still was a group of people looking for a role playing game. Not just people looking to be trolls and asshats.
But even way back then, people would use the excuse "I am role playing evil" as a justification to a complete asshat.
And that got old fast.
Jump to EQ, and suddenly they removed PvP, and now, the game and game world is far more prolific. Sure they still had their PvP servers for the players that believed that PvP was the golden chalice of role play, but they didn't hold a candle to the populations that the PvE servers held.
A new world is born, and Game Developers realized that PvP was not "All That" , that PvP was not needed to make a fun, realistic game world, nor was it needed for Role Play. This of course was not met well by the people that wanted to bully and abuse other players, and the name calling like "carebear" and the like started, but PvE thrived, because those players didn't want to deal with the griefing asshats.
However, some players enjoyed the thrill and challenge of facing other players, this has held true in many games over time, going right back to games like chess, where the best challenge was another player.
So some developers opted to make games where the PvP was important, it was not a role play thing, but a important part of the game, and the game world changed again, Arena games, Battle Royals, Realms vs Realms, these games where PvP was the game were born. And the players that enjoyed PvP flocked to those games and if the numbers tell us anything, they are loving the hell out of that.
These two groups are more than happy to leave each other to their own games, as they are enjoying what they have.
Case in point, I have never in my life while playing an Arena game, heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
I have also, in my entire like of playing PvE games heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
Which leaves us with one small subset of gamer that was left out in the cold. The griefing asshat, that wanted to put a bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later, these players that wanted to use PvP to bully, abuse, and harass other players.
And even then, there are games that have been made just for them, often dubbed as survival games, where the whole idea is to bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later
Funny how these players don't want to play a game designed for others just like them.. maybe because.. NO ONEwants to take a bullet into the Ass while they are Harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later ?
So that is kind of where we are right now in the game development era.
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.
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Nah. Though it may be a startling example of how some people are totally closed-minded.
I agree. People speaking about massively multiplayer games as if they are the only ones in a world of thousands.
"Let's bandy ideas about how a PvP AND PvE game can punish PvPers so they won't play and still meet my/our needs."
Square peg, meet round hole.
It's not about punishing, buddy. It's about having consequences for choices and actions which are logical and make sense. (These consequences can be good, bad, or indifferent.) In a Role-Playing game of all things.
"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.)
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Nah. Though it may be a startling example of how some people are totally closed-minded.
So out there in the big world where all the players exist that might play these games aren't they also close minded to some extent?
I only play games with clear areas for PvP like BGs and I don't PvP if it is open world. If I can avoid it I do in open world games like BDO or Archeage. I don't however go on the game boards and complain about it I just don't buy the game that does not cater to my desires. I think most people are like me they just skip games that have PvP if they have no desire to play them. I don't think a lot of PvE players put much thought into it they are not going to play a game where they might end up as prey so they just don't play it, no matter what system you try to entice them with because they are all too familiar with the success(failure) of those systems.
This thread is about coming up with solutions to the Griefer problem in MMORPGs.
However, there are some Naysayers who don't believe it is possible and attempt to derail any attempt by people on this forum to try to solve this problem. For whatever reason. If they believe it is impossible, fine. Make a thread about why it is impossible and try to convince us. But please don't get in the way of people who are positively and constructively pursuing innovation, advancements, improvements, and, yes, even progress.
Or ignore me and just continue to be a nuisance. Whatever.
(Note: This post isn't really directed at you, kitarad.)
"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.)
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Well I can only speak for myself and my own experiences with MMO's for the last 30 some odd years on this.
Originally they did CoExist, back in the days of AOL online game, where they were text based games, Gemstone IV, being a great example of this, where there was a single game world where thousands of players coexisted, that had open world PvP. But keep in mind, in these games, there was a strong drive for realism, like needing to have a sheath to store a dagger, and having belt pouches that you attached to your belt, Etc. Back then, PvP was considered a "Necessary part of Role Play" this is because, well in games like D&D, PvP was in fact allowed, you could attack anyone and anything, including other players. So players were in fact able to settle their differences through violence if that is how they wanted to handle things, and the idea of PvP being a part of role play was in fact started in those Pen&Paper games. However, keep in mind those games were often small groups of reoccuring people, typically the same 4 - 10 people every week for game night. So it was a very controlled group.
Even later in online games like Gemstone IV and Dragonrealms, while yes, you went from 4 - 10 people now to a world full of 1,000+ people all playing at the same time, it still was a group of people looking for a role playing game. Not just people looking to be trolls and asshats.
But even way back then, people would use the excuse "I am role playing evil" as a justification to a complete asshat.
And that got old fast.
Jump to EQ, and suddenly they removed PvP, and now, the game and game world is far more prolific. Sure they still had their PvP servers for the players that believed that PvP was the golden chalice of role play, but they didn't hold a candle to the populations that the PvE servers held.
A new world is born, and Game Developers realized that PvP was not "All That" , that PvP was not needed to make a fun, realistic game world, nor was it needed for Role Play. This of course was not met well by the people that wanted to bully and abuse other players, and the name calling like "carebear" and the like started, but PvE thrived, because those players didn't want to deal with the griefing asshats.
However, some players enjoyed the thrill and challenge of facing other players, this has held true in many games over time, going right back to games like chess, where the best challenge was another player.
So some developers opted to make games where the PvP was important, it was not a role play thing, but a important part of the game, and the game world changed again, Arena games, Battle Royals, Realms vs Realms, these games where PvP was the game were born. And the players that enjoyed PvP flocked to those games and if the numbers tell us anything, they are loving the hell out of that.
These two groups are more than happy to leave each other to their own games, as they are enjoying what they have.
Case in point, I have never in my life while playing an Arena game, heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
I have also, in my entire like of playing PvE games heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
Which leaves us with one small subset of gamer that was left out in the cold. The griefing asshat, that wanted to put a bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later, these players that wanted to use PvP to bully, abuse, and harass other players.
And even then, there are games that have been made just for them, often dubbed as survival games, where the whole idea is to bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later
Funny how these players don't want to play a game designed for others just like them.. maybe because.. NO ONEwants to take a bullet into the Ass while they are Harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later ?
So that is kind of where we are right now in the game development era.
Gee, well, why can't we design a game that makes it more problematic or difficult for people to behave like bullies or a**shats? Why can't we make a PVP/PVE game that discourages players from bullying, abusing, and stalking/harassing other players?
Note: Role-Playing a criminal, a villain, or an enemy soldier/combatant in an MMORPG does not automatically equate to being a bully, abuser, stalker, harasser, or griefer.
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.)
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Well I can only speak for myself and my own experiences with MMO's for the last 30 some odd years on this.
Originally they did CoExist, back in the days of AOL online game, where they were text based games, Gemstone IV, being a great example of this, where there was a single game world where thousands of players coexisted, that had open world PvP. But keep in mind, in these games, there was a strong drive for realism, like needing to have a sheath to store a dagger, and having belt pouches that you attached to your belt, Etc. Back then, PvP was considered a "Necessary part of Role Play" this is because, well in games like D&D, PvP was in fact allowed, you could attack anyone and anything, including other players. So players were in fact able to settle their differences through violence if that is how they wanted to handle things, and the idea of PvP being a part of role play was in fact started in those Pen&Paper games. However, keep in mind those games were often small groups of reoccuring people, typically the same 4 - 10 people every week for game night. So it was a very controlled group.
Even later in online games like Gemstone IV and Dragonrealms, while yes, you went from 4 - 10 people now to a world full of 1,000+ people all playing at the same time, it still was a group of people looking for a role playing game. Not just people looking to be trolls and asshats.
But even way back then, people would use the excuse "I am role playing evil" as a justification to a complete asshat.
And that got old fast.
Jump to EQ, and suddenly they removed PvP, and now, the game and game world is far more prolific. Sure they still had their PvP servers for the players that believed that PvP was the golden chalice of role play, but they didn't hold a candle to the populations that the PvE servers held.
A new world is born, and Game Developers realized that PvP was not "All That" , that PvP was not needed to make a fun, realistic game world, nor was it needed for Role Play. This of course was not met well by the people that wanted to bully and abuse other players, and the name calling like "carebear" and the like started, but PvE thrived, because those players didn't want to deal with the griefing asshats.
However, some players enjoyed the thrill and challenge of facing other players, this has held true in many games over time, going right back to games like chess, where the best challenge was another player.
So some developers opted to make games where the PvP was important, it was not a role play thing, but a important part of the game, and the game world changed again, Arena games, Battle Royals, Realms vs Realms, these games where PvP was the game were born. And the players that enjoyed PvP flocked to those games and if the numbers tell us anything, they are loving the hell out of that.
These two groups are more than happy to leave each other to their own games, as they are enjoying what they have.
Case in point, I have never in my life while playing an Arena game, heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
I have also, in my entire like of playing PvE games heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
Which leaves us with one small subset of gamer that was left out in the cold. The griefing asshat, that wanted to put a bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later, these players that wanted to use PvP to bully, abuse, and harass other players.
And even then, there are games that have been made just for them, often dubbed as survival games, where the whole idea is to bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later
Funny how these players don't want to play a game designed for others just like them.. maybe because.. NO ONEwants to take a bullet into the Ass while they are Harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later ?
So that is kind of where we are right now in the game development era.
Gee, well, why can't we design a game that makes it more problematic or difficult for people to behave like bullies or a**shats? Why can't we make a PVP/PVE game that discourages players from bullying, abusing, and stalking/harassing other players.
Note: Role-Playing a criminal, a villain, or an enemy soldier/combatant in an MMORPG does not automatically equate to being a bully, abuser, stalker, harasser, or griefer.
I sincerely think that is something that you don't seem to grasp from my posts. I am not against PvP, I used to play Open World PvP games, for many years in fact.
The thing is, for as long as we have had Open World PvP games, we have had systems to try and reign in the fuckery. Even as far back as games like Gemstone IV, made in 1988, they had rules for PvP, like if you killed someone in town you would be thrown in Jail, for X number of playtime house, which you had to be logged in for, on top of that there was fines, and if you did to too much, the town guards would kill you on sight and shop keepers would not sell/trade with you.
Sound like your idea a bit?
Don't get me wrong, it's novel to see people have this rosey view of humanity, or some kind of earnest system that will work, but some of us have been through this already. People will use "I am role playing evil" to justify being huge asshats and pool shitters.
Even the players got involved and formed an Alliance of players that made an "Oath" to hunt down any "evil" player, and expunge them from the game, couple this with Potential Perma Death, and you had a mess. In retort, the evil players made their own Squad, and they waged a war.
Did this stop the asshattery? Did this stop the ganking? This is stop people from being huge ginormous douchebags? No.. no it didn't.
Know why? because to those kinds of people, being a douchebag is it's own reward. LOL, just look at the trolls on a message board. They get nothing but the joy of trolling, and they do it. Ban them and they just make new accounts.
No one is trying to crush your dreams, but what you are talking about didn't work, and games have moved past that stage.
The reality is, what you want has already been made, many times over, you either have not played it, or didn't like 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.
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Well I can only speak for myself and my own experiences with MMO's for the last 30 some odd years on this.
Originally they did CoExist, back in the days of AOL online game, where they were text based games, Gemstone IV, being a great example of this, where there was a single game world where thousands of players coexisted, that had open world PvP. But keep in mind, in these games, there was a strong drive for realism, like needing to have a sheath to store a dagger, and having belt pouches that you attached to your belt, Etc. Back then, PvP was considered a "Necessary part of Role Play" this is because, well in games like D&D, PvP was in fact allowed, you could attack anyone and anything, including other players. So players were in fact able to settle their differences through violence if that is how they wanted to handle things, and the idea of PvP being a part of role play was in fact started in those Pen&Paper games. However, keep in mind those games were often small groups of reoccuring people, typically the same 4 - 10 people every week for game night. So it was a very controlled group.
Even later in online games like Gemstone IV and Dragonrealms, while yes, you went from 4 - 10 people now to a world full of 1,000+ people all playing at the same time, it still was a group of people looking for a role playing game. Not just people looking to be trolls and asshats.
But even way back then, people would use the excuse "I am role playing evil" as a justification to a complete asshat.
And that got old fast.
Jump to EQ, and suddenly they removed PvP, and now, the game and game world is far more prolific. Sure they still had their PvP servers for the players that believed that PvP was the golden chalice of role play, but they didn't hold a candle to the populations that the PvE servers held.
A new world is born, and Game Developers realized that PvP was not "All That" , that PvP was not needed to make a fun, realistic game world, nor was it needed for Role Play. This of course was not met well by the people that wanted to bully and abuse other players, and the name calling like "carebear" and the like started, but PvE thrived, because those players didn't want to deal with the griefing asshats.
However, some players enjoyed the thrill and challenge of facing other players, this has held true in many games over time, going right back to games like chess, where the best challenge was another player.
So some developers opted to make games where the PvP was important, it was not a role play thing, but a important part of the game, and the game world changed again, Arena games, Battle Royals, Realms vs Realms, these games where PvP was the game were born. And the players that enjoyed PvP flocked to those games and if the numbers tell us anything, they are loving the hell out of that.
These two groups are more than happy to leave each other to their own games, as they are enjoying what they have.
Case in point, I have never in my life while playing an Arena game, heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
I have also, in my entire like of playing PvE games heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
Which leaves us with one small subset of gamer that was left out in the cold. The griefing asshat, that wanted to put a bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later, these players that wanted to use PvP to bully, abuse, and harass other players.
And even then, there are games that have been made just for them, often dubbed as survival games, where the whole idea is to bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later
Funny how these players don't want to play a game designed for others just like them.. maybe because.. NO ONEwants to take a bullet into the Ass while they are Harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later ?
So that is kind of where we are right now in the game development era.
Gee, well, why can't we design a game that makes it more problematic or difficult for people to behave like bullies or a**shats? Why can't we make a PVP/PVE game that discourages players from bullying, abusing, and stalking/harassing other players?
Note: Role-Playing a criminal, a villain, or an enemy soldier/combatant in an MMORPG does not automatically equate to being a bully, abuser, stalker, harasser, or griefer.
Anyway, why is someone trying to harvest a flower to make some mint tea later in a dangerous wilderness all by him or herself? Did you know that, even in modern times, it can be dangerous to walk in the wilderness alone and unarmed? It can even still be dangerous if a person isn't alone or unarmed. Wild animals can be dangerous sometimes. There can also be crazy or evil people lurking in wilderness or remote areas.
ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK! DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS!
"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?
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 ..
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Well I can only speak for myself and my own experiences with MMO's for the last 30 some odd years on this.
Originally they did CoExist, back in the days of AOL online game, where they were text based games, Gemstone IV, being a great example of this, where there was a single game world where thousands of players coexisted, that had open world PvP. But keep in mind, in these games, there was a strong drive for realism, like needing to have a sheath to store a dagger, and having belt pouches that you attached to your belt, Etc. Back then, PvP was considered a "Necessary part of Role Play" this is because, well in games like D&D, PvP was in fact allowed, you could attack anyone and anything, including other players. So players were in fact able to settle their differences through violence if that is how they wanted to handle things, and the idea of PvP being a part of role play was in fact started in those Pen&Paper games. However, keep in mind those games were often small groups of reoccuring people, typically the same 4 - 10 people every week for game night. So it was a very controlled group.
Even later in online games like Gemstone IV and Dragonrealms, while yes, you went from 4 - 10 people now to a world full of 1,000+ people all playing at the same time, it still was a group of people looking for a role playing game. Not just people looking to be trolls and asshats.
But even way back then, people would use the excuse "I am role playing evil" as a justification to a complete asshat.
And that got old fast.
Jump to EQ, and suddenly they removed PvP, and now, the game and game world is far more prolific. Sure they still had their PvP servers for the players that believed that PvP was the golden chalice of role play, but they didn't hold a candle to the populations that the PvE servers held.
A new world is born, and Game Developers realized that PvP was not "All That" , that PvP was not needed to make a fun, realistic game world, nor was it needed for Role Play. This of course was not met well by the people that wanted to bully and abuse other players, and the name calling like "carebear" and the like started, but PvE thrived, because those players didn't want to deal with the griefing asshats.
However, some players enjoyed the thrill and challenge of facing other players, this has held true in many games over time, going right back to games like chess, where the best challenge was another player.
So some developers opted to make games where the PvP was important, it was not a role play thing, but a important part of the game, and the game world changed again, Arena games, Battle Royals, Realms vs Realms, these games where PvP was the game were born. And the players that enjoyed PvP flocked to those games and if the numbers tell us anything, they are loving the hell out of that.
These two groups are more than happy to leave each other to their own games, as they are enjoying what they have.
Case in point, I have never in my life while playing an Arena game, heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
I have also, in my entire like of playing PvE games heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
Which leaves us with one small subset of gamer that was left out in the cold. The griefing asshat, that wanted to put a bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later, these players that wanted to use PvP to bully, abuse, and harass other players.
And even then, there are games that have been made just for them, often dubbed as survival games, where the whole idea is to bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later
Funny how these players don't want to play a game designed for others just like them.. maybe because.. NO ONEwants to take a bullet into the Ass while they are Harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later ?
So that is kind of where we are right now in the game development era.
Gee, well, why can't we design a game that makes it more problematic or difficult for people to behave like bullies or a**shats? Why can't we make a PVP/PVE game that discourages players from bullying, abusing, and stalking/harassing other players?
Note: Role-Playing a criminal, a villain, or an enemy soldier/combatant in an MMORPG does not automatically equate to being a bully, abuser, stalker, harasser, or griefer.
Anyway, why is someone trying to harvest a flower to make some mint tea later in a dangerous wilderness all by him or herself? Did you know that, even in modern times, it can be dangerous to walk in the wilderness alone and unarmed? It can even still be dangerous if a person isn't alone or unarmed. Wild animals can be dangerous sometimes. There can also be crazy or evil people lurking in wilderness or remote areas.
ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK! DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS!
If there is a separation where you can choose to enter the pvp or not to enter the pvp area, then it is even considered "OPEN PVP" anymore? Not by definition. If you have a location for these casuals or stricly pve players to enjoy their time without requiring contact to PVP then it's not covered in this post.
WARNING/PARENTAL ADVISORY: These are cautionary tales which may be too scary or violent for some viewers. Particularly for those who are faint of heart.
Little Red Riding Hood
Hansel and Gretel
The SEARCHERS | The Rangers Ambush By the Comanches
Bear attack scene from The Revenant
"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.)
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Well I can only speak for myself and my own experiences with MMO's for the last 30 some odd years on this.
Originally they did CoExist, back in the days of AOL online game, where they were text based games, Gemstone IV, being a great example of this, where there was a single game world where thousands of players coexisted, that had open world PvP. But keep in mind, in these games, there was a strong drive for realism, like needing to have a sheath to store a dagger, and having belt pouches that you attached to your belt, Etc. Back then, PvP was considered a "Necessary part of Role Play" this is because, well in games like D&D, PvP was in fact allowed, you could attack anyone and anything, including other players. So players were in fact able to settle their differences through violence if that is how they wanted to handle things, and the idea of PvP being a part of role play was in fact started in those Pen&Paper games. However, keep in mind those games were often small groups of reoccuring people, typically the same 4 - 10 people every week for game night. So it was a very controlled group.
Even later in online games like Gemstone IV and Dragonrealms, while yes, you went from 4 - 10 people now to a world full of 1,000+ people all playing at the same time, it still was a group of people looking for a role playing game. Not just people looking to be trolls and asshats.
But even way back then, people would use the excuse "I am role playing evil" as a justification to a complete asshat.
And that got old fast.
Jump to EQ, and suddenly they removed PvP, and now, the game and game world is far more prolific. Sure they still had their PvP servers for the players that believed that PvP was the golden chalice of role play, but they didn't hold a candle to the populations that the PvE servers held.
A new world is born, and Game Developers realized that PvP was not "All That" , that PvP was not needed to make a fun, realistic game world, nor was it needed for Role Play. This of course was not met well by the people that wanted to bully and abuse other players, and the name calling like "carebear" and the like started, but PvE thrived, because those players didn't want to deal with the griefing asshats.
However, some players enjoyed the thrill and challenge of facing other players, this has held true in many games over time, going right back to games like chess, where the best challenge was another player.
So some developers opted to make games where the PvP was important, it was not a role play thing, but a important part of the game, and the game world changed again, Arena games, Battle Royals, Realms vs Realms, these games where PvP was the game were born. And the players that enjoyed PvP flocked to those games and if the numbers tell us anything, they are loving the hell out of that.
These two groups are more than happy to leave each other to their own games, as they are enjoying what they have.
Case in point, I have never in my life while playing an Arena game, heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
I have also, in my entire like of playing PvE games heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
Which leaves us with one small subset of gamer that was left out in the cold. The griefing asshat, that wanted to put a bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later, these players that wanted to use PvP to bully, abuse, and harass other players.
And even then, there are games that have been made just for them, often dubbed as survival games, where the whole idea is to bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later
Funny how these players don't want to play a game designed for others just like them.. maybe because.. NO ONEwants to take a bullet into the Ass while they are Harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later ?
So that is kind of where we are right now in the game development era.
Gee, well, why can't we design a game that makes it more problematic or difficult for people to behave like bullies or a**shats? Why can't we make a PVP/PVE game that discourages players from bullying, abusing, and stalking/harassing other players?
Note: Role-Playing a criminal, a villain, or an enemy soldier/combatant in an MMORPG does not automatically equate to being a bully, abuser, stalker, harasser, or griefer.
Anyway, why is someone trying to harvest a flower to make some mint tea later in a dangerous wilderness all by him or herself? Did you know that, even in modern times, it can be dangerous to walk in the wilderness alone and unarmed? It can even still be dangerous if a person isn't alone or unarmed. Wild animals can be dangerous sometimes. There can also be crazy or evil people lurking in wilderness or remote areas.
ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK! DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS!
It's not just that. You've talked about a variety of safeguards. Factions- so for a (semi) PvE player they will probably play a form of "good" alignment faction, and their main antagonists will probably be Chaotic Evil. Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE. But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards. Guardians, wandering and useful in defense. Guard patrols, as Guardians. Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards. PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions. Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players. And finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions).
It's not a game for pure PvEers, but it sounds like a hell of a game. And it definitely won't be a Wide Open gank fest because of those safeguards.
Yet he just ignores all that and uses games with "outs" in their fake justice systems as proof that it can't work as intended. And now, in this last attempt at being ignorantly negative, he talks about safety inside cities. As if that's where players want to play their entire game, and claims that was good enough but still didn't work.
It just boggles the mind how some people will completely ignore the points made, and stick to their only claim, using predictable failures to support their claims. Logic is a skill that some people never bother to "level."
It's not just that. You've talked about a variety of safeguards. Factions- so for a (semi) PvE player they will probably play a form of "good" alignment faction, and their main antagonists will probably be Chaotic Evil. Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE. But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards. Guardians, wandering and useful in defense. Guard patrols, as Guardians. Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards. PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions. Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players. And finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions).
It's not a game for pure PvEers, but it sounds like a hell of a game. And it definitely won't be a Wide Open gank fest because of those safeguards.
Yet he just ignores all that and uses games with "outs" in their fake justice systems as proof that it can't work as intended. And now, in this last attempt at being ignorantly negative, he talks about safety inside cities. As if that's where players want to play their entire game, and claims that was good enough but still didn't work.
It just boggles the mind how some people will completely ignore the points made, and stick to their only claim, using predictable failures to support their claims. Logic is a skill that some people never bother to "level."
The problem is unless you strictly prevent griefing then it will happen. If it's an option, then there is an out. You can only slow them down.
But is slowing them down enough? That depends. Do you want these pve casuals to quit? All it takes is once.
You either create the game to accommodate pve players ability to completely ignore pvp or easily avoid it, or you accept that there will be people quitting or not playing. You cannot make everyone happy in one game.
It's not just that. You've talked about a variety of safeguards. Factions- so for a (semi) PvE player they will probably play a form of "good" alignment faction, and their main antagonists will probably be Chaotic Evil. Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE. But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards. Guardians, wandering and useful in defense. Guard patrols, as Guardians. Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards. PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions. Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players. And finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions).
It's not a game for pure PvEers, but it sounds like a hell of a game. And it definitely won't be a Wide Open gank fest because of those safeguards.
Yet he just ignores all that and uses games with "outs" in their fake justice systems as proof that it can't work as intended. And now, in this last attempt at being ignorantly negative, he talks about safety inside cities. As if that's where players want to play their entire game, and claims that was good enough but still didn't work.
It just boggles the mind how some people will completely ignore the points made, and stick to their only claim, using predictable failures to support their claims. Logic is a skill that some people never bother to "level."
The problem is unless you strictly prevent griefing then it will happen. If it's an option, then there is an out. You can only slow them down.
But is slowing them down enough? That depends. Do you want these pve casuals to quit? All it takes is once.
You either create the game to accommodate pve players ability to completely ignore pvp or easily avoid it, or you accept that there will be people quitting or not playing. You cannot make everyone happy in one game.
Individual games should definitely not attempt to make everyone happy. That's impossible.
Anyway, I don't think anyone is trying to prevent griefing from ever happening. Actually, if I'm honestly role-playing a criminal, villain, or enemy soldier/combatant, then I'm going to cause a certain amount of grief to players that don't like any form of competition. Or just can't handle ever losing or being the victim in an encounter.* Those people obviously shouldn't be playing a game with PVP or participate in PVP if the game allows for it in certain areas.
(*If I'm playing a good guy or hero, I can also cause some amount of grief to those playing evil or less than good characters if I defeat them a few times without them being able to return the favor.)
Even players who claim to love PVP will sometimes get irritated, frustrated, angry, embarrassed, or even feel sad if they can't ever beat an individual or group that is just better at playing the game than they are.
If PVE players absolutely cannot handle ever being the target of another player, then they obviously shouldn't be playing a game that has OWPVP period. And that's okay. PVP is not for everyone. And neither are MMORPGs for that matter. Or Football. Or Baseball. Or Monopoly. Or Chess. Or any kind of game where a person might lose. Of course, those games have rules that make it possible for either side to win. Though sometimes the other team or player is just way more skilled or experienced than the team or individual in opposition. It happens.
However, what I have seen in the vast majority of MMORPGs that have OWPVP, or even just PVP, is that the competition is really more of a Race. Who can get to higher or max level the fastest? Who can acquire BIS gear before other players? Because Character Level and Gear Level usually matter more than skill. The most skilled players might not have a chance if they aren't high enough level or don't have good enough gear. No matter how well they play. Then throw in P2W Cash Shops, allow Whales to pay to crush other players, and PVP gets really screwed up.
Players who don't start when the game is initially released, can't play 8-18 hours a day, or aren't willing or able to shell out large amounts of cash/credit may not (or probably won't) ever catch up to those at the top tier of the gaming elite.
EDIT: Mainly edited for typos and such.
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.)
It's not just that. You've talked about a variety of safeguards. Factions- so for a (semi) PvE player they will probably play a form of "good" alignment faction, and their main antagonists will probably be Chaotic Evil. Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE. But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards. Guardians, wandering and useful in defense. Guard patrols, as Guardians. Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards. PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions. Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players. And finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions).
It's not a game for pure PvEers, but it sounds like a hell of a game. And it definitely won't be a Wide Open gank fest because of those safeguards.
Yet he just ignores all that and uses games with "outs" in their fake justice systems as proof that it can't work as intended. And now, in this last attempt at being ignorantly negative, he talks about safety inside cities. As if that's where players want to play their entire game, and claims that was good enough but still didn't work.
It just boggles the mind how some people will completely ignore the points made, and stick to their only claim, using predictable failures to support their claims. Logic is a skill that some people never bother to "level."
The problem is unless you strictly prevent griefing then it will happen. If it's an option, then there is an out. You can only slow them down.
But is slowing them down enough? That depends. Do you want these pve casuals to quit? All it takes is once.
You either create the game to accommodate pve players ability to completely ignore pvp or easily avoid it, or you accept that there will be people quitting or not playing. You cannot make everyone happy in one game.
Individual games should definitely not attempt to make everyone happy. That's impossible.
Anyway, I don't think anyone is trying to prevent griefing from ever happening. Actually, if I'm honestly role-playing a criminal, villain, or enemy soldier/combatant, then I'm going to cause a certain amount of grief to players that don't like any form of competition or just can't handle ever losing or being the victim in an encounter. Those people obviously shouldn't be playing a game with PVP or participate in PVP if the game allows for it certain areas.
Even players who claim to love PVP will sometimes get angry, irritated, embarrassed, or even feel sad if they can't ever beat an individual or group that is just better at playing the game than they are.
If PVE players absolutely cannot handle ever being the target of another player, then they obviously shouldn't be playing a game that OWPVP period. And that's okay. PVP is not for everyone. And neither are MMORPGs for that matter. Or Football. Or Baseball. Or Monopoly. Or Chess. Or any kind of game where a person might lose. Of course, those games have rules that make it possible for either side to win. Though sometimes the other team or player is just way more skilled or experienced than the team or individual in opposition. It happens.
However, what I have seen in the vast majority of MMORPGs that have OWPVP or even just PVP is that the competition is really more of a Race. Who can get to higher or max level the fastest? Who can acquire BIS gear before other players? Because Character Level and Gear Level usually matter more than skill. The most skilled players might not have a chance if they aren't high enough level or don't have good enough gear. No matter how well they play. Then throw in P2W Cash Shops, allow Whales to pay to crush other players, and PVP gets really screwed up.
Players who don't start when the game is initially, can't play 8-18 hours a day, or aren't willing or able to shell out large amounts of cash/credit may not (or probably won't) ever catch up to the those at the top tier of the gaming elite.
I think you lost track of the intentions if this thread.
It's not just that. You've talked about a variety of safeguards. Factions- so for a (semi) PvE player they will probably play a form of "good" alignment faction, and their main antagonists will probably be Chaotic Evil. Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE. But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards. Guardians, wandering and useful in defense. Guard patrols, as Guardians. Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards. PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions. Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players. And finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions).
It's not a game for pure PvEers, but it sounds like a hell of a game. And it definitely won't be a Wide Open gank fest because of those safeguards.
Yet he just ignores all that and uses games with "outs" in their fake justice systems as proof that it can't work as intended. And now, in this last attempt at being ignorantly negative, he talks about safety inside cities. As if that's where players want to play their entire game, and claims that was good enough but still didn't work.
It just boggles the mind how some people will completely ignore the points made, and stick to their only claim, using predictable failures to support their claims. Logic is a skill that some people never bother to "level."
The problem is unless you strictly prevent griefing then it will happen. If it's an option, then there is an out. You can only slow them down.
But is slowing them down enough? That depends. Do you want these pve casuals to quit? All it takes is once.
You either create the game to accommodate pve players ability to completely ignore pvp or easily avoid it, or you accept that there will be people quitting or not playing. You cannot make everyone happy in one game.
Individual games should definitely not attempt to make everyone happy. That's impossible.
Anyway, I don't think anyone is trying to prevent griefing from ever happening. Actually, if I'm honestly role-playing a criminal, villain, or enemy soldier/combatant, then I'm going to cause a certain amount of grief to players that don't like any form of competition or just can't handle ever losing or being the victim in an encounter. Those people obviously shouldn't be playing a game with PVP or participate in PVP if the game allows for it certain areas.
Even players who claim to love PVP will sometimes get angry, irritated, embarrassed, or even feel sad if they can't ever beat an individual or group that is just better at playing the game than they are.
If PVE players absolutely cannot handle ever being the target of another player, then they obviously shouldn't be playing a game that OWPVP period. And that's okay. PVP is not for everyone. And neither are MMORPGs for that matter. Or Football. Or Baseball. Or Monopoly. Or Chess. Or any kind of game where a person might lose. Of course, those games have rules that make it possible for either side to win. Though sometimes the other team or player is just way more skilled or experienced than the team or individual in opposition. It happens.
However, what I have seen in the vast majority of MMORPGs that have OWPVP or even just PVP is that the competition is really more of a Race. Who can get to higher or max level the fastest? Who can acquire BIS gear before other players? Because Character Level and Gear Level usually matter more than skill. The most skilled players might not have a chance if they aren't high enough level or don't have good enough gear. No matter how well they play. Then throw in P2W Cash Shops, allow Whales to pay to crush other players, and PVP gets really screwed up.
Players who don't start when the game is initially, can't play 8-18 hours a day, or aren't willing or able to shell out large amounts of cash/credit may not (or probably won't) ever catch up to the those at the top tier of the gaming elite.
I think you lost track of the intentions if this thread.
I did? How so? Please explain.
"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.)
It's not just that. You've talked about a variety of safeguards. Factions- so for a (semi) PvE player they will probably play a form of "good" alignment faction, and their main antagonists will probably be Chaotic Evil. Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE. But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards. Guardians, wandering and useful in defense. Guard patrols, as Guardians. Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards. PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions. Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players. And finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions).
It's not a game for pure PvEers, but it sounds like a hell of a game. And it definitely won't be a Wide Open gank fest because of those safeguards.
Yet he just ignores all that and uses games with "outs" in their fake justice systems as proof that it can't work as intended. And now, in this last attempt at being ignorantly negative, he talks about safety inside cities. As if that's where players want to play their entire game, and claims that was good enough but still didn't work.
It just boggles the mind how some people will completely ignore the points made, and stick to their only claim, using predictable failures to support their claims. Logic is a skill that some people never bother to "level."
The problem is unless you strictly prevent griefing then it will happen. If it's an option, then there is an out. You can only slow them down.
But is slowing them down enough? That depends. Do you want these pve casuals to quit? All it takes is once.
You either create the game to accommodate pve players ability to completely ignore pvp or easily avoid it, or you accept that there will be people quitting or not playing. You cannot make everyone happy in one game.
Individual games should definitely not attempt to make everyone happy. That's impossible.
Anyway, I don't think anyone is trying to prevent griefing from ever happening. Actually, if I'm honestly role-playing a criminal, villain, or enemy soldier/combatant, then I'm going to cause a certain amount of grief to players that don't like any form of competition or just can't handle ever losing or being the victim in an encounter. Those people obviously shouldn't be playing a game with PVP or participate in PVP if the game allows for it certain areas.
Even players who claim to love PVP will sometimes get angry, irritated, embarrassed, or even feel sad if they can't ever beat an individual or group that is just better at playing the game than they are.
If PVE players absolutely cannot handle ever being the target of another player, then they obviously shouldn't be playing a game that OWPVP period. And that's okay. PVP is not for everyone. And neither are MMORPGs for that matter. Or Football. Or Baseball. Or Monopoly. Or Chess. Or any kind of game where a person might lose. Of course, those games have rules that make it possible for either side to win. Though sometimes the other team or player is just way more skilled or experienced than the team or individual in opposition. It happens.
However, what I have seen in the vast majority of MMORPGs that have OWPVP or even just PVP is that the competition is really more of a Race. Who can get to higher or max level the fastest? Who can acquire BIS gear before other players? Because Character Level and Gear Level usually matter more than skill. The most skilled players might not have a chance if they aren't high enough level or don't have good enough gear. No matter how well they play. Then throw in P2W Cash Shops, allow Whales to pay to crush other players, and PVP gets really screwed up.
Players who don't start when the game is initially, can't play 8-18 hours a day, or aren't willing or able to shell out large amounts of cash/credit may not (or probably won't) ever catch up to the those at the top tier of the gaming elite.
I think you lost track of the intentions if this thread.
This thread is a startling example of why the two camps cannot coexist.
Nah. Though it may be a startling example of how some people are totally closed-minded.
I agree. People speaking about massively multiplayer games as if they are the only ones in a world of thousands.
"Let's bandy ideas about how a PvP AND PvE game can punish PvPers so they won't play and still meet my/our needs."
Square peg, meet round hole.
No, the punishment is only for the PKers, not the PvPers who don't PK.
Do you honestly think that most PvPers are also PKers who have to have that in their games?
[Edited]
Nevermind. We disagree.
- 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
Answers
You've put some thought into this.
Now, I've been up all night and my RL avatar needs to hit the sleep macro.
Once upon a time....
Have a good night, bro.
Nah. Though it may be a startling example of how some people are totally closed-minded.
- 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 only play games with clear areas for PvP like BGs and I don't PvP if it is open world. If I can avoid it I do in open world games like BDO or Archeage. I don't however go on the game boards and complain about it I just don't buy the game that does not cater to my desires. I think most people are like me they just skip games that have PvP if they have no desire to play them. I don't think a lot of PvE players put much thought into it they are not going to play a game where they might end up as prey so they just don't play it, no matter what system you try to entice them with because they are all too familiar with the success(failure) of those systems.
Originally they did CoExist, back in the days of AOL online game, where they were text based games, Gemstone IV, being a great example of this, where there was a single game world where thousands of players coexisted, that had open world PvP. But keep in mind, in these games, there was a strong drive for realism, like needing to have a sheath to store a dagger, and having belt pouches that you attached to your belt, Etc. Back then, PvP was considered a "Necessary part of Role Play" this is because, well in games like D&D, PvP was in fact allowed, you could attack anyone and anything, including other players. So players were in fact able to settle their differences through violence if that is how they wanted to handle things, and the idea of PvP being a part of role play was in fact started in those Pen&Paper games. However, keep in mind those games were often small groups of reoccuring people, typically the same 4 - 10 people every week for game night. So it was a very controlled group.
Even later in online games like Gemstone IV and Dragonrealms, while yes, you went from 4 - 10 people now to a world full of 1,000+ people all playing at the same time, it still was a group of people looking for a role playing game. Not just people looking to be trolls and asshats.
But even way back then, people would use the excuse "I am role playing evil" as a justification to a complete asshat.
And that got old fast.
Jump to EQ, and suddenly they removed PvP, and now, the game and game world is far more prolific. Sure they still had their PvP servers for the players that believed that PvP was the golden chalice of role play, but they didn't hold a candle to the populations that the PvE servers held.
A new world is born, and Game Developers realized that PvP was not "All That" , that PvP was not needed to make a fun, realistic game world, nor was it needed for Role Play. This of course was not met well by the people that wanted to bully and abuse other players, and the name calling like "carebear" and the like started, but PvE thrived, because those players didn't want to deal with the griefing asshats.
However, some players enjoyed the thrill and challenge of facing other players, this has held true in many games over time, going right back to games like chess, where the best challenge was another player.
So some developers opted to make games where the PvP was important, it was not a role play thing, but a important part of the game, and the game world changed again, Arena games, Battle Royals, Realms vs Realms, these games where PvP was the game were born. And the players that enjoyed PvP flocked to those games and if the numbers tell us anything, they are loving the hell out of that.
These two groups are more than happy to leave each other to their own games, as they are enjoying what they have.
Case in point, I have never in my life while playing an Arena game, heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
I have also, in my entire like of playing PvE games heard someone say "You know what would make this game great? If you could put a bullet in my ass while I was harvesting a flower so I could make some mint tea later"
Which leaves us with one small subset of gamer that was left out in the cold. The griefing asshat, that wanted to put a bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later, these players that wanted to use PvP to bully, abuse, and harass other players.
And even then, there are games that have been made just for them, often dubbed as survival games, where the whole idea is to bullet into someone's ass while they were harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later
Funny how these players don't want to play a game designed for others just like them.. maybe because.. NO ONE wants to take a bullet into the Ass while they are Harvesting a flower to make some mint tea later ?
So that is kind of where we are right now in the game development era.
Do you honestly think that most PvPers are also PKers who have to have that in their games?
Once upon a time....
It's not about punishing, buddy. It's about having consequences for choices and actions which are logical and make sense. (These consequences can be good, bad, or indifferent.) In a Role-Playing game of all things.
The thing is, for as long as we have had Open World PvP games, we have had systems to try and reign in the fuckery. Even as far back as games like Gemstone IV, made in 1988, they had rules for PvP, like if you killed someone in town you would be thrown in Jail, for X number of playtime house, which you had to be logged in for, on top of that there was fines, and if you did to too much, the town guards would kill you on sight and shop keepers would not sell/trade with you.
Sound like your idea a bit?
Don't get me wrong, it's novel to see people have this rosey view of humanity, or some kind of earnest system that will work, but some of us have been through this already. People will use "I am role playing evil" to justify being huge asshats and pool shitters.
Even the players got involved and formed an Alliance of players that made an "Oath" to hunt down any "evil" player, and expunge them from the game, couple this with Potential Perma Death, and you had a mess. In retort, the evil players made their own Squad, and they waged a war.
Did this stop the asshattery? Did this stop the ganking? This is stop people from being huge ginormous douchebags? No.. no it didn't.
Know why? because to those kinds of people, being a douchebag is it's own reward. LOL, just look at the trolls on a message board. They get nothing but the joy of trolling, and they do it. Ban them and they just make new accounts.
No one is trying to crush your dreams, but what you are talking about didn't work, and games have moved past that stage.
The reality is, what you want has already been made, many times over, you either have not played it, or didn't like it.
Bear attack scene from The Revenant
You've talked about a variety of safeguards.
Factions- so for a (semi) PvE player they will probably play a form of "good" alignment faction, and their main antagonists will probably be Chaotic Evil.
Sure, every PK wannabe will play CE.
But they'll have to venture into Faction controlled lands and face the other safeguards.
Guardians, wandering and useful in defense.
Guard patrols, as Guardians.
Possibly Guard Towers and camps, to add more safeguards.
PvP friendlies, who will get Faction bonuses (part of progression) for aiding against Factional incursions.
Alarms to inform Faction guards, guardians, and players.
And finally, a Justice system in the case of players going against their Faction (PKers against their own, and closely aligned Factions).
It's not a game for pure PvEers, but it sounds like a hell of a game. And it
definitely won't be a Wide Open gank fest because of those safeguards.
Yet he just ignores all that and uses games with "outs" in their fake justice systems as proof that it can't work as intended.
And now, in this last attempt at being ignorantly negative, he talks about safety inside cities. As if that's where players want to play their entire game, and claims that was good enough but still didn't work.
It just boggles the mind how some people will completely ignore the points made, and stick to their only claim, using predictable failures to support their claims.
Logic is a skill that some people never bother to "level."
Once upon a time....
But is slowing them down enough? That depends. Do you want these pve casuals to quit? All it takes is once.
You either create the game to accommodate pve players ability to completely ignore pvp or easily avoid it, or you accept that there will be people quitting or not playing. You cannot make everyone happy in one game.
I did? How so? Please explain.
- 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