EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that.
Ashes of Creation, a game that has some ex SOE EQN devs on staff, is attempting to do their version of the community event world changing things - or at least they were when they weren't going off the rails into BR land - with settlements that grow over time that trigger changes to the surrounding area (which they call "nodes") in both world building and content.
It's the players' activities around a node that influences whether the node will level up or not. And it's PvP attacks from rival nodes that can level it down.
Baby steps but we're not the only ones thinking about a more dynamic world.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
It's trivial in single player games of course but even themeparks do this to some extent with trickery.
WOW has been doing it for more than a decade with their "before and after" phased versions of villages and other battlefields. ESO does it as well although the architecture and terrain doesn't change much but the population and which notable NPCs are or are not there, before and after you do the local quest chain.
EQN had plans to bring this to another level for anyone who remembers more than the hype about voxels: NPCs were going to react to you differently and give you one of many possible quests or none at all depending on how they "felt" about you - i.e. the whole common faction things was to be done at the individual NPC/player level as well. There were also going to be community area development projects and roving mobs trying to keep you from completing it.
If they had managed to launch it as they were describing it, EQN would have shaken up MMORPG design in many important ways. They were actually trying to create a game where everyone would get a slightly different experience and servers would develop over time in ways unique to them and unlike how the other servers were developing.
Phasing is a single player experience and doesn't affect the world for others like the op is discussing.
It affects it for anyone that goes through the transition. But like I said, it's just story telling trickery. EQN's idea wasn't.
If you complete a quest and see something different because of it that's a single player experience. If someone else completes a quest and you see the result is not. Phasing was an attempt to give the illusion that you are affecting the world without hindering someone else's experience and for those that like the single player experience it works really well.
EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that.
I think that's why the survival genre does so well. You can have the world affecting changes like we discuss here but it's isolated to small servers so if something isn't going the way you like you just switch or create your own. In an mmo that isn't an option so we get limitations to what we can change. It's kind of like PVP of you think about it. If the PVP affects everyone the same then fewer people tend to tolerate it for very long. If the world changes too much not as many will stick around.
Why do you think not as many would stick around if the world changes too much?
"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 trivial in single player games of course but even themeparks do this to some extent with trickery.
WOW has been doing it for more than a decade with their "before and after" phased versions of villages and other battlefields. ESO does it as well although the architecture and terrain doesn't change much but the population and which notable NPCs are or are not there, before and after you do the local quest chain.
EQN had plans to bring this to another level for anyone who remembers more than the hype about voxels: NPCs were going to react to you differently and give you one of many possible quests or none at all depending on how they "felt" about you - i.e. the whole common faction things was to be done at the individual NPC/player level as well. There were also going to be community area development projects and roving mobs trying to keep you from completing it.
If they had managed to launch it as they were describing it, EQN would have shaken up MMORPG design in many important ways. They were actually trying to create a game where everyone would get a slightly different experience and servers would develop over time in ways unique to them and unlike how the other servers were developing.
Phasing is a single player experience and doesn't affect the world for others like the op is discussing.
It affects it for anyone that goes through the transition. But like I said, it's just story telling trickery. EQN's idea wasn't.
If you complete a quest and see something different because of it that's a single player experience. If someone else completes a quest and you see the result is not. Phasing was an attempt to give the illusion that you are affecting the world without hindering someone else's experience and for those that like the single player experience it works really well.
EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that.
I think that's why the survival genre does so well. You can have the world affecting changes like we discuss here but it's isolated to small servers so if something isn't going the way you like you just switch or create your own. In an mmo that isn't an option so we get limitations to what we can change. It's kind of like PVP of you think about it. If the PVP affects everyone the same then fewer people tend to tolerate it for very long. If the world changes too much not as many will stick around.
Why do you think not as many would stick around if the world changes too much?
Well, let's put it this way ...
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
In my mind, this sort of thing needs to be an Event.
It should not end immediately, the MOBs should respawn with a limit based on "reinforcements" set by the attacking side's supply end.
This is a place where my idea of Guild Militaries works. A PvEer joins a Guild, but they don't want to PvP. They don't join the Guild's Military. But they can fill supply orders. They can use their Hirelings (attuned to their Crafting Skill) to build things, but if that's out in the field, they can lose those Hirelings to an enemy attack. The Player would have the option to send their Hirelings out there, or only use them in safe areas.
*These PvE Players can go anywhere they want, including the battle zones. But if in radius of a battle, they lose their Blocking, they turn almost transparent and ghostlike, and they can't battle with PvPers or their aligned NPC's/MOBs. However, if PvPers train outside MOBs in, the PvEers can battle with those.
Mainly the PvEers are supply side actors. But see Quests, below.
Quests can be added for both PvP and PvE. In the case of PvEers, their quests can be to attack supply caravans and bases. * This is important as it affects the Respawn rate of the main battle, based on supply, as stated above. These supply caravans and outlying bases can't be attacked by the Militaries (the PvPers) * in a reversal of the above outline, because they are "secret" runs disguised as normal caravans. They are not "officially" in the war. (This part can also be instanced, but I really don't like instancing.)
So both get to do their part in a larger scale Event.
Honestly, I don't like the idea of catering so much to PVE-only players and designing whole systems around their particular preferences. Personally, I think I would rather take the risk of alienating certain kinds of players rather than implementing such unrealistic designs (insofar as allowing some players to be incapable of being attacked by others).
That's problematic. It's a funny thing about PvP games. Even wannabe PvPers quit.
- First you have the wave of PvEers that leave, if they are there at all. - Then you have the PvPers that aren't up to snuff, and have that light bulb moment that they are losing more than winning because the PvEers left. (Or they were the initial targets.) - Then you have the next wave of PvPers because they can't all be in the top half. - Then you have still more PvPers leave, the next wave just like the last. - On and on until you barely have enough of the truly hardcore who simply don't care if they lose or not, but you don't have enough paying customers to even properly maintain your game. And then even some of them start leaving because the game just isn't active enough anymore.
From there, the writing is literally on the wall, as you can look back at every PvP game, every PvP server, and see this has happened. Except for Eve, which is really more of a Battleship game, and has no competition quite of the same kind (resource and production, in space). Finally, about Eve vs. others, never underestimate the meaning of having an actual character that a player relates to more strongly. Those pancake butts in Eve just aren't the same thing.
I know what you are trying to create, and I sympathize with you. But it's just not possible, because the above: - IS true - IS logical - and it IS completely understandable.
I've been giving you the next best options, but like all PvP enthusiasts you are not accepting the truth outlined above. I truly wish it could be different. But it won't.
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Developers don't have to make a game that everyone will enjoy. Nor should they try. Just make a game that will entertain enough players to pay the bills and make a decent profit.
Hopefully the game will be described well enough so that only those who are seeking such an experience will play it.
Anyway though, such events as logging in to find their city was being razed would be very rare events. I would use NPCs guards and soldiers quite extensively in Factions. Not just in cities and towns, but also at towers, forts, and guarded campsites throughout a Faction's territory. There would also be frequent NPC patrols (both mounted and on foot) roaming that same territory (even aerial patrols if a Faction has griffon or wyvern riders). The Players could also eventually hire & acquire NPC retainers/henchman/subordinates, some of whom they could employ to guard their dwellings. There's even the possibility that all player characters could remain in the game world 24/7. So that a player's character (controlled by AI) could help defend his/her own property while the player was offline. Though the AI would be programmed to flee if there was absolutely no hope of victory.
This could also help with Griefers. Because they wouldn't be able to escape simply by logging out. And they would need to camp out/log out in a safe location if they wanted any chance of being defending against those they had antagonized.
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.)
In my mind, this sort of thing needs to be an Event.
It should not end immediately, the MOBs should respawn with a limit based on "reinforcements" set by the attacking side's supply end.
This is a place where my idea of Guild Militaries works. A PvEer joins a Guild, but they don't want to PvP. They don't join the Guild's Military. But they can fill supply orders. They can use their Hirelings (attuned to their Crafting Skill) to build things, but if that's out in the field, they can lose those Hirelings to an enemy attack. The Player would have the option to send their Hirelings out there, or only use them in safe areas.
*These PvE Players can go anywhere they want, including the battle zones. But if in radius of a battle, they lose their Blocking, they turn almost transparent and ghostlike, and they can't battle with PvPers or their aligned NPC's/MOBs. However, if PvPers train outside MOBs in, the PvEers can battle with those.
Mainly the PvEers are supply side actors. But see Quests, below.
Quests can be added for both PvP and PvE. In the case of PvEers, their quests can be to attack supply caravans and bases. * This is important as it affects the Respawn rate of the main battle, based on supply, as stated above. These supply caravans and outlying bases can't be attacked by the Militaries (the PvPers) * in a reversal of the above outline, because they are "secret" runs disguised as normal caravans. They are not "officially" in the war. (This part can also be instanced, but I really don't like instancing.)
So both get to do their part in a larger scale Event.
Honestly, I don't like the idea of catering so much to PVE-only players and designing whole systems around their particular preferences. Personally, I think I would rather take the risk of alienating certain kinds of players rather than implementing such unrealistic designs (insofar as allowing some players to be incapable of being attacked by others).
That's problematic. It's a funny thing about PvP games. Even wannabe PvPers quit.
- First you have the wave of PvEers that leave, if they are there at all. - Then you have the PvPers that aren't up to snuff, and have that light bulb moment that they are losing more than winning because the PvEers left. (Or they were the initial targets.) - Then you have the next wave of PvPers because they can't all be in the top half. - Then you have still more PvPers leave, the next wave just like the last. - On and on until you barely have enough of the truly hardcore who simply don't care if they lose or not, but you don't have enough paying customers to even properly maintain your game. And then even some of them start leaving because the game just isn't active enough anymore.
From there, the writing is literally on the wall, as you can look back at every PvP game, every PvP server, and see this has happened. Except for Eve, which is really more of a Battleship game, and has no competition quite of the same kind (resource and production, in space). Finally, about Eve vs. others, never underestimate the meaning of having an actual character that a player relates to more strongly. Those pancake butts in Eve just aren't the same thing.
I know what you are trying to create, and I sympathize with you. But it's just not possible, because the above: - IS true - IS logical - and it IS completely understandable.
I've been giving you the next best options, but like all PvP enthusiasts you are not accepting the truth outlined above. I truly wish it could be different. But it won't.
But have all these other PVP/PVE games utilized all the systems of Law & Order/Justice, Logical Potential Consequences for Choices & Actions, and the Safeguards we've discussed in other threads?
"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.)
Honestly, I don't like the idea of catering so much to PVE-only players and designing whole systems around their particular preferences. Personally, I think I would rather take the risk of alienating certain kinds of players rather than implementing such unrealistic designs (insofar as allowing some players to be incapable of being attacked by others).
That's problematic. It's a funny thing about PvP games. Even wannabe PvPers quit.
- First you have the wave of PvEers that leave, if they are there at all. - Then you have the PvPers that aren't up to snuff, and have that light bulb moment that they are losing more than winning because the PvEers left. (Or they were the initial targets.) - Then you have the next wave of PvPers because they can't all be in the top half. - Then you have still more PvPers leave, the next wave just like the last. - On and on until you barely have enough of the truly hardcore who simply don't care if they lose or not, but you don't have enough paying customers to even properly maintain your game. And then even some of them start leaving because the game just isn't active enough anymore. ... I've been giving you the next best options, but like all PvP enthusiasts you are not accepting the truth outlined above. I truly wish it could be different. But it won't.
(1) There are the hardcore PvPers. They cannot accept anything but full loot OWPvP. Usually they behave like you describe. Some games manage to satisfy them and keep them around: EVE, Albion, Rise of Agon and a few other more niche titles. Granted, apart from EVE and Albion none has managed to keep more than just barely enough players to keep them running - most, not even that.
(2) There are the full-PvE only players. They get scared easily. They are loss and risk averse. They want absolutely 0 PvP. They are hard to satisfy while at the same time having a world that changes. There are 0 games with dynamic worlds for this category that are not extremely niche to my knowledge.
(3) There is also a big pool of players that have no problem having both PvP and PvE mixed, as long as there are no extremes (i.e. full loot PvP). I would bet this is the biggest percentage. They are fine with PvP-enabled servers, RvR games like DAoC, GvG games, games like BDO, as well as PvE only games. It is possible to design a dynamic world for them without jumping through hoops.
As for keeping players that are not up to snuff, RvR works around that problem since it reduces personal accountability. It introduces another problem - faction balancing - which is hard to solve but not impossible. EVE and Albion keeps them in a similar way: they just hug up in big zerg alliances where their lack of skills no longer sticks out.
Your example reduces the PvE-only players to support / grunt roles. I doubt they would swallow their pride seeing their PvP fellows get all the glory and fun.
"(3) There is also a big pool of players that have no problem having both PvP and PvE mixed, as long as there are no extremes (i.e. full loot PvP). I would bet this is the biggest percentage. They are fine with PvP-enabled servers, RvR games like DAoC, GvG games, games like BDO, as well as PvE only games. It is possible to design a dynamic world for them without jumping through hoops."
These are not wide open world PvPers. If they accepted that, they'd be playing those games. They probably are one of the early waves that left those games.
"Your example reduces the PvE-only players to support / grunt roles. I doubt they would swallow their pride seeing their PvP fellows get all the glory and fun."
I wonder about that too. That's why I put in their "quests" where they go after the lines of supply, and also the meaning that has to the main battles and respawn builds. So they aren't left out, they would have an important role in helping the PvPers fight off the other guys, as both sides could have NPC/MOB support.
Honestly, this sort of thing isn't what I want. I'd rather have the sort of game where the evil guys are on the other side of the mountain, and have to make their way through Guardians, and then hide if they want to stay. Their numbers much more limited (controlled by design), and THEN they could help the MOBs attacking the King. They may even be behind it all, rather than just following a planned GM Event.
For a change, let's think small instead of big. Say killing the king is not an option, but killing a insignificant merchant is. Same problem, but since missing one of many merchants (for a time, I am not saying permanent changes will work), is not a problem compared to loosing the ruler of the land. Slaying kings, gods, etc is in line with the everyone is the hero of story driven; and there lies the problem. Remove the everyone is the hero with the one ring to save the world, part, and a lot of those problems are "solved".
For a change, let's think small instead of big. Say killing the king is not an option, but killing a insignificant merchant is. Same problem, but since missing one of many merchants (for a time, I am not saying permanent changes will work), is not a problem compared to loosing the ruler of the land. Slaying kings, gods, etc is in line with the everyone is the hero of story driven; and there lies the problem. Remove the everyone is the hero with the one ring to save the world, part, and a lot of those problems are "solved".
True enough. Also, if the Game Developers don't want a certain NPC killed, there are ways to make it impossible to kill that NPC. Devs just have to be careful they haven't inadvertently given players the tools to thwart their designs.
"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.)
In my mind, this sort of thing needs to be an Event.
It should not end immediately, the MOBs should respawn with a limit based on "reinforcements" set by the attacking side's supply end.
This is a place where my idea of Guild Militaries works. A PvEer joins a Guild, but they don't want to PvP. They don't join the Guild's Military. But they can fill supply orders. They can use their Hirelings (attuned to their Crafting Skill) to build things, but if that's out in the field, they can lose those Hirelings to an enemy attack. The Player would have the option to send their Hirelings out there, or only use them in safe areas.
*These PvE Players can go anywhere they want, including the battle zones. But if in radius of a battle, they lose their Blocking, they turn almost transparent and ghostlike, and they can't battle with PvPers or their aligned NPC's/MOBs. However, if PvPers train outside MOBs in, the PvEers can battle with those.
Mainly the PvEers are supply side actors. But see Quests, below.
Quests can be added for both PvP and PvE. In the case of PvEers, their quests can be to attack supply caravans and bases. * This is important as it affects the Respawn rate of the main battle, based on supply, as stated above. These supply caravans and outlying bases can't be attacked by the Militaries (the PvPers) * in a reversal of the above outline, because they are "secret" runs disguised as normal caravans. They are not "officially" in the war. (This part can also be instanced, but I really don't like instancing.)
So both get to do their part in a larger scale Event.
Honestly, I don't like the idea of catering so much to PVE-only players and designing whole systems around their particular preferences. Personally, I think I would rather take the risk of alienating certain kinds of players rather than implementing such unrealistic designs (insofar as allowing some players to be incapable of being attacked by others).
That's problematic. It's a funny thing about PvP games. Even wannabe PvPers quit.
- First you have the wave of PvEers that leave, if they are there at all. - Then you have the PvPers that aren't up to snuff, and have that light bulb moment that they are losing more than winning because the PvEers left. (Or they were the initial targets.) - Then you have the next wave of PvPers because they can't all be in the top half. - Then you have still more PvPers leave, the next wave just like the last. - On and on until you barely have enough of the truly hardcore who simply don't care if they lose or not, but you don't have enough paying customers to even properly maintain your game. And then even some of them start leaving because the game just isn't active enough anymore.
From there, the writing is literally on the wall, as you can look back at every PvP game, every PvP server, and see this has happened. Except for Eve, which is really more of a Battleship game, and has no competition quite of the same kind (resource and production, in space). Finally, about Eve vs. others, never underestimate the meaning of having an actual character that a player relates to more strongly. Those pancake butts in Eve just aren't the same thing.
I know what you are trying to create, and I sympathize with you. But it's just not possible, because the above: - IS true - IS logical - and it IS completely understandable.
I've been giving you the next best options, but like all PvP enthusiasts you are not accepting the truth outlined above. I truly wish it could be different. But it won't.
But have all these other PVP/PVE games utilized all the systems of Law & Order/Justice, Logical Potential Consequences for Choices & Actions, and the Safeguards we've discussed in other threads?
No, but you seem to want to make all that meaningless by placing the PKer types right in the other players' back yards. They can break through those systems because it offers no real barrier on it's own. They'll be constantly calling for you to ensure that, too. And you will because otherwise they'll dis your game so badly that it'll all cave in anyways.
The Justice system is a more complicated issue, as you can't have that on everything. That's why I want to see the the mountain range, or whatever else, that can form a huge buffer. Substitute huge buffers between the lands, but without that divide the PKers will overrun the other players.
Edit: You don't seem to realize that PKers are a game developer's mortal enemy. You try to make a world, they just destroy it.
But have all these other PVP/PVE games utilized all the systems of Law & Order/Justice, Logical Potential Consequences for Choices & Actions, and the Safeguards we've discussed in other threads?
No, but you seem to want to make all that meaningless by placing the PKer types right in the other players' back yards. They can break through those systems because it offers no real barrier on it's own. They'll be constantly calling for you to ensure that, too. And you will because otherwise they'll dis your game so badly that it'll all cave in anyways.
The Justice system is a more complicated issue, as you can't have that on everything. That's why I want to see the the mountain range, or whatever else, that can form a huge buffer. Substitute huge buffers between the lands, but without that divide the PKers will overrun the other players.
Okay, so have the good and evil factions separated by a mountain range then.
"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.)
These are not wide open world PvPers. If they accepted that, they'd be playing those games. They probably are one of the early waves that left those games.
"Your example reduces the PvE-only players to support / grunt roles. I doubt they would swallow their pride seeing their PvP fellows get all the glory and fun."
I wonder about that too. That's why I put in their "quests" where they go after the lines of supply, and also the meaning that has to the main battles and respawn builds. So they aren't left out, they would have an important role in helping the PvPers fight off the other guys, as both sides could have NPC/MOB support.
I wasn't thinking only of wide open world PvPers, but mostly of PvE'ers that do not mind engaging in PvP some of the time, or being engaged even involuntarily, as long as there is no big loss on their side (I do believe the majority of players is loss-averse, not PvP-averse). For example, those that play BDO. Or those that play WoW/GW2 as a mostly PvE game but still go for some WvW/Battlegrounds for a change.
I have seen PvE-only players hissing at the slightest distinction between themselves and the PvP players in games that try to mix them. It has to be "all animals are equal". Put slightly different rewards, slightly different content, slightly different perks, and they start screaming "those animals are more equal than us", even if this is not true.
The opposite example is E:D's BGS: PvE'ers (solo/group) can help their side/faction by doing exactly the same content with the same rewards as PvP'ers (open world), be it trade/delivery missions or combat. But in this case PvP'ers cry foul (and rightly so) because they risk more (failure, loss of ship) without ANY reward for it.
They will be forced to PvP almost every game session. That's not what they want. The PKers are really into it, and they'll be loading up for it. Their mouths watering like jackals over road kill.
And forget that all Quest design. As you see, it doesn't work to really affect the game world, and make players happy, both.
These are not wide open world PvPers. If they accepted that, they'd be playing those games. They probably are one of the early waves that left those games.
"Your example reduces the PvE-only players to support / grunt roles. I doubt they would swallow their pride seeing their PvP fellows get all the glory and fun."
I wonder about that too. That's why I put in their "quests" where they go after the lines of supply, and also the meaning that has to the main battles and respawn builds. So they aren't left out, they would have an important role in helping the PvPers fight off the other guys, as both sides could have NPC/MOB support.
I wasn't thinking only of wide open world PvPers, but mostly of PvE'ers that do not mind engaging in PvP some of the time, or being engaged even involuntarily, as long as there is no big loss on their side (I do believe the majority of players is loss-averse, not PvP-averse). For example, those that play BDO. Or those that play WoW/GW2 as a mostly PvE game but still go for some WvW/Battlegrounds for a change.
I have seen PvE-only players hissing at the slightest distinction between themselves and the PvP players in games that try to mix them. It has to be "all animals are equal". Put slightly different rewards, slightly different content, slightly different perks, and they start screaming "those animals are more equal than us", even if this is not true.
The opposite example is E:D's BGS: PvE'ers (solo/group) can help their side/faction by doing exactly the same content with the same rewards as PvP'ers (open world), be it trade/delivery missions or combat. But in this case PvP'ers cry foul (and rightly so) because they risk more (failure, loss of ship) without ANY reward for it.
One of the major problems in MMORPGs with PVP are the huge power gaps between players of different Character Levels & Gear Levels. Those huge power gaps need to be eliminated. Players need to feel like they have a chance of winning, fighting back, or getting revenge. Some players might feel satisfied that those that griefed them or abused them suffered some sort of consequences for it.
The biggest problem with OWPVP in MMORPGs is that there is no overall fairness. But this need not to be so. Not if Limited/More Realistic Vertical Progression is employed (as opposed to basically Unlimited Vertical Progression). Also, advantages gained from Gear and Items must be much more limited and realistic. Some horizontal progression can be used to unlock different options. And as there many different forms of power besides combat power, there also many different possible ways to progress in an MMORPG besides attaining more and more combat power.
"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.)
One of the major problems in MMORPGs with PVPs are the huge power gaps between players of different Character Levels/Gear Sets. Those huge power gaps need to be eliminated. Players need to feel like they have a chance of winning, fighting back, or getting revenge. Some players might be justified that those that griefed them or abused them suffered some sort of consequences for it.
The biggest problem with OWPVP in MMORPGs is that there is no overall fairness. But this need not to be so. Not if Limited/More Realistic Vertical Progression is employed (as opposed to basically Unlimited Vertical Progression). Also, advantages gained from Gear and Items must be much more limited and realistic. Some horizontal progression can be used to unlock different options. And as there many different forms of power besides combat power, there also many different possible ways to progress in an MMORPG besides attaining more and more combat power.
As you mentioned, horizontal progression can help reducing level imbalances. Regular balancing should take care of the rest.
You cannot completely balance OWPVP. You need to leave the impression that the players can get an edge (in numbers, resources, positioning) at least in the moment to moment gameplay via some sort of strategy. I think all a game dev can do is try to smooth things on larger scales. You don't want overall population imbalances for example, or a dominant faction.
(But we digress from the OP :P )
Yes, of course individual battles and encounters can be unfair. A good strategy will give my side the advantage while placing the opposing side at a disadvantage. (And I also don't mean trying to balance the individual classes. MMORPGs can strive to enable players to form balanced teams, but trying to balance classes is practically impossible. (Too many skills and too many different combinations of skills.)
"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.)
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Developers don't have to make a game that everyone will enjoy. Nor should they try. Just make a game that will entertain enough players to pay the bills and make a decent profit.
Hopefully the game will be described well enough so that only those who are seeking such an experience will play it.
Anyway though, such events as logging to find their city was being razed would be very rare events. I would use NPCs guards and soldiers quite extensively in Factions. Not just in cities and towns, but also at towers, forts, and guarded campsites throughout a Faction's territory. There would also be frequent NPC patrols (both mounted and on foot) roaming that same territory (even aerial patrols if a Faction has griffon or wyvern riders). The Players could also eventually hire & acquire NPC retainers/henchman/subordinates, some of whom they could employ to guard their dwellings. There's even the possibility that all player characters could remain in the game world 24/7. So that a player's character (controlled by AI) could help defend his/her own property while the player was offline. Though the AI would be programmed to flee if there was absolutely no hope of victory.
This could also help with Griefers. Because they wouldn't be able to escape simply by logging out. And they would need to camp out/log out in a safe location if they wanted any chance of being defending against those they had antagonized.
You asked why and he told you. Plain and simple. However this is why I keep saying that developers should be making games they want. If the goal is many players it's going to be bland.
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Developers don't have to make a game that everyone will enjoy. Nor should they try. Just make a game that will entertain enough players to pay the bills and make a decent profit.
Hopefully the game will be described well enough so that only those who are seeking such an experience will play it.
Anyway though, such events as logging to find their city was being razed would be very rare events. I would use NPCs guards and soldiers quite extensively in Factions. Not just in cities and towns, but also at towers, forts, and guarded campsites throughout a Faction's territory. There would also be frequent NPC patrols (both mounted and on foot) roaming that same territory (even aerial patrols if a Faction has griffon or wyvern riders). The Players could also eventually hire & acquire NPC retainers/henchman/subordinates, some of whom they could employ to guard their dwellings. There's even the possibility that all player characters could remain in the game world 24/7. So that a player's character (controlled by AI) could help defend his/her own property while the player was offline. Though the AI would be programmed to flee if there was absolutely no hope of victory.
This could also help with Griefers. Because they wouldn't be able to escape simply by logging out. And they would need to camp out/log out in a safe location if they wanted any chance of being defending against those they had antagonized.
You asked why and he told you. Plain and simple. However this is why I keep saying that developers should be making games they want. If the goal is many players it's going to be bland.
No it's not necessarily as plain and simple as Sovrath stated. That's why I wrote what I wrote. There's more that I could on that subject as well. Other factors that could help prevent the city of a Faction from being completely overrun. And other choices players would have even if their home city or even entire home province did happen to be conquered.
"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.)
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Developers don't have to make a game that everyone will enjoy. Nor should they try. Just make a game that will entertain enough players to pay the bills and make a decent profit.
Hopefully the game will be described well enough so that only those who are seeking such an experience will play it.
Anyway though, such events as logging to find their city was being razed would be very rare events. I would use NPCs guards and soldiers quite extensively in Factions. Not just in cities and towns, but also at towers, forts, and guarded campsites throughout a Faction's territory. There would also be frequent NPC patrols (both mounted and on foot) roaming that same territory (even aerial patrols if a Faction has griffon or wyvern riders). The Players could also eventually hire & acquire NPC retainers/henchman/subordinates, some of whom they could employ to guard their dwellings. There's even the possibility that all player characters could remain in the game world 24/7. So that a player's character (controlled by AI) could help defend his/her own property while the player was offline. Though the AI would be programmed to flee if there was absolutely no hope of victory.
This could also help with Griefers. Because they wouldn't be able to escape simply by logging out. And they would need to camp out/log out in a safe location if they wanted any chance of being defending against those they had antagonized.
You asked why and he told you. Plain and simple. However this is why I keep saying that developers should be making games they want. If the goal is many players it's going to be bland.
No it's not necessarily as plain and simple as Sovrath stated. That's why I wrote what I wrote. There's more that I could on that subject as well. Other factors that could help prevent the city of a Faction from being completely overrun. And other choices players would have even if their home city or even entire home province did happen to be conquered.
What in the hell are you even talking about?
"Why do you think people wouldn't want the works to change?"
Sevroth explains some good examples why
"But factions"
I'm wondering if you are again confused what the topic is about. Derailing yet another thread.
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Developers don't have to make a game that everyone will enjoy. Nor should they try. Just make a game that will entertain enough players to pay the bills and make a decent profit.
Hopefully the game will be described well enough so that only those who are seeking such an experience will play it.
Anyway though, such events as logging to find their city was being razed would be very rare events. I would use NPCs guards and soldiers quite extensively in Factions. Not just in cities and towns, but also at towers, forts, and guarded campsites throughout a Faction's territory. There would also be frequent NPC patrols (both mounted and on foot) roaming that same territory (even aerial patrols if a Faction has griffon or wyvern riders). The Players could also eventually hire & acquire NPC retainers/henchman/subordinates, some of whom they could employ to guard their dwellings. There's even the possibility that all player characters could remain in the game world 24/7. So that a player's character (controlled by AI) could help defend his/her own property while the player was offline. Though the AI would be programmed to flee if there was absolutely no hope of victory.
This could also help with Griefers. Because they wouldn't be able to escape simply by logging out. And they would need to camp out/log out in a safe location if they wanted any chance of being defending against those they had antagonized.
You asked why and he told you. Plain and simple. However this is why I keep saying that developers should be making games they want. If the goal is many players it's going to be bland.
No it's not necessarily as plain and simple as Sovrath stated. That's why I wrote what I wrote. There's more that I could on that subject as well. Other factors that could help prevent the city of a Faction from being completely overrun. And other choices players would have even if their home city or even entire home province did happen to be conquered.
What in the hell are you even talking about?
"Why do you think people wouldn't want the works to change?"
Sevroth explains some good examples why
"But factions"
I'm wondering if you are again confused what the topic is about. Derailing yet another thread.
Right. Because the things I wrote about have absolutely nothing to do with how the persistent game world of an MMORPG can be effected/altered by players and how it can work without breaking the game and driving most, if not eventually all, of the players away from the game.
What's wrong with you, dude?
"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.)
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Developers don't have to make a game that everyone will enjoy. Nor should they try. Just make a game that will entertain enough players to pay the bills and make a decent profit.
Hopefully the game will be described well enough so that only those who are seeking such an experience will play it.
Anyway though, such events as logging to find their city was being razed would be very rare events. I would use NPCs guards and soldiers quite extensively in Factions. Not just in cities and towns, but also at towers, forts, and guarded campsites throughout a Faction's territory. There would also be frequent NPC patrols (both mounted and on foot) roaming that same territory (even aerial patrols if a Faction has griffon or wyvern riders). The Players could also eventually hire & acquire NPC retainers/henchman/subordinates, some of whom they could employ to guard their dwellings. There's even the possibility that all player characters could remain in the game world 24/7. So that a player's character (controlled by AI) could help defend his/her own property while the player was offline. Though the AI would be programmed to flee if there was absolutely no hope of victory.
This could also help with Griefers. Because they wouldn't be able to escape simply by logging out. And they would need to camp out/log out in a safe location if they wanted any chance of being defending against those they had antagonized.
You asked why and he told you. Plain and simple. However this is why I keep saying that developers should be making games they want. If the goal is many players it's going to be bland.
No it's not necessarily as plain and simple as Sovrath stated. That's why I wrote what I wrote. There's more that I could on that subject as well. Other factors that could help prevent the city of a Faction from being completely overrun. And other choices players would have even if their home city or even entire home province did happen to be conquered.
What in the hell are you even talking about?
"Why do you think people wouldn't want the works to change?"
Sevroth explains some good examples why
"But factions"
I'm wondering if you are again confused what the topic is about. Derailing yet another thread.
Right. Because the things I wrote about have absolutely nothing to do with how the persistent game world of an MMORPG can be effected/altered by players and how it can work without breaking the game and driving most, if not eventually all, of the players away from the game.
What's wrong with you, dude?
You asked a question, he have a solid answer and you changed the discussion entirely. It's getting obnoxious.
You have players who love the
"Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and
deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but
maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So
get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is
taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc
faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Yes, Sovrath is right. Some players would like that sort of game and some players wouldn't like that sort of game. I wasn't disputing that point.
I was just trying to explain that certain design features could be implemented so that the situations he described would be rare events. But okay.
"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.)
You have players who love the
"Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and
deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but
maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So
get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is
taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc
faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Yes, Sovrath is right. Some players would like that sort of game and some players wouldn't like that sort of game. I wasn't disputing that point.
I was just trying to explain that certain design features could be implemented so that the situations he described would be rare events. But okay.
I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.
When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.
In my mind, this sort of thing needs to be an Event.
It should not end immediately, the MOBs should respawn with a limit based on "reinforcements" set by the attacking side's supply end.
This is a place where my idea of Guild Militaries works. A PvEer joins a Guild, but they don't want to PvP. They don't join the Guild's Military. But they can fill supply orders. They can use their Hirelings (attuned to their Crafting Skill) to build things, but if that's out in the field, they can lose those Hirelings to an enemy attack. The Player would have the option to send their Hirelings out there, or only use them in safe areas.
*These PvE Players can go anywhere they want, including the battle zones. But if in radius of a battle, they lose their Blocking, they turn almost transparent and ghostlike, and they can't battle with PvPers or their aligned NPC's/MOBs. However, if PvPers train outside MOBs in, the PvEers can battle with those.
Mainly the PvEers are supply side actors. But see Quests, below.
Quests can be added for both PvP and PvE. In the case of PvEers, their quests can be to attack supply caravans and bases. * This is important as it affects the Respawn rate of the main battle, based on supply, as stated above. These supply caravans and outlying bases can't be attacked by the Militaries (the PvPers) * in a reversal of the above outline, because they are "secret" runs disguised as normal caravans. They are not "officially" in the war. (This part can also be instanced, but I really don't like instancing.)
So both get to do their part in a larger scale Event.
Honestly, I don't like the idea of catering so much to PVE-only players and designing whole systems around their particular preferences. Personally, I think I would rather take the risk of alienating certain kinds of players rather than implementing such unrealistic designs (insofar as allowing some players to be incapable of being attacked by others).
That's problematic. It's a funny thing about PvP games. Even wannabe PvPers quit.
- First you have the wave of PvEers that leave, if they are there at all. - Then you have the PvPers that aren't up to snuff, and have that light bulb moment that they are losing more than winning because the PvEers left. (Or they were the initial targets.) - Then you have the next wave of PvPers because they can't all be in the top half. - Then you have still more PvPers leave, the next wave just like the last. - On and on until you barely have enough of the truly hardcore who simply don't care if they lose or not, but you don't have enough paying customers to even properly maintain your game. And then even some of them start leaving because the game just isn't active enough anymore.
From there, the writing is literally on the wall, as you can look back at every PvP game, every PvP server, and see this has happened. Except for Eve, which is really more of a Battleship game, and has no competition quite of the same kind (resource and production, in space). Finally, about Eve vs. others, never underestimate the meaning of having an actual character that a player relates to more strongly. Those pancake butts in Eve just aren't the same thing.
I know what you are trying to create, and I sympathize with you. But it's just not possible, because the above: - IS true - IS logical - and it IS completely understandable.
I've been giving you the next best options, but like all PvP enthusiasts you are not accepting the truth outlined above. I truly wish it could be different. But it won't.
In Ultima Online , The entire city of Magnincia was reduced to rubble( which you can still get in game as deco btw) , By demons in a very long running event , Magnincia was attacked by Demons because of its prideful ways , and players defended the city but in the end it was destroyed ..
The rebuilding of Magnincia during the Shadow of Virtue event was a long running event New Magnincia was rebuilt with player help some able to build there homes on the isle into a very Humble city ..
One of the best and most interesting events i have taken part in .. UO does great events .
Player can also still right now effect the world in many ways even if they are on the other side of it .
It's trivial in single player games of course but even themeparks do this to some extent with trickery.
WOW has been doing it for more than a decade with their "before and after" phased versions of villages and other battlefields. ESO does it as well although the architecture and terrain doesn't change much but the population and which notable NPCs are or are not there, before and after you do the local quest chain.
EQN had plans to bring this to another level for anyone who remembers more than the hype about voxels: NPCs were going to react to you differently and give you one of many possible quests or none at all depending on how they "felt" about you - i.e. the whole common faction things was to be done at the individual NPC/player level as well. There were also going to be community area development projects and roving mobs trying to keep you from completing it.
If they had managed to launch it as they were describing it, EQN would have shaken up MMORPG design in many important ways. They were actually trying to create a game where everyone would get a slightly different experience and servers would develop over time in ways unique to them and unlike how the other servers were developing.
Phasing is a single player experience and doesn't affect the world for others like the op is discussing.
It affects it for anyone that goes through the transition. But like I said, it's just story telling trickery. EQN's idea wasn't.
If you complete a quest and see something different because of it that's a single player experience. If someone else completes a quest and you see the result is not. Phasing was an attempt to give the illusion that you are affecting the world without hindering someone else's experience and for those that like the single player experience it works really well.
EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that.
I think that's why the survival genre does so well. You can have the world affecting changes like we discuss here but it's isolated to small servers so if something isn't going the way you like you just switch or create your own. In an mmo that isn't an option so we get limitations to what we can change. It's kind of like PVP of you think about it. If the PVP affects everyone the same then fewer people tend to tolerate it for very long. If the world changes too much not as many will stick around.
Why do you think not as many would stick around if the world changes too much?
Well, let's put it this way ...
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Well said, Sovrath. A lot people quit WoW when Cata launched. It literally changed Azeroth. What Amathe said about the human starting area was one such change.
I did quit WoW then, but not because of the world changes. It was what they did to the Guild structures with that change and my guild fell apart.
Maybe it's because EQ was my first MMOPG, so that's what formed my "expectations", but with 14 or so different starting areas, if I wanted a change, I could find it. Later on, there were still choices in areas to level up in, but not so many.
If what I spent days working on in an MMO was suddenly gone through no fault of my own, I'd leave. I don't mind developers changing "their world", but do not trust in giving that power to players. "Because I can!" is too common of a mantra for far too many people for my tastes.
It all comes down to expectations, I guess. I expect what I accomplished the last time playing an MMO to be there when I come back. I don't want to dance to thousands of other players actions each time I log in. I understand that some players enjoy, even thrive on this, though.
It does have its down side, for sure. An alt comes to the same farmer another character helped ages ago. That alt is given the exact same quest and you can't help but say, "Wolf problem again? Or is it still?" For me, I'd rather deal with "boring old repetitiveness" than "OMG! What the hell happened here!"
This old dog is learning new things here, though
- 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
It's trivial in single player games of course but even themeparks do this to some extent with trickery.
WOW has been doing it for more than a decade with their "before and after" phased versions of villages and other battlefields. ESO does it as well although the architecture and terrain doesn't change much but the population and which notable NPCs are or are not there, before and after you do the local quest chain.
EQN had plans to bring this to another level for anyone who remembers more than the hype about voxels: NPCs were going to react to you differently and give you one of many possible quests or none at all depending on how they "felt" about you - i.e. the whole common faction things was to be done at the individual NPC/player level as well. There were also going to be community area development projects and roving mobs trying to keep you from completing it.
If they had managed to launch it as they were describing it, EQN would have shaken up MMORPG design in many important ways. They were actually trying to create a game where everyone would get a slightly different experience and servers would develop over time in ways unique to them and unlike how the other servers were developing.
Phasing is a single player experience and doesn't affect the world for others like the op is discussing.
It affects it for anyone that goes through the transition. But like I said, it's just story telling trickery. EQN's idea wasn't.
If you complete a quest and see something different because of it that's a single player experience. If someone else completes a quest and you see the result is not. Phasing was an attempt to give the illusion that you are affecting the world without hindering someone else's experience and for those that like the single player experience it works really well.
EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that.
I think that's why the survival genre does so well. You can have the world affecting changes like we discuss here but it's isolated to small servers so if something isn't going the way you like you just switch or create your own. In an mmo that isn't an option so we get limitations to what we can change. It's kind of like PVP of you think about it. If the PVP affects everyone the same then fewer people tend to tolerate it for very long. If the world changes too much not as many will stick around.
Why do you think not as many would stick around if the world changes too much?
Well, let's put it this way ...
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Well said, Sovrath. A lot people quit WoW when Cata launched. It literally changed Azeroth. What Amathe said about the human starting area was one such change.
I did quit WoW then, but not because of the world changes. It was what they did to the Guild structures with that change and my guild fell apart.
Maybe it's because EQ was my first MMOPG, so that's what formed my "expectations", but with 14 or so different starting areas, if I wanted a change, I could find it. Later on, there were still choices in areas to level up in, but not so many.
If what I spent days working on in an MMO was suddenly gone through no fault of my own, I'd leave. I don't mind developers changing "their world", but do not trust in giving that power to players. "Because I can!" is too common of a mantra for far too many people for my tastes.
It all comes down to expectations, I guess. I expect what I accomplished the last time playing an MMO to be there when I come back. I don't want to dance to thousands of other players actions each time I log in. I understand that some players enjoy, even thrive on this, though.
It does have its down side, for sure. An alt comes to the same farmer another character helped ages ago. That alt is given the exact same quest and you can't help but say, "Wolf problem again? Or is it still?" For me, I'd rather deal with "boring old repetitiveness" than "OMG! What the hell happened here!"
This old dog is learning new things here, though
The Pre-WoTLK zombie event was AMAZING to me people wined and wined and it was cut short.
Comments
It's the players' activities around a node that influences whether the node will level up or not. And it's PvP attacks from rival nodes that can level it down.
Baby steps but we're not the only ones thinking about a more dynamic world.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Why do you think not as many would stick around if the world changes too much?
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It's a funny thing about PvP games.
Even wannabe PvPers quit.
- First you have the wave of PvEers that leave, if they are there at all.
- Then you have the PvPers that aren't up to snuff, and have that light bulb moment that they are losing more than winning because the PvEers left. (Or they were the initial targets.)
- Then you have the next wave of PvPers because they can't all be in the top half.
- Then you have still more PvPers leave, the next wave just like the last.
- On and on until you barely have enough of the truly hardcore who simply don't care if they lose or not, but you don't have enough paying customers to even properly maintain your game. And then even some of them start leaving because the game just isn't active enough anymore.
From there, the writing is literally on the wall, as you can look back at every PvP game, every PvP server, and see this has happened.
Except for Eve, which is really more of a Battleship game, and has no competition quite of the same kind (resource and production, in space).
Finally, about Eve vs. others, never underestimate the meaning of having an actual character that a player relates to more strongly.
Those pancake butts in Eve just aren't the same thing.
I know what you are trying to create, and I sympathize with you. But it's just not possible, because the above:
- IS true
- IS logical
- and it IS completely understandable.
I've been giving you the next best options, but like all PvP enthusiasts you are not accepting the truth outlined above.
I truly wish it could be different. But it won't.
Once upon a time....
But have all these other PVP/PVE games utilized all the systems of Law & Order/Justice, Logical Potential Consequences for Choices & Actions, and the Safeguards we've discussed in other threads?
These are not wide open world PvPers.
If they accepted that, they'd be playing those games. They probably are one of the early waves that left those games.
"Your example reduces the PvE-only players to support / grunt roles. I doubt they would swallow their pride seeing their PvP fellows get all the glory and fun."
I wonder about that too. That's why I put in their "quests" where they go after the lines of supply, and also the meaning that has to the main battles and respawn builds.
So they aren't left out, they would have an important role in helping the PvPers fight off the other guys, as both sides could have NPC/MOB support.
Honestly, this sort of thing isn't what I want.
I'd rather have the sort of game where the evil guys are on the other side of the mountain, and have to make their way through Guardians, and then hide if they want to stay. Their numbers much more limited (controlled by design), and THEN they could help the MOBs attacking the King. They may even be behind it all, rather than just following a planned GM Event.
And visa versa.
Once upon a time....
Say killing the king is not an option, but killing a insignificant merchant is. Same problem, but since missing one of many merchants (for a time, I am not saying permanent changes will work), is not a problem compared to loosing the ruler of the land.
Slaying kings, gods, etc is in line with the everyone is the hero of story driven; and there lies the problem. Remove the everyone is the hero with the one ring to save the world, part, and a lot of those problems are "solved".
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
True enough. Also, if the Game Developers don't want a certain NPC killed, there are ways to make it impossible to kill that NPC. Devs just have to be careful they haven't inadvertently given players the tools to thwart their designs.
No, but you seem to want to make all that meaningless by placing the PKer types right in the other players' back yards. They can break through those systems because it offers no real barrier on it's own. They'll be constantly calling for you to ensure that, too. And you will because otherwise they'll dis your game so badly that it'll all cave in anyways.
The Justice system is a more complicated issue, as you can't have that on everything.
That's why I want to see the the mountain range, or whatever else, that can form a huge buffer. Substitute huge buffers between the lands, but without that divide the PKers will overrun the other players.
Edit:
You don't seem to realize that PKers are a game developer's mortal enemy.
You try to make a world, they just destroy it.
Once upon a time....
The PKers are really into it, and they'll be loading up for it. Their mouths watering like jackals over road kill.
And forget that all Quest design. As you see, it doesn't work to really affect the game world, and make players happy, both.
Once upon a time....
Yes, of course individual battles and encounters can be unfair. A good strategy will give my side the advantage while placing the opposing side at a disadvantage. (And I also don't mean trying to balance the individual classes. MMORPGs can strive to enable players to form balanced teams, but trying to balance classes is practically impossible. (Too many skills and too many different combinations of skills.)
No it's not necessarily as plain and simple as Sovrath stated. That's why I wrote what I wrote. There's more that I could on that subject as well. Other factors that could help prevent the city of a Faction from being completely overrun. And other choices players would have even if their home city or even entire home province did happen to be conquered.
"Why do you think people wouldn't want the works to change?"
Sevroth explains some good examples why
"But factions"
I'm wondering if you are again confused what the topic is about. Derailing yet another thread.
When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.
- 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