Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is PVP with no risk like Poker with no money ?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I am with you guyz on this topic. Something like a choice of Hardcore and Non-Hardcore type of ladder, with a choice of doing solo, team of like 4-8, or even an entire guild, or clan in a tourney. Maybe not only gain status and rank but to be rewarded with an item of sorts. One idea could be like a crystal for example that would gain power with each guild,team, or solo win. The power could grant said group a special ability, or maybe grant currency for them as a whole to spend. WoW iz doing something of this sort of thing. I am not sure if there iz any consequence if you lose a battle other than losing status or some sort of rank. Guild Wars has something like this as well. Another idea could be that each player would be able to bring an item to a pvp specific vendor to barter something like a poker game, and each player could decide on their own if that item was of interest as well as acceptable as profit for the winner of the outcome with the pvp match. Just some thoughts. Good post Ginetti.
It would seem there is a majority of people in favour of having a 'hardcore' server option for most of our MMORPG games out there, according to the poll thus far, with a 2 to 1 slant.
I hope developers see this and take it as an indication of what is wanted.
I understand that our numbers voted may not be in the 100's or 1000's as yet, but i'd like to see it climb further, so if you have not done so, please vote.
Oh, and a game i've just discovered has good pvp, and is a F2P game with actualy quality (at least IMO) is 9 Dragons, give it a whirl.
Cheers,
Ginetti.
----
MMORPG's I've Played: World of Warcraft: 10/10 - Rappelz: 7/10 - Ragnarok Online: 8/10 - DnD Online: 2/10 - Runescape: 6/10 - LotR Online: 5/10 - Anarchy Online: 7/10 - CoV: 8/10 - Rohan Online: 8/10 - Guild Wars: 7/10 - Flyff: 8/10 - Warhammer Online: 8/10
My HARDCORE Story
Imo if you didn't gain armor, money ect. during pvp than you shouldn't lose it as part of pvp. In pve when you die you lose exp. in most mmo's. In pvp if you gain from pvp ( realm points, honor points ect. ) then the same should apply. This is not withstanding what I believe to be the greater point of the win/lose debate is the "why are we out here fighting in the first place"? What we gain or lose in the pvp portion of the end game both solo and as guilds/groups is an important part of the long term playability of any MMORPG.
I agree.
However, the topic here is wether a 'hardcore' PVP option should be available in most MMORPG's.
Here is another angle to look at the whole PVP angle (again, I'm by no means a developer of any kind) but why not have a total realm / clan / side bonus?
I imagine this should be gained through PVP (with certain level restrions in place of course) and be a bonus for the entire relm, in the form of a 1% damage boost, or perhaps a 1% armor boost, or something along those lines, to the guild / clan or side who had the highest PVP count for that 24 hour perior, or 1 week period.
I would really like that idea, as it would give meaning to PVP without the need of looting of any kind (but I wouldn't say we would have to rule out that option also, that could still be part of it, again i'm just throwing some ideas out there , to help highlight that there are many sides to PVP).
As a PVP player in this sort of world, I can imagine that I would strive to level up so as to be of beneficial effect to my side, in the hopes of one day aiding the lower level players espeicaly with a helping hand in the form of a boost to our side. And of course, while I myself XP and Quest, should I come across a similar leveled enemy, why not help out my realm / guild and take him or her out.
I get a bonus from it all (should my side be winning) and I'm working towards a goal for my entire side.
Actualy, this seems like lots of fun, dam I wish I knew how to make games
What do you all think of this idea, has it already been implimented in any MMORPG's ?
I head DAoC has great realm vs. realm PVP, but seems to have low numbers at the moment.
Thanks for reading,
Ginetti.
----
MMORPG's I've Played: World of Warcraft: 10/10 - Rappelz: 7/10 - Ragnarok Online: 8/10 - DnD Online: 2/10 - Runescape: 6/10 - LotR Online: 5/10 - Anarchy Online: 7/10 - CoV: 8/10 - Rohan Online: 8/10 - Guild Wars: 7/10 - Flyff: 8/10 - Warhammer Online: 8/10
My HARDCORE Story
Playing is it's own reward.
PvP with no risk is like Football or Cricket.
An excellent and excellent and exciting game. Challenging and rewarding. Never the same twice.
A sport played for enjoyment.
Not for personal gain neither to inflict loss. For pleasure.
That certainly seems like a reward to me.
Yes there are some who play for the fun, some who play for the challenge, others who do both.
So why not cater for those who desire something more risky?
----
MMORPG's I've Played: World of Warcraft: 10/10 - Rappelz: 7/10 - Ragnarok Online: 8/10 - DnD Online: 2/10 - Runescape: 6/10 - LotR Online: 5/10 - Anarchy Online: 7/10 - CoV: 8/10 - Rohan Online: 8/10 - Guild Wars: 7/10 - Flyff: 8/10 - Warhammer Online: 8/10
My HARDCORE Story
----
MMORPG's I've Played: World of Warcraft: 10/10 - Rappelz: 7/10 - Ragnarok Online: 8/10 - DnD Online: 2/10 - Runescape: 6/10 - LotR Online: 5/10 - Anarchy Online: 7/10 - CoV: 8/10 - Rohan Online: 8/10 - Guild Wars: 7/10 - Flyff: 8/10 - Warhammer Online: 8/10
My HARDCORE Story
First off you missed the understanding of the results on this poll. Many people have no problem with "A" server for pvp griefers. It will die out, and is a waste of developers time. But at least it sticks all the kids on one server, where they can complain why they have no population. It would be the same thing if you asked should there be a server for carebears. Ummm ya who is going to say no to that, as long as there is a server for your desired play type who cares what other servers there are.
Next this entire thread is pointless. Considering there are prime examples of games that have FFAPVP Full loot drop servers. Guess what that failed. UO had it on all servers, and was losing subs like crazy until they changed it. Then to nail the point home. They created "ONE" FFA PVP full Loot Server. The population couldnt even support that server. Its the lowest population server to date. Therefore it couldnt even get 2% of the population to play on that type of server.
Another FFA PVP server, with partial looting, was done in DAOC. They added 2 servers. One of those servers had to be closed because it couldnt get 10 people to log on. The other is running today but is the lowest population server of all the servers. UO flashbacks? I guess the DAOC people didnt believe the UO results. They are believers now thou.
People in this thread have explained why FFA PVP full Loot servers have all failed. There is not a single successful Non concentual PVP game ever made in any game type. Be that MMO's, Console gaming, FPS, RTS, RPG, or anything else.
So my suggestion would be, first to get a population that actually wants this style of game before you try to get a developer to build it?
Don't listen to Brainy, his entire arguments are based on lies and baseless opinion.
Lie #1 "UO had it on all servers, and was losing subs like crazy until they changed it." (see purple non-consensual chart below)
Lie #2 "They created "ONE" FFA PVP full Loot Server. The population couldnt even support that server. Its the lowest population server to date." If "the population couldnt even support that server" then why was it not closed? The whole truth is they created a hardcore server and then flooded it with the same carebear expansions and updates that were published to the carebear servers. I played there and was pissed and so was everyone else. Of course, before offending all the hardcore players, the server was well populated.
Lie #3 "There is not a single successful Non concentual PVP game ever made in any game type. Be that MMO's, Console gaming, FPS, RTS, RPG, or anything else." Ultima Online itself was a successful non-consentual PvP game:
Is PvP with no risk like Poker with no money?
Yes.
Nice graph Semp, one thing it is not showing is the number of box sets purchased. Even though UO had positive subs growth prior to trammel, they were selling tons and tons of retail boxes, but they were losing people almost as fast as they were getting them. If UO was so popular in Grief mode then explain why EQ had such a high subscriber growth rate, and explain why Trammel was so popular that Felluca (FFA PVP FULL LOOT Zone) was so dead.
As far as the "ONE" FFA PVP Full Loot shard that UO did have. It has never been very popular in comparison to the standard concentual pvp servers. Keep in mind you are still talking about the FFA PVP player base not even filling up 1 single server. Even if people tried to say it was somewhat full, it would still only represent 5%. If there were more then 5% of the total subscribers on that server they would be forced to make another server. Instead its barely remained alive.
Also UO got 1/3 of its subscribers within 1 year after Trammel was released. To put that into perspective, that would be like WoW having around 12million customer within 1 year of BC expansion. Seems like UO did just fine after trammel.
I hate and love PVP, I hate PvP on some games well on most games because its usually the highest lvl wins. I also love PvP on a few games, Level restrictions, so a level 98 cant attack a level 20. Looting in my opinion is a great thing but it shouldnt be full inventory, there should be a certain percent chance that your opponent might drop one of his or hers items. There should also be a certain place because PvP anywhere anytime is rediculous, maybe a dungeon or something I dont know but those are some ideas.
Eve. Couple of things on that. For one I thought there were some concentual pvp zones where you cannot just kill newbs anytime you want? So therefore if you go into a non restricted zone that would be concentual? Also Eve represents has what 30k people on at any one time? With 200k or so total subs overall? Considering it hasnt even made top 5 mmo's list and currently has less then 2% of the market , I hardly think that qualifies as successful. I have already conceded that UO and Daoc both have shown there is a market that represents around 2% to 4% of the total population that wants FFA PVP. But if you are going to try to argue that games should go after the 2% instead of the 98%, you can try to argue that case. But I doubt any smart developer would agree to go for that crowd. Even if they released a game for that crowd then for it to have Eve numbers then eve playerbase would have to drop to Zero? So really you are going for like .5% of the player base.
People are just different. The problem arises when game companies don't recognize this and they try to create a "one size fits all" pvp setting.
What you then get are people who are not satisfied with the game's pvp. You just can't make everyone happy with one solution.
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
Eve. Couple of things on that. For one I thought there were some concentual pvp zones where you cannot just kill newbs anytime you want? So therefore if you go into a non restricted zone that would be concentual? Also Eve represents has what 30k people on at any one time? With 200k or so total subs overall? Considering it hasnt even made top 5 mmo's list and currently has less then 2% of the market , I hardly think that qualifies as successful. I have already conceded that UO and Daoc both have shown there is a market that represents around 2% to 4% of the total population that wants FFA PVP. But if you are going to try to argue that games should go after the 2% instead of the 98%, you can try to argue that case. But I doubt any smart developer would agree to go for that crowd. Even if they released a game for that crowd then for it to have Eve numbers then eve playerbase would have to drop to Zero? So really you are going for like .5% of the player base. Is today "Guess How EVE Works Day"? I love this day. EVE actually has spaceships powered by elves, like on the teevee. Their Elven magic makes it so nothing can attack without permission.
200k subs is a successful MMOG. The majority of MMOGs released never break 20k, the ones that have broken 200 I can count without taking my shoes off. Hell, SWG and EQII peaked around 300-350k. More then that, long-term subscriber retention and growth is a successful MMOG.
Just looking at the statistics of the matter, 98% of MMOG players enjoy PvE, of those 15% enjoy roleplay, of those 65% enjoy being elves, of those 17% think pulling totally batshit insane numbers out of nowhere makes you an idiot. Thats like 8 people.
From your malformed arguments and lies in the face of facts, it's clear you are the type of person that would enjoy a carebear game, Brainy.
"Even though UO had positive subs growth prior to trammel, they were selling tons and tons of retail boxes, but they were losing people almost as fast as they were getting them." - Brainy
Really? They were losing people as fast as they were getting them? And that is why UO had "positive subs growth?" You don't seem to know what growth is! And, you clearly contradicted yourself one sentence after the other!
"It has never been very popular in comparison to the standard concentual pvp servers." - Brainy
No kidding, after playing a game for two and a half years, gaining wealth, reputation and skills, how excited would you be if you had to start all over again? The reason it has barely remained alive is because it has been destroyed worse than any other server by trying to mix a potluck of consensual updates with a hardcore server - what did we get? A mess. However, before it was messed with, it was flourishing - guess you were not there!
"Also UO got 1/3 of its subscribers within 1 year after Trammel was released...Seems like UO did just fine after trammel." - Brainy
Actually the whole truth is that the Trammel expansion only netted the game 15k subscribers six months after release, that is only 8%, it was not until the 3d expansion Turd Dawn was released that UO got a growth spurt and then lost a growth spurt. Since then it has all been downhill to around 100,000 subscriptions. Overall Trammel has done nothing but lose subscriptions, even with yearly consensual expansions.
Trammel is a mindless experience for players like Brainy.
Semp, your chart disproves your point. Brainy, please put this troll on ignore and let it be.
As for Eve. I personally like Eve. I've been considering getting a subscription to Eve. Even so.....
One successful game only demonstrates that there is a market for FFA PvP. It doesn't show the size of that market or even if there is room within that market for another game. We know that FFA PvP has never been done correctly in a traditional (fantasy) MMO setting. UO was hemoraging subscriptions until Trammel. The Darktide server on Asheron's call has always had the lowest population of all AC servers. Other games have had similar results with FFA PvP servers.
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that it's only been done right once, in a very particular environment. The real question is whether there is a big enough market to support more than one FFA PvP centered game at a time.
200k subs is a successful MMOG. The majority of MMOGs released never break 20k, the ones that have broken 200 I can count without taking my shoes off. Hell, SWG and EQII peaked around 300-350k. More then that, long-term subscriber retention and growth is a successful MMOG.
Just looking at the statistics of the matter, 98% of MMOG players enjoy PvE, of those 15% enjoy roleplay, of those 65% enjoy being elves, of those 17% think pulling totally batshit insane numbers out of nowhere makes you an idiot. Thats like 8 people.
Ok I agree I sorta did estimate on those numbers. Instead of Eve having 200k it really only has 160k, and instead of having 30k concurrent it has 23k and instead of Eve being top 5, its actually top 12 in US and Top 20 Worldwide. I dont see how thats any different from your completely made up percentages. I am going to assume you get the 65% enjoy being elves is from WoW? Ever thought that its because the elf race there just has some advantages? If the elves were so popular then why dont Hiberia in DAOC have 65% of the population with everyone elf in the realm? Your point about 98% people enjoying PVE. Ever think that some people PVE for a means to and end? I know this is a difficult concept to grasp but some people actually play WoW for PVP. Before WoW there was a huge percentage of games with some Form of PVP. So your 98% PVE number is way off base. Anyways my point is not to get into a stupid war of which classes people like, which is worthless to discuss here. I am saying that I based my conclusions on deductive reasoning. They might not be perfect but they are close enough to make the case I was agrueing for, and you did exactly the same thing.
I find that's very true in shooters, where there's physical skill required. I don't jump into a battlefield server looking for any kind of reward, other than the fun of competing.
In mmoRPGs, though? Whole other story. The fun of an MMO is usually more about progress, and the skill involved is, well, let's just say, less tangible. I don't find PvP in a RPG to be rewarding, unless the game mechanics are rewarding my character.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Now to the quote, it is true, of course. But it is not the complete truth.
It is more about how you define PvP. If you think PvP in MMORPGs is just a fighting game, just about fights, then yes you need no Lost vs. Reward, but then again there is almost no reason to PvP in a MMORPG, then i could just play games like BF2(FPS) or DoW(RTS).
And it would be fine. Multiplayer is more then enough for just figting, no need for massive multiplayer, no need for a persistant ongoing world.
But, if you think PvP is more like a warfare game, and not just a fighting game, then you need Risk vs. Reward, then you need something to lose, then Full Loot and other things to lose is absolutely neccassary.
And this is where you need a MMORPG, where you need a persistent virtual world. To fight(as a group, clan or individual) about power, money, influence, to take part in the warefare of this virtual world. Then it is not just sport, then it is not just fighting, then it is PVP.
And then PvP is not just about win some fights, then even economy, crafting/trading, politics, almost everything is PVP. And in such a game, something like Full Loot is neccassary, because you need anything like a currency, to show of victory or lose in this different parts of PvP, to earn/growth your power, influence and so on. And this currency is normally money, a good balanced economy assumed.
If you win in fighting, you get some money from full loot, and the money assure your increase of power.
If you win in market domination(trading/crafting) you get some more money, and this will assure your increase of power.
If you win in territory conflicts(win some territory, resource spots, whatever) you will get more money out of it(taxes, trading goods(resources) and this will assure your increase of power.
The same with the counterpart, if you lose, your power will decrease, in all of those parts.
And so on.. so if you see PvP more like warfare, and not just a stand alone fight, you need something like Full Loot.
With other words.. all this discussion is just about the definition of PvP, how you think about PvP, what PvP is for you.
However, there is almost not one game with such a pvp environment, without the exception of EvE maybe, and some other games(partially).
And i personally think, that there is a extremely huge market for such a game, but it has to be more of a sandbox game, more of a virtual world, then the normal mmorpg nowadays. We will see, if someone can pull off anything like that in the future.
Edit: With other words, if you take xyz mmorpg, and make just a ffa server with full loot, it is more or less doomed to fail. Because then they have not understand, what it should be. Of course, if you make something like that in a good sandbox game, with a good economy, you will have at least partially success.(best example old UO pre trammel) And i think it was more like a accident in old UO.
First off you missed the understanding of the results on this poll. Many people have no problem with "A" server for pvp griefers. It will die out, and is a waste of developers time. But at least it sticks all the kids on one server, where they can complain why they have no population. It would be the same thing if you asked should there be a server for carebears. Ummm ya who is going to say no to that, as long as there is a server for your desired play type who cares what other servers there are.
Next this entire thread is pointless. Considering there are prime examples of games that have FFAPVP Full loot drop servers. Guess what that failed. UO had it on all servers, and was losing subs like crazy until they changed it. Then to nail the point home. They created "ONE" FFA PVP full Loot Server. The population couldnt even support that server. Its the lowest population server to date. Therefore it couldnt even get 2% of the population to play on that type of server.
Another FFA PVP server, with partial looting, was done in DAOC. They added 2 servers. One of those servers had to be closed because it couldnt get 10 people to log on. The other is running today but is the lowest population server of all the servers. UO flashbacks? I guess the DAOC people didnt believe the UO results. They are believers now thou.
People in this thread have explained why FFA PVP full Loot servers have all failed. There is not a single successful Non concentual PVP game ever made in any game type. Be that MMO's, Console gaming, FPS, RTS, RPG, or anything else.
So my suggestion would be, first to get a population that actually wants this style of game before you try to get a developer to build it?
All your opinion, which is of course, fine.
But you claim it will die out, and that only "kids" would utilize a hardcore pvp server.
That's where you lost me mouse man.
Firstly, not all young people desire PVP, maybe or perhaps most do, I'm not sure. But certainly not "all".
Ginetti.
----
MMORPG's I've Played: World of Warcraft: 10/10 - Rappelz: 7/10 - Ragnarok Online: 8/10 - DnD Online: 2/10 - Runescape: 6/10 - LotR Online: 5/10 - Anarchy Online: 7/10 - CoV: 8/10 - Rohan Online: 8/10 - Guild Wars: 7/10 - Flyff: 8/10 - Warhammer Online: 8/10
My HARDCORE Story