With the immense number of games like World of Warcraft on the market, there is no cake for me. The PvP servers in these games are not PvP servers at all, they don't encourage players to claim land or towns for their clans and they don't encourage world PvP. Why can't I loot someone on death? Its not hardcore to drop a few items on death, its hardcore to have permadeath. I want my fuckin cake. Asheron's Call Darktide was good cake, and I want more. Hell even EQ had decent PvP cake. You dropped shit when you died.
It's real simple. All those games that had PVP looting were incredibly unpopular. Most people don't want to lose items they spent a lot of time acquiring because they got ganked by some wanker 30 levels higher than they are.
It might work in games with radically different itemization than we currently have, but then again, that would also reduce the value of looting other players as well.
Have you actually played a game that allows you to lose an item on death and be killed by anyone at any time?
I have and you know what I remember? All the nice items being kept in the bank due to fear of losing them to a gank squad.
It sounds like that game was poorly designed. Allow me to inform you about Asheron's Call system, because AC did a lot of things very well. In Asheron's Call on the Darktide server or if you went red on a non PK server, if you were killed by another PK, you would drop several items. The higher level you were, the more items you would drop. The items picked to drop would be the ones of the highest value in your inventory. So if you wanted to not drop your nice items, you would buy or find lots of higher value junk items, and those would drop instead. Everybody carried their nice items in this game, and unless they were pissing lots of people off and thus being hunted down all the time to the point where they couldn't even get death items anymore, they usually wouldn't drop any nice items.
Please don't come up with opinions on certain areas of gameplay when you haven't experienced all the aspects of them on the games in the market. All UO's system did was make it so if people wanted to use more powerful items, they'd risk them for an advantage. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I'll damn well take full looting over no looting if thats all I can get. In the end, I prefer Asheron's Call's system, as it appealed to PvE and PvP players.
That sounds more like a work around than an actual feature. Like cheating the game. I never played AC so I cannot really comment on it but the whole system seems silly to mean. I mean you have to walk around with a bag full of trash and when you died, you dropped the trash so the PKs were assed out. How is that in any way different from say a WoW PvP realm where besides the capital and the 2 zones right outside, you were freely attackable by the other faction. You didn't drop anything but you didn't really drop anything in AC besides trash either.
With the immense number of games like World of Warcraft on the market, there is no cake for me. The PvP servers in these games are not PvP servers at all, they don't encourage players to claim land or towns for their clans and they don't encourage world PvP. Why can't I loot someone on death? Its not hardcore to drop a few items on death, its hardcore to have permadeath. I want my fuckin cake. Asheron's Call Darktide was good cake, and I want more. Hell even EQ had decent PvP cake. You dropped shit when you died.
It's real simple. All those games that had PVP looting were incredibly unpopular. Most people don't want to lose items they spent a lot of time acquiring because they got ganked by some wanker 30 levels higher than they are.
It might work in games with radically different itemization than we currently have, but then again, that would also reduce the value of looting other players as well.
Have you actually played a game that allows you to lose an item on death and be killed by anyone at any time?
Yes. I beta-tested for UO. It was a boring, stressful pk-fest. I jumped ship to EQ the moment it was out.
And as Blizzard has found out, most people don't want that.
With the immense number of games like World of Warcraft on the market, there is no cake for me. The PvP servers in these games are not PvP servers at all, they don't encourage players to claim land or towns for their clans and they don't encourage world PvP. Why can't I loot someone on death? Its not hardcore to drop a few items on death, its hardcore to have permadeath. I want my fuckin cake. Asheron's Call Darktide was good cake, and I want more. Hell even EQ had decent PvP cake. You dropped shit when you died.
It's real simple. All those games that had PVP looting were incredibly unpopular. Most people don't want to lose items they spent a lot of time acquiring because they got ganked by some wanker 30 levels higher than they are.
It might work in games with radically different itemization than we currently have, but then again, that would also reduce the value of looting other players as well.
Have you actually played a game that allows you to lose an item on death and be killed by anyone at any time?
I have and you know what I remember? All the nice items being kept in the bank due to fear of losing them to a gank squad.
It sounds like that game was poorly designed. Allow me to inform you about Asheron's Call system, because AC did a lot of things very well. In Asheron's Call on the Darktide server or if you went red on a non PK server, if you were killed by another PK, you would drop several items. The higher level you were, the more items you would drop. The items picked to drop would be the ones of the highest value in your inventory. So if you wanted to not drop your nice items, you would buy or find lots of higher value junk items, and those would drop instead. Everybody carried their nice items in this game, and unless they were pissing lots of people off and thus being hunted down all the time to the point where they couldn't even get death items anymore, they usually wouldn't drop any nice items.
Please don't come up with opinions on certain areas of gameplay when you haven't experienced all the aspects of them on the games in the market. All UO's system did was make it so if people wanted to use more powerful items, they'd risk them for an advantage. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I'll damn well take full looting over no looting if thats all I can get. In the end, I prefer Asheron's Call's system, as it appealed to PvE and PvP players.
That sounds more like a work around than an actual feature. Like cheating the game. I never played AC so I cannot really comment on it but the whole system seems silly to mean. I mean you have to walk around with a bag full of trash and when you died, you dropped the trash so the PKs were assed out. How is that in any way different from say a WoW PvP realm where besides the capital and the 2 zones right outside, you were freely attackable by the other faction. You didn't drop anything but you didn't really drop anything in AC besides trash either.
Well the idea was that the trash was expensive or took a while to get, so if you killed someone enough, they'd stop dropping trash and start dropping nice items. Also, some people used programs that leveled up for them while they slept, and if their macro broke and didn't log them off on death, you could kill them until they dropped their nice things. I've gotten nice items off people who decided that they had enough death items when they didn't. To say that carrying high value items was cheating is retarded. I might as well say that attacking a monster and then running away to heal while low on health is cheating.
Well the idea was that the trash was expensive or took a while to get, so if you killed someone enough, they'd stop dropping trash and start dropping nice items. Also, some people used programs that leveled up for them while they slept, and if their macro broke and didn't log them off on death, you could kill them until they dropped their nice things. I've gotten nice items off people who decided that they had enough death items when they didn't. To say that carrying high value items was cheating is retarded. I might as well say that attacking a monster and then running away to heal while low on health is cheating.
In other words the whole system promoted griefing in terms of killing players over and over again just so they would hopefully drop nice items.
And honestly, boss, you need to come up with some better analogies. It's not a very good analogy if it only make sense to you.
Running away from a monster and healing is not cheating if it is a valid part of the game. But say a certain game came did not allow you to run away and heal but you found a way around it and was able to do it. That would be cheating. Looking at AC, the game seemed to allow the drop of the most expensive item upon death so to avoid dropping really nice weapons and armor, people carried expensive crap around to kind of circumvent that particular game mechanic. I would consider to be an exploit.
Besides, you act like an avid advocate for a virtualy unrestricted, hardcore PvP. Yet you bring up a game mechanic which attemped to soften the harshness of PvP. Real PvP is like old school UO or EVE, if you die, you're assed out. That's hardcore. Not this "carry around expensive trash" nonsense.
Originally posted by heartless In other words the whole system promoted griefing in terms of killing players over and over again just so they would hopefully drop nice items.
No, don't twist my words. Its difficult to track a player around the world, but if someone was a shitty player or an asshole, then people would go far to make them miserable in the game.
And honestly, boss, you need to come up with some better analogies. It's not a very good analogy if it only make sense to you. Running away from a monster and healing is not cheating if it is a valid part of the game. But say a certain game came did not allow you to run away and heal but you found a way around it and was able to do it. That would be cheating. Looking at AC, the game seemed to allow the drop of the most expensive item upon death so to avoid dropping really nice weapons and armor, people carried expensive crap around to kind of circumvent that particular game mechanic. I would consider to be an exploit.
Don't you think the devs would change that after 8 years if it was an exploit? I'm guessing you don't think at all. Running away from a monster to avoid dieing is circumventing the game mechanic that controls the monsters AI. How do you know the devs didn't just intend for you to die rather than run?
Besides, you act like an avid advocate for a virtualy unrestricted, hardcore PvP. Yet you bring up a game mechanic which attemped to soften the harshness of PvP. Real PvP is like old school UO or EVE, if you die, you're assed out. That's hardcore. Not this "carry around expensive trash" nonsense.
I think unrestricted PvP makes the game more exciting and interesting, and it adds a new dimension to it. Like I said, i'm not a fan of lose everything when you die, but you have to lose something, or dieing becomes meaningless, and killing someone becomes meaningless. I'd rather lose everything over nothing though, and likewise for my opponent.
I think unrestricted PvP makes the game more exciting and interesting, and it adds a new dimension to it. Like I said, i'm not a fan of lose everything when you die, but you have to lose something, or dieing becomes meaningless, and killing someone becomes meaningless. I'd rather lose everything over nothing though, and likewise for my opponent.
I'm only going to repply to this part of the post because the other parts is pointless to this discussion about free PvP. I blame myself for derailing to discussion.
Anyway, dying and killing someone in a game is never meaningless. See if you died, you failed and if you killed another player you were better than him/her. It's kind of like having a friendly sparring session with your friend. You don't cause each other serious damage but you do it for fun and to see who is better. Or a game of 1 on 1 basketball--same concept.
I get imense gratification when I am low on health and kill a player who tries to gank me. I don't need for that player to drop an item or all of his items. Just knowing that I played better than him is enough to satisfy my PvP needs.
It seems that what you need is the ability to cause other players grief by punishing them somehow, when they lose, and at the same time rewarding you. For you it's not enough knowing that you are better than the player you defeated, you need to rub their nose in it. That is the problem.
See developers are slowly realizing that games are not a way of life but a form of entertainment and as such, need to be fun. It's hard being entertained when you are being punished for every mistake you make. Sometimes that mistake being crossing paths with a group of 14 year old players who decided to see how long they can keep killing you before you logged off.
Developers have realized that there is a huge market out there for MMOs but in order to cash in, they need to cater to as broader audience as possible. Hardcore MMO PvPers, unfortunately for you, are not the biggest demographic and as such their needs do not get catered to as much as casual gamers.
I'll leave you with this: most people enjoy accomplishments. Most people do not enjoy those accomplishments being taken away by a random asshole. In real life, there are laws preventing most people from killing you in broad daylight and taking your watch. So far, in video games such laws do not exist. That is the reason why WoW has 10 million players and EVE Online (though a very enjoyable game) has around 100,000 (might be more, don't remember the exact number)
It is pretty obvious that unrestricted PvP with deep penalties (full loot) has been tried and people don't like it. People giving out reasons about reasons why it is good is deluding themselves that their preference is better than others.
In fact, developers have found out that most people don't want that. The success of WOW is pretty good evidence. The clock is not going to be turned back.
It is pretty obvious that unrestricted PvP with deep penalties (full loot) has been tried and people don't like it.
Because UO never had unrestricted PvP with full loot, amirite?
People giving out reasons about reasons why it is good is deluding themselves that their preference is better than others.
Hippo gains Cold Blood.
Hippo Crits you for 2000.
You fail.
Because declaring by personal fiat "no-loot, no-PK" a superior model isn't deluding yourself, amirite?
OP is incorrect in claiming that full loot PvP is objectively superior to more recent "carebear" mechanics, but you're doing the same thing as him, just in reverse.
In fact, developers have found out that most people don't want that. The success of WOW is pretty good evidence. The clock is not going to be turned back.
I guess that explains the roaring success of EQII, which, like WoW, lacks unrestricted PvP and full looting, amirite?
Oh wait, EQ2 still falls behind EVE Online in subscriptions, a game which (gasp) features (nearly) unrestricted PvP and full looting.
Attributing WoW's success solely to its PvP model is shortsighted, to say the least. WoW was successful for its: quality and polish, art direction (which made up for its graphics), name recognition, addictiveness, and accessibility.
Yes, its lenient death penalty and softcore PvP are a factor in its accessibility. So you are correct in that a part of WoW's success can be attributed to no-loot, no-PK.
But how many WoW-like games, with the same softcore, no-risk PvP failed utterly, crushed under the tank treads of the WoW juggernaut? I dare say the market for WoW clones is rather saturated. (By WoW itself, go figure)
Will a full loot, full pk game appeal to a smaller audience? Absolutely. Is there a market for a full loot, full PK game? Absolutely.
Why don't people play UO? Because it's over a decade old. Why don't people play Shadowbane? Because it sucks donkey balls. Why don't people play EVE Online? Wait, they do; the game does quite well for itself in its own niche. It's also a Sci-Fi MMO, which tend to do less well than the traditional Fantasy genre. (I also have some complaints about some of EVE's inherent mechanics, but that's another topic...)
The market is wide open for a well made, fantasy, hardcore PvP, sandbox MMO. Build a game with WoW's polish, EvE's depth, and UO's PvP freedom... and it won't pull 10 million like WoW, but it'll definately pull in new people that WoW can't.
Because UO never had unrestricted PvP with full loot, amirite?
Because when Trammel came out most people continued to stay in Felucca, amirite?
Because declaring by personal fiat "no-loot, no-PK" a superior model isn't deluding yourself, amirite?
Because most people obviously want to lose everything they gained over the last 3 months to a bored teenager on a rampage, amirite?
The market is wide open for a well made, fantasy, hardcore PvP, sandbox MMO. Build a game with WoW's polish, EvE's depth, and UO's PvP freedom... and it won't pull 10 million like WoW, but it'll definately pull in new people that WoW can't.
You can't spell assumption without ass, amirite?
The problem is that the few people it will pull will not be enough to warant the game development costs. Remember to make a game as polished as WoW and as deep as EVE you need to throw a lot of money into the project. Besides that, EVE Online became popular relatively recently after all the balancing and new content. Not to mention the fact that not only does EVE Online allow multiple accounts they give people discounts and insentives to own multiple accounts. So it's quite possible that a lot of those accounts are not unique but are rather other accounts of existing players.
best pvp game ever = runescape... i know it's pathetic to say this but, it's really the only game with TRUE pvp (when you die you lose pretty much everything on you)
Eve-online is ok for pvp as well.. but the problem with eve is that 98% of the people are afraid to even attempt pvp, so you'll be fighting the 2% that enjoy pvp and most of that 2% = people that have played for over 2 years = you will die
I don't see why every mmorpg *must* cater to one specific group of people. I'm still waiting for a new game to be released that has TRUE pvp. One where you have the risk of death and losing everything. They could make a game like world of warcraft... with the normal pve server... but have the PvP server be REAL. I personally love having the feeling that i can die anytime and anywhere, and many others do as well. The problem is the people that are stuck in between pve and pvp
These people that are stuck in between want to be able to pvp, but not risk anything. They want to fight without the risk, and that's the majority of the "pvp community". And to these people, i stick up my giant middle finger to all of you, thanks for ruining pvp you scared bastards
I approve of your post, but why do you call WoW polished? Is it because the 3 features it has and the simplistic content are hard not to polish? Even for a PvE game its lacking in the gameplay and content departments. Thousands of different epics to choose from certainly make up a tiny portion of the content that a good PvE game should have.
Edit: This post was directed at Cortanya, I didn't expect so many people to respond in the short time it took me to write this post.
Because when Trammel came out most people continued to stay in Felucca, amirite?
Because you have stats to back that up, amirite? Because Trammel is widely regarded to having "ruined" UO, amirite? Because more of thepopularfree shards nowadays are PvP, amirite?
Because declaring by personal fiat "no-loot, no-PK" a superior model isn't deluding yourself, amirite?
Because most people obviously want to lose everything they gained over the last 3 months to a bored teenager on a rampage, amirite?
Because you speak for everybody, amirite?
Nobody's forcing you to play X game; you're just as wrong as people who bash your choice to play "carebear" games.
BTW, how dumb is it to respond to a post mocking hypocrisy with... more of the very same hypocrisy.
You can't spell assumption without ass, amirite? The problem is that the few people it will pull will not be enough to warant the game development costs.
I am in awe of your crystal ball, sir.
Remember, my claim was only that the market exists for a hardcore PvP game. Evidence: The existence of countless UO shards devoted to the T2A era, the fact that people still play crappy buggy games like Shadowbane, the fact that EVE Online is a quite popular niche game.
So, Nostradamus, exactly how few people will sign up for "WoW: PvP", "Darkfall: Duke Nukem Edition", or "Ultima Online II: Pwned"? Or even, how much will such a game cost to develop?
Remember to make a game as polished as WoW and as deep as EVE you need to throw a lot of money into the project.
I agree you need money for quality like WoW, and it's an ongoing process. To have depth like EVE doesn't inherently cost more. That's just creativity and not being lazy.
Alternatively, you can spend money to be like WoW, and get your ass kicked by WoW (see: failed WoW clone attempts). Or you can spend money to be different from WoW, and make less money off people looking for something different.
Besides that, EVE Online became popular relatively recently after all the balancing and new content.
Bollocks. Of course new content attracts people (especially high profile and visible new content like the Trinity 2 engine). But what have any of the updates had to do with PvP? EVE remains as hardcore PvP as ever.
Not to mention the fact that not only does EVE Online allow multiple accounts they give people discounts and insentives to own multiple accounts. So it's quite possible that a lot of those accounts are not unique but are rather other accounts of existing players.
So? Accounts are money, and money is money. And how's this any different from WoW, which bans thousands of Chinese farmer bots, which then have to rebuy and resubscribe?
I approve of your post, but why do you call WoW polished? Is it because the 3 features it has and the simplistic content are hard not to polish? Even for a PvE game its lacking in the gameplay and content departments. Thousands of different epics to choose from certainly make up a tiny portion of the content that a good PvE game should have. Edit: This post was directed at Cortanya, I didn't expect so many people to respond in the short time it took me to write this post.
- Because WoW has quite few truly gamebreaking bugs. Because major bugs in the game are fixed relatively quickly.
- Because Blizzard's outstanding art direction masks technical graphical inferiority. And I might add, graphical inferiority is inherent to the MMO genre simply for technical reasons. Say what you will about Blizzard, but their artists do an excellent job of making WoW (graphically weak even by MMO standards) look good.
- Because the combination of Blizzard's artistic design, world craftsmanship, and intuitive control scheme give the illusion of a very seamless environment. Contrast to GW, where your controls are extremely restricted as is your interaction with the world. Can't jump off ledges? WTF? Or EQ's horrid controls. WoW's character movement feels almost as fluid as an FPS. Freedom of movement - or the illusion thereof - is the first requirement in creating an enjoyable experience.
- Because the insidious level/gear curve is well hidden beneath of seamless overall game experience. You log into WoW. You are presented with a bunch of easy, fast quests that level you up fast. You do more quests, get better gear, on so on... before you know it, you've progressed to raiding and addicted. Watch Episode 6 of "Pure Pwnage", where Jeremy starts playing WoW and creates a new Night Elf. That nails the WoW experience to a T.
It's like a Twilight Zone episode where you don't even [i]realize[/i] you're on the treadmill... until it's too late. (Spooky music)
After my experience with WoW, I believe that the ideal MMO game must at minimum have the following features:
- "FPS" Based
As in, actual aiming and control of your character, not this "target" and "auto attack" garbage. It also needs actual moving to dodge/block/parry, not this outdate dice rolling nonsense. The reason? A game must be fun at its most basic level. People fight monsters in WoW to stay in the endless gear treadmill, not for fun. Hence why a big, bad "boss" is considered a "reward" - and the interposing "trash mobs" are exactly that. Monsters should drop loot, yes, but fighting them shouldn't be a chore, something to be skipped or exploited past if at all possible. People play FPS games for fun, without any persistent reward. Hell, even action orient games like God of War, Zelda, etc. It's fun to fight stuff.
- "Sandbox" style - Player Generated Content
I was going to write "no more grinding", but what is grinding? It's boring crap implemented to keep players occupied while developers create more stuff for them to do. In a dynamic, player run world, players create the content. This, coupled with active, engaging combat (see above) functionally eliminates (or greatly reduces) the need for "the grind".
EVE Online is an excellent example of player generated content. Everything in the game can be built by players, from the first step of mining an asteroid to selling it on the excellent auction system. You can build your own space station, which can do anything the NPC stations can. You can capture and hold territory. Show me another game in which the players have successfully launched an actual freaking IPO.
- Skill Based/No Gear Treadmill
The gear treadmill. It exists for two reasons. 1) to determine the winner and the loser, given the absence of another deciding factor, and 2) to provide players with something to do in a game with nothing else. The problem is you end up with ridiculous crap like "Super Amazing +500 Sword of Mega Slaying"... which actually sucks balls, cause it came out last expansion, see?
Gear should not make or break your character, and you shouldn't have to grind away for months raiding to get it. Look at how EVE does it - the Tier 1 stuff isn't that much worse than the Tier 2 stuff. It's also much easier to get, and you can remain competitive without the absolute best gear. Contrast WoW, where a new 70 in quest greens and blues will be absolutely destroyed by someone in Arena Season 3, or be blown up in raids without T6.
Now, if gear isn't impossible to acquire, and is hardly the be-all-end-all of combat, that opens the way for...
- Full Open PvP
Full PvP is the culmination of the above elements.
With an FPS style combat system, PVP can be fun to play. It's CS, CoD, UT, whatever - with additional elements of tactics, strategy, and logistics not present in those non persistent games.
In a non zero sum game, you end up with mudflation. In a "sandbox" game with an open economy, there must be attrition and loss to keep the economy balanced.
In a non-gear treadmill game, open PvP can be fair and balanced - newbies have a chance against veterans, and gear loss is not an insurmountable loss.
Because you have stats to back that up, amirite? Because Trammel is widely regarded to having "ruined" UO, amirite? Because more of thepopularfree shards nowadays are PvP, amirite? I don't need stats to back it up, I was there when it happened and for a few years after. I saw the wasteland that Felucca eventualy turned into. As far as those Felucca only free shards go, they don't seem to have enough players to support an actual game. Because you speak for everybody, amirite?
Nobody's forcing you to play X game; you're just as wrong as people who bash your choice to play "carebear" games. My whole argument was trying to explain why majority of developers will not cater a hardcore PvP playstyle. BTW, how dumb is it to respond to a post mocking hypocrisy with... more of the very same hypocrisy. urnotrite. I am in awe of your crystal ball, sir. Remember, my claim was only that the market exists for a hardcore PvP game.
Evidence: The existence of countless UO shards devoted to the T2A era, the fact that people still play crappy buggy games like Shadowbane, the fact that EVE Online is a quite popular niche game. So, Nostradamus, exactly how few people will sign up for "WoW: PvP", "Darkfall: Duke Nukem Edition", or "Ultima Online II: Pwned"?
Or even, how much will such a game cost to develop? Is the market lucrative enough for a MMORPG developer to make a game for it? No matter the number, I'm sure it's going to be a few million more than you have. But if you actualy do think that there is a large enough market for such a game, please feel free to write up a business plan and see if you can get anyone to invest.
I agree you need money for quality like WoW, and it's an ongoing process. To have depth like EVE doesn't inherently cost more. That's just creativity and not being lazy. Alternatively, you can spend money to be like WoW, and get your ass kicked by WoW (see: failed WoW clone attempts). Or you can spend money to be different from WoW, and make less money off people looking for something different. Or you can be Darkfall. Which if memory serves me right should come out some time after Duke Nukem: Forever.
Bollocks.
Of course new content attracts people (especially high profile and visible new content like the Trinity 2 engine). But what have any of the updates had to do with PvP? EVE remains as hardcore PvP as ever. Not really, there was a lot of complaining going on in the begining of boring gameplay which revolved mostly around staring at an asteroid. Not to mention the various game breaking bugs that were around. So? Accounts are money, and money is money.
And how's this any different from WoW, which bans thousands of Chinese farmer bots, which then have to rebuy and resubscribe? What I was trying to explain that a lot of accounts do not mean a lot of unique people. EVE Online promotes players to get multiple accounts thus numberwise their playerbase looks big. What I would like to know is how many unique people play the game. Same thing goes for WoW. 10 million is a big number but how many unique people are there?
I propose someone makes a poll(I would but I don't know how) just to see the percentage of people that actually do want a true pvp game. I would hope that more people would want a true pvp game than is suggested by some in this post.
As said by many in this post about eves true pvp concepts for people wanting true pvp to give that a test. Most people dont play eve who do appreciate its awesome(imo) pvp and player controlled territories, just simply because of its space only genre. Give me a fantasy version or a swg type model where ground is approachable as well, with player territory such as EVE and early SWG, and pvp with a risk, and I will buy that game right now.
I don't need stats to back it up, I was there when it happened and for a few years after. I saw the wasteland that Felucca eventualy turned into.
How do numbers make you feel? What does a plus sign smell like? Is the number 7 odd, or just different?
As far as those Felucca only free shards go, they don't seem to have enough players to support an actual game.
Never claimed they did - only that they represented a class of players who would be interested in a modern full PvP game.
However, with 500 people to a decent size shard, and 1000+ for a large one, that's quite a bit of devotion toward a decade old game. How many people does a niche MMO need to be successful? 50k? 100k?
Because all games that don't beat WoW are total failures, amirite?
My whole argument was trying to explain why majority of developers will not cater a hardcore PvP playstyle.
Since when did you become a mind reading game developer? Because you just know what people will like, right?
See, when I claim that people exist that like hardcore PvP, I cite evidence: the existence of UO shards, the fact that people still play a crappy game like Shadowbane, and EVE Online. You've offered nothing except assertions that people will damn well tell them what you want to like.
Holy crap, you really must be a game developer after all!
To answer your obvious troll:
Because most people obviously want to lose everything they gained over the last 3 months to a bored teenager on a rampage, amirite?
1. Nice job assuming what "most" people are thinking. Did that pearl of wisdom cost me anything, Miss Cleo?
2. Because a PvP game has to be designed in such a way that you'd have to grind for 3 months to get any gear of value, right? Because a PvP game has to be designed in such a way that if you lost all your precious gear you'd be screwed, right? Full loot won't work in a game like WoW, where you raid for months for phat epicz that double or triple your power relative to the ungeared. In game like EVE where equipment is not nearly as gamebreaking and much easier to come by...
3. EVE has 200k+ subscribers. Even considering how many may be dual accounts, apparently 100k+ people are in fact willing to risk everything for a chance at gaining everything in return. I guess " zomg teh evilz teenagerz" don't scare everybody.
Is the market lucrative enough for a MMORPG developer to make a game for it? No matter the number, I'm sure it's going to be a few million more than you have. But if you actualy do think that there is a large enough market for such a game, please feel free to write up a business plan and see if you can get anyone to invest.
Is the market not lucrative enough for a MMORPG developer to consider?
I've already proven the market exists, and I've given examples of successful games without WoW's subscription numbers.
Have you yet made a single claim without evidence?
Allow me to reiterate:
1. The hardcore PvP population exists. You can find them in UO shards, crappy games like Shadowbane, in EVE Online, or on forums and blogs wishing there were another UO.
2. A game does not require 10 million subscribers to be profitable. Hell, look at Vanguard, a AAA title with AAA development costs. 40k subscriptions.
Or you can be Darkfall. Which if memory serves me right should come out some time after Duke Nukem: Forever.
What does Darkfall even have to do with this? I was unaware that Darkfall had a copyright on unrestricted PvP.
Not really, there was a lot of complaining going on in the begining of boring gameplay which revolved mostly around staring at an asteroid. Not to mention the various game breaking bugs that were around.
And what does any of that have to do with PvP? They added new content... that's great. People still like new content. You still get blown up just as much. If anything, with the introduction of rigs, that's yet another thing you can permanently lose.
In order for you to help your case, you'll have to show EVE's subscriptions dramatically rose when they Trammel'ed it - which they've never done, and EVE's growth has been fairly even with few sharp spikes to begin with anyway.
What I was trying to explain that a lot of accounts do not mean a lot of unique people. EVE Online promotes players to get multiple accounts thus numberwise their playerbase looks big. What I would like to know is how many unique people play the game. Same thing goes for WoW. 10 million is a big number but how many unique people are there?
Who cares how many unique people play the game? You're not going to be able to easily find out that information anyway.
If your argument is that it's not profitable for developers to work on unrestricted PvP games, why do they care who's paying for an account, as long as they get their $15 bucks a month?
How do numbers make you feel? What does a plus sign smell like? Is the number 7 odd, or just different? You're funny.
Never claimed they did - only that they represented a class of players who would be interested in a modern full PvP game. However, with 500 people to a decent size shard, and 1000+ for a large one, that's quite a bit of devotion toward a decade old game. How many people does a niche MMO need to be successful? 50k? 100k?
Because all games that don't beat WoW are total failures, amirite? How many people does a niche game needs to be successful? I don't know ask the developers of Matrix Online or Seed or any other number of failed niche games. Since when did you become a mind reading game developer? Because you just know what people will like, right? See, when I claim that people exist that like hardcore PvP, I cite evidence: the existence of UO shards, the fact that people still play a crappy game like Shadowbane, and EVE Online. You've offered nothing except assertions that people will damn well tell them what you want to like. Holy crap, you really must be a game developer after all! Here's the thing, boss, you're not citing any evidence besides the fact that people like UO and EVE. Hell, even I love UO and EVE. People are playing UO because of nostalgia, even I get on a free shard every once in a while. EVE has a lot more to offer than just PvP with all of the politics and economy factors. Besides which, it's pretty much the only space mmo out there. And lastly, people are playing Shadowbane because it's free. It went free for a reason--no one wanted to pay for it. As for me being a mind reading developer, all I have to do is follow the trend of the MMORPGs under development to see where the market is heading and to which audience developers are trying to cater. Like I said, whip out a MS Word and get cracking on that business plan. If you honestly believe that there is a market for it, get to it, boss. 1. Nice job assuming what "most" people are thinking. Did that pearl of wisdom cost me anything, Miss Cleo? I'm only basing my comment on the 10 million players who pay Blizzard $15/month. 2. Because a PvP game has to be designed in such a way that you'd have to grind for 3 months to get any gear of value, right? Because a PvP game has to be designed in such a way that if you lost all your precious gear you'd be screwed, right? Full loot won't work in a game like WoW, where you raid for months for phat epicz that double or triple your power relative to the ungeared. In game like EVE where equipment is not nearly as gamebreaking and much easier to come by... RPGs are designed around improving your character through levels/skills and equipment. Take that away and you don't have an MMORPG, you have an MMOG. If we're talking about MMOGs, than I agree with you. 3. EVE has 200k+ subscribers. Even considering how many may be dual accounts, apparently 100k+ people are in fact willing to risk everything for a chance at gaining everything in return. I guess " zomg teh evilz teenagerz" don't scare everybody. With all of the insurance and the clones you aren't really risking anything, except maybe for your cargo and modules. Is the market not lucrative enough for a MMORPG developer to consider?
I've already proven the market exists, and I've given examples of successful games without WoW's subscription numbers. Have you yet made a single claim without evidence? Allow me to reiterate:
1. The hardcore PvP population exists. You can find them in UO shards, crappy games like Shadowbane, in EVE Online, or on forums and blogs wishing there were another UO.
2. A game does not require 10 million subscribers to be profitable. Hell, look at Vanguard, a AAA title with AAA development costs. 40k subscriptions. The hardcore population does exist, I'm not denying that. So does a furry population, however. And just how many games cater to furries? I'm sure that there are a couple of thousands of furries out there, why not cater to them? What does Darkfall even have to do with this? I was unaware that Darkfall had a copyright on unrestricted PvP. No but Darkfall is the only MMORPG that is going to offer unrestricted PvP. If it ever comes out that is. And what does any of that have to do with PvP? They added new content... that's great. People still like new content. You still get blown up just as much. If anything, with the introduction of rigs, that's yet another thing you can permanently lose. In order for you to help your case, you'll have to show EVE's subscriptions dramatically rose when they Trammel'ed it - which they've never done, and EVE's growth has been fairly even with few sharp spikes to begin with anyway. They did add a lot more PVE content which greatly helped their game.
Who cares how many unique people play the game? You're not going to be able to easily find out that information anyway. If your argument is that it's not profitable for developers to work on unrestricted PvP games, why do they care who's paying for an account, as long as they get their $15 bucks a month? I'm curious to know just how many fans of unrestricted PvP are there, that's all.
PS: you hardcore PvPers are an angry bunch aren't you?
With the immense number of games like World of Warcraft on the market, there is no cake for me. The PvP servers in these games are not PvP servers at all, they don't encourage players to claim land or towns for their clans and they don't encourage world PvP. Why can't I loot someone on death? Its not hardcore to drop a few items on death, its hardcore to have permadeath. I want my fuckin cake. Asheron's Call Darktide was good cake, and I want more. Hell even EQ had decent PvP cake. You dropped shit when you died.
It does NOT take a genius to figure out that this is NOT what most people enjoy. Don't expect any AAA games will cater to your niche preferences.
Well, EQ is a lot less popular than the more casual oriented games, isn't it?
{ Mod Edit } Nowadays theres no game with good PvE and good PvP mixed. Hell, even World of Warcraft has bad PvE when compared to past games.
Aren't we bitter? I suppose it is expected for someone whose gaming preference is on the margins. You can bitch and moan as much as you want and complain how unfair that WOW is getting its 10M customers and no developer "gets" your game.
You just don't get it. World of Warcraft is not an MMORPG. You haven't played a real MMORPG, your crappy game stole my and countless other players genre, its turned into something thats far from what it used to be. It'd be like if Real Time Strategy games suddenly died out because they were all turning into savage-like games, but without the option of becoming a commander. Or better yet if first person shooters suddenly stopped allowing you to aim freely and required you to click on a target and press a button and watch the target get attacked. These newer games are not MMORPGs. They are a de-evolution of the genre. Its the dumbing down of games on an epic scale.
How many people does a niche game needs to be successful? I don't know ask the developers of Matrix Online or Seed or any other number of failed niche games. That's exactly the point, games with 100k subscribers are still making money. Read.
Here's the thing, boss, you're not citing any evidence besides the fact that people like UO and EVE. Hell, even I love UO and EVE. People are playing UO because of nostalgia, even I get on a free shard every once in a while. EVE has a lot more to offer than just PvP with all of the politics and economy factors. Besides which, it's pretty much the only space mmo out there. And lastly, people are playing Shadowbane because it's free. It went free for a reason--no one wanted to pay for it. So? The fact that people play UO and EVE at all mean people exist that will at the very least tolerate open PvP mechanics. Contrary to your assertation that "nobody wants to play a game in which you can lose all your stuff". And Shadowbane was unpopular because it plain out sucked. People played it prior to it becoming free in 2006, despite it's horrid quality.
As for me being a mind reading developer, all I have to do is follow the trend of the MMORPGs under development to see where the market is heading and to which audience developers are trying to cater. Like I said, whip out a MS Word and get cracking on that business plan. If you honestly believe that there is a market for it, get to it, boss. Why? Guess what <Mod edit> you're the one making comments about the state of developers' minds, and declaring by personal fiat what people will damn well enjoy in their games. In other words, you are playing armchair developer, not me. What did I say in my very first post? 1. Refuted the claim that nobody liked full loot 2. Pointed out the hypocrisy in protesting the OP's attitude toward "carebear" games, while doing the very same thing in reverse 3. Claimed that a hardcore PvP population exists, and that a game does not necessarily need WoW's numbers to be successful If anybody here has game developer aspirations, it's you, so why don't you mathematically prove a MMO game featuring hardcore PvP cannot exist?
I'll give you a hint: "Hardcore PVP MMO" is not in and of itself an MMO genre, one that you can stereotype with certain featuresets. So the statement "All MMOs featuring hardcore PvP must make you grind for month, only to lose it all to those dastardly teenagers." is quite incorrect. Hardcore PvP MMO simply means any MMOG with hardcore PvP elements in it. I'll give you another hint: EVE Online is an MMOG with semi-unrestricted PvP and full loot on death. That currently exists.
I'm only basing my comment on the 10 million players who pay Blizzard $15/month. I'm sure each and every one of those 10 million people said to themselves: 'I'M GOING TO PLAY WOW SOLEY FOR THE REASON THAT NOBODY CAN KILL ME AND STEAL MY STUFF. BLIZZARD'S REPUTATION FOR DELIVERING HIGH QUALITY POLISHED GAMES, GLOWING REVIEWS BY GAMING MEDIA, LAX GRAPHICAL REQUIREMENTS, AND THE FACT THAT ALL MY FRIENDS ARE PLAYING IT HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH MY DECISION." Yeah, I'm sure many WoW players like the relaxed death penalty. Like I said before, attributing WoW's success solely to this one factor is idiocy. Using WoW's success as proof that nobody likes looting PvP is similarly retarded. By your logic, since WoW lacks spaceships (Naaru dimensional fortresses exempted), and WoW is a 10 million user success, a certain space based game which features spaceships must therefore suck balls.
RPGs are designed around improving your character through levels/skills and equipment. Take that away and you don't have an MMORPG, you have an MMOG. If we're talking about MMOGs, than I agree with you. Now you're splitting hairs. If you define RPG as "statistic based, leveling up game", then yes, I'm in agreement. To me, RPG simply means "role playing game", where you take on the role of a character.
Is EVE a traditional RPG? The EVE approach to equipment is what I was getting at, with the various T1 modules not being far inferior to T2. I never said "implement full loot PvP in a game designed for grinding PvE like WoW". I said "Hey, it'd be cool if somebody made a full loot PvP game that was designed around it, like EVE. I'll clarify: both an MMOG and an MMORPG can exist featuring hardcore PvP elements. "Hardcore PvP" being defined as unrestricted or semi-unrestricted PvP, with item loss on death. UO was a hardcore PvP MMORPG. EVE is a hardcore PvP MMOG - it's up to you if you'd classify it as an RPG or not. My claim is that hardcore PvP mechanics are compatible with both standard RPG formats and as well as less traditional skill-based formats.
With all of the insurance and the clones you aren't really risking anything, except maybe for your cargo and modules. I'll concede the insurance, but you're still losing your stuff'; insurance is more to soften the blow. EVE is somewhat newbie friendly that way, because when you're first starting out, you don't lose much. Later on, your implants, T2 hulls, and T2 modules have a much bigger impact. In any case, the point is people are willing to take risks in a game like EVE. People are willing to risk freaking Titans, Motherships and space stations in a game where risk and reward is meaningful, participation in the world is meaningful. Imagine that.
The hardcore population does exist, I'm not denying that. So does a furry population, however. And just how many games cater to furries? I'm sure that there are a couple of thousands of furries out there, why not cater to them? Hey genius, hardcore PvP is a gameplay preference. Gee, what could be more far fetched than designing games to match a gameplay preference. Furries are sexual/lifestyle fetishists. Huh, imagine that, they have websites, conventions, costumes, guess what, even gamesdevoted to or compatible with their interests, albeit crappy ones.
No but Darkfall is the only MMORPG that is going to offer unrestricted PvP. If it ever comes out that is. So what's your point for bringing it up? It's one of the few MMO games on the radar to offer unrestricted PvP, so?
They did add a lot more PVE content which greatly helped their game. Again, so what? More content never hurt anybody. EVE adds PVE and PVP content all the time. All the better for it. If you are trying to prove PVP is detrimental to EVE Online, you fail, because you haven't proven a thing. If your point is that EVE requires both PVE and PVP elements, then I'm in agreement. Where did I ever claim mutual exclusivity between PvP and PvE?
PS: you hardcore PvPers are an angry bunch aren't you? Hah. I'd love to see the reasoning behind that observation.
Comments
asherons call went through plenty of balancing of its own.
Thats because PvP was thrown in as an afterthought, the game was designed around PvE. Unlike most MMORPGs though the PvE in AC was good.
It's real simple. All those games that had PVP looting were incredibly unpopular. Most people don't want to lose items they spent a lot of time acquiring because they got ganked by some wanker 30 levels higher than they are.
It might work in games with radically different itemization than we currently have, but then again, that would also reduce the value of looting other players as well.
Have you actually played a game that allows you to lose an item on death and be killed by anyone at any time?
It sounds like that game was poorly designed. Allow me to inform you about Asheron's Call system, because AC did a lot of things very well. In Asheron's Call on the Darktide server or if you went red on a non PK server, if you were killed by another PK, you would drop several items. The higher level you were, the more items you would drop. The items picked to drop would be the ones of the highest value in your inventory. So if you wanted to not drop your nice items, you would buy or find lots of higher value junk items, and those would drop instead. Everybody carried their nice items in this game, and unless they were pissing lots of people off and thus being hunted down all the time to the point where they couldn't even get death items anymore, they usually wouldn't drop any nice items.I have and you know what I remember? All the nice items being kept in the bank due to fear of losing them to a gank squad.
Please don't come up with opinions on certain areas of gameplay when you haven't experienced all the aspects of them on the games in the market. All UO's system did was make it so if people wanted to use more powerful items, they'd risk them for an advantage. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I'll damn well take full looting over no looting if thats all I can get. In the end, I prefer Asheron's Call's system, as it appealed to PvE and PvP players.
That sounds more like a work around than an actual feature. Like cheating the game. I never played AC so I cannot really comment on it but the whole system seems silly to mean. I mean you have to walk around with a bag full of trash and when you died, you dropped the trash so the PKs were assed out. How is that in any way different from say a WoW PvP realm where besides the capital and the 2 zones right outside, you were freely attackable by the other faction. You didn't drop anything but you didn't really drop anything in AC besides trash either.
It's real simple. All those games that had PVP looting were incredibly unpopular. Most people don't want to lose items they spent a lot of time acquiring because they got ganked by some wanker 30 levels higher than they are.
It might work in games with radically different itemization than we currently have, but then again, that would also reduce the value of looting other players as well.
Have you actually played a game that allows you to lose an item on death and be killed by anyone at any time?
Yes. I beta-tested for UO. It was a boring, stressful pk-fest. I jumped ship to EQ the moment it was out.
And as Blizzard has found out, most people don't want that.
It's real simple. All those games that had PVP looting were incredibly unpopular. Most people don't want to lose items they spent a lot of time acquiring because they got ganked by some wanker 30 levels higher than they are.
It might work in games with radically different itemization than we currently have, but then again, that would also reduce the value of looting other players as well.
Have you actually played a game that allows you to lose an item on death and be killed by anyone at any time?
It sounds like that game was poorly designed. Allow me to inform you about Asheron's Call system, because AC did a lot of things very well. In Asheron's Call on the Darktide server or if you went red on a non PK server, if you were killed by another PK, you would drop several items. The higher level you were, the more items you would drop. The items picked to drop would be the ones of the highest value in your inventory. So if you wanted to not drop your nice items, you would buy or find lots of higher value junk items, and those would drop instead. Everybody carried their nice items in this game, and unless they were pissing lots of people off and thus being hunted down all the time to the point where they couldn't even get death items anymore, they usually wouldn't drop any nice items.I have and you know what I remember? All the nice items being kept in the bank due to fear of losing them to a gank squad.
Please don't come up with opinions on certain areas of gameplay when you haven't experienced all the aspects of them on the games in the market. All UO's system did was make it so if people wanted to use more powerful items, they'd risk them for an advantage. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I'll damn well take full looting over no looting if thats all I can get. In the end, I prefer Asheron's Call's system, as it appealed to PvE and PvP players.
That sounds more like a work around than an actual feature. Like cheating the game. I never played AC so I cannot really comment on it but the whole system seems silly to mean. I mean you have to walk around with a bag full of trash and when you died, you dropped the trash so the PKs were assed out. How is that in any way different from say a WoW PvP realm where besides the capital and the 2 zones right outside, you were freely attackable by the other faction. You didn't drop anything but you didn't really drop anything in AC besides trash either.
Well the idea was that the trash was expensive or took a while to get, so if you killed someone enough, they'd stop dropping trash and start dropping nice items. Also, some people used programs that leveled up for them while they slept, and if their macro broke and didn't log them off on death, you could kill them until they dropped their nice things. I've gotten nice items off people who decided that they had enough death items when they didn't. To say that carrying high value items was cheating is retarded. I might as well say that attacking a monster and then running away to heal while low on health is cheating.
In other words the whole system promoted griefing in terms of killing players over and over again just so they would hopefully drop nice items.
And honestly, boss, you need to come up with some better analogies. It's not a very good analogy if it only make sense to you.
Running away from a monster and healing is not cheating if it is a valid part of the game. But say a certain game came did not allow you to run away and heal but you found a way around it and was able to do it. That would be cheating. Looking at AC, the game seemed to allow the drop of the most expensive item upon death so to avoid dropping really nice weapons and armor, people carried expensive crap around to kind of circumvent that particular game mechanic. I would consider to be an exploit.
Besides, you act like an avid advocate for a virtualy unrestricted, hardcore PvP. Yet you bring up a game mechanic which attemped to soften the harshness of PvP. Real PvP is like old school UO or EVE, if you die, you're assed out. That's hardcore. Not this "carry around expensive trash" nonsense.
if you want a MMO designed around PvP. I can promise you it WON'T work.
if you want proper PvP in a MMO it needs to be a byproduct of the games design. This is the reason EvE works so well.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
I'm only going to repply to this part of the post because the other parts is pointless to this discussion about free PvP. I blame myself for derailing to discussion.
Anyway, dying and killing someone in a game is never meaningless. See if you died, you failed and if you killed another player you were better than him/her. It's kind of like having a friendly sparring session with your friend. You don't cause each other serious damage but you do it for fun and to see who is better. Or a game of 1 on 1 basketball--same concept.
I get imense gratification when I am low on health and kill a player who tries to gank me. I don't need for that player to drop an item or all of his items. Just knowing that I played better than him is enough to satisfy my PvP needs.
It seems that what you need is the ability to cause other players grief by punishing them somehow, when they lose, and at the same time rewarding you. For you it's not enough knowing that you are better than the player you defeated, you need to rub their nose in it. That is the problem.
See developers are slowly realizing that games are not a way of life but a form of entertainment and as such, need to be fun. It's hard being entertained when you are being punished for every mistake you make. Sometimes that mistake being crossing paths with a group of 14 year old players who decided to see how long they can keep killing you before you logged off.
Developers have realized that there is a huge market out there for MMOs but in order to cash in, they need to cater to as broader audience as possible. Hardcore MMO PvPers, unfortunately for you, are not the biggest demographic and as such their needs do not get catered to as much as casual gamers.
I'll leave you with this: most people enjoy accomplishments. Most people do not enjoy those accomplishments being taken away by a random asshole. In real life, there are laws preventing most people from killing you in broad daylight and taking your watch. So far, in video games such laws do not exist. That is the reason why WoW has 10 million players and EVE Online (though a very enjoyable game) has around 100,000 (might be more, don't remember the exact number)
I don't think there is any point in arguing.
It is pretty obvious that unrestricted PvP with deep penalties (full loot) has been tried and people don't like it. People giving out reasons about reasons why it is good is deluding themselves that their preference is better than others.
In fact, developers have found out that most people don't want that. The success of WOW is pretty good evidence. The clock is not going to be turned back.
Because UO never had unrestricted PvP with full loot, amirite?
Hippo gains Cold Blood.
Hippo Crits you for 2000.
You fail.
Because declaring by personal fiat "no-loot, no-PK" a superior model isn't deluding yourself, amirite?
OP is incorrect in claiming that full loot PvP is objectively superior to more recent "carebear" mechanics, but you're doing the same thing as him, just in reverse.
I guess that explains the roaring success of EQII, which, like WoW, lacks unrestricted PvP and full looting, amirite?
Oh wait, EQ2 still falls behind EVE Online in subscriptions, a game which (gasp) features (nearly) unrestricted PvP and full looting.
Attributing WoW's success solely to its PvP model is shortsighted, to say the least. WoW was successful for its: quality and polish, art direction (which made up for its graphics), name recognition, addictiveness, and accessibility.
Yes, its lenient death penalty and softcore PvP are a factor in its accessibility. So you are correct in that a part of WoW's success can be attributed to no-loot, no-PK.
But how many WoW-like games, with the same softcore, no-risk PvP failed utterly, crushed under the tank treads of the WoW juggernaut? I dare say the market for WoW clones is rather saturated. (By WoW itself, go figure)
Will a full loot, full pk game appeal to a smaller audience? Absolutely. Is there a market for a full loot, full PK game? Absolutely.
Why don't people play UO? Because it's over a decade old. Why don't people play Shadowbane? Because it sucks donkey balls. Why don't people play EVE Online? Wait, they do; the game does quite well for itself in its own niche. It's also a Sci-Fi MMO, which tend to do less well than the traditional Fantasy genre. (I also have some complaints about some of EVE's inherent mechanics, but that's another topic...)
The market is wide open for a well made, fantasy, hardcore PvP, sandbox MMO. Build a game with WoW's polish, EvE's depth, and UO's PvP freedom... and it won't pull 10 million like WoW, but it'll definately pull in new people that WoW can't.
Because UO never had unrestricted PvP with full loot, amirite?
Because when Trammel came out most people continued to stay in Felucca, amirite?
Because declaring by personal fiat "no-loot, no-PK" a superior model isn't deluding yourself, amirite?
Because most people obviously want to lose everything they gained over the last 3 months to a bored teenager on a rampage, amirite?
The market is wide open for a well made, fantasy, hardcore PvP, sandbox MMO. Build a game with WoW's polish, EvE's depth, and UO's PvP freedom... and it won't pull 10 million like WoW, but it'll definately pull in new people that WoW can't.
You can't spell assumption without ass, amirite?
The problem is that the few people it will pull will not be enough to warant the game development costs. Remember to make a game as polished as WoW and as deep as EVE you need to throw a lot of money into the project. Besides that, EVE Online became popular relatively recently after all the balancing and new content. Not to mention the fact that not only does EVE Online allow multiple accounts they give people discounts and insentives to own multiple accounts. So it's quite possible that a lot of those accounts are not unique but are rather other accounts of existing players.
best pvp game ever = runescape... i know it's pathetic to say this but, it's really the only game with TRUE pvp (when you die you lose pretty much everything on you)
Eve-online is ok for pvp as well.. but the problem with eve is that 98% of the people are afraid to even attempt pvp, so you'll be fighting the 2% that enjoy pvp and most of that 2% = people that have played for over 2 years = you will die
I don't see why every mmorpg *must* cater to one specific group of people. I'm still waiting for a new game to be released that has TRUE pvp. One where you have the risk of death and losing everything. They could make a game like world of warcraft... with the normal pve server... but have the PvP server be REAL. I personally love having the feeling that i can die anytime and anywhere, and many others do as well. The problem is the people that are stuck in between pve and pvp
These people that are stuck in between want to be able to pvp, but not risk anything. They want to fight without the risk, and that's the majority of the "pvp community". And to these people, i stick up my giant middle finger to all of you, thanks for ruining pvp you scared bastards
I approve of your post, but why do you call WoW polished? Is it because the 3 features it has and the simplistic content are hard not to polish? Even for a PvE game its lacking in the gameplay and content departments. Thousands of different epics to choose from certainly make up a tiny portion of the content that a good PvE game should have.
Edit: This post was directed at Cortanya, I didn't expect so many people to respond in the short time it took me to write this post.
Because you have stats to back that up, amirite? Because Trammel is widely regarded to having "ruined" UO, amirite? Because more of the popular free shards nowadays are PvP, amirite?
Because you speak for everybody, amirite?
Nobody's forcing you to play X game; you're just as wrong as people who bash your choice to play "carebear" games.
BTW, how dumb is it to respond to a post mocking hypocrisy with... more of the very same hypocrisy.
I am in awe of your crystal ball, sir.
Remember, my claim was only that the market exists for a hardcore PvP game.
Evidence: The existence of countless UO shards devoted to the T2A era, the fact that people still play crappy buggy games like Shadowbane, the fact that EVE Online is a quite popular niche game.
So, Nostradamus, exactly how few people will sign up for "WoW: PvP", "Darkfall: Duke Nukem Edition", or "Ultima Online II: Pwned"?
Or even, how much will such a game cost to develop?
I agree you need money for quality like WoW, and it's an ongoing process. To have depth like EVE doesn't inherently cost more. That's just creativity and not being lazy.
Alternatively, you can spend money to be like WoW, and get your ass kicked by WoW (see: failed WoW clone attempts). Or you can spend money to be different from WoW, and make less money off people looking for something different.
Bollocks.
Of course new content attracts people (especially high profile and visible new content like the Trinity 2 engine). But what have any of the updates had to do with PvP? EVE remains as hardcore PvP as ever.
So? Accounts are money, and money is money.
And how's this any different from WoW, which bans thousands of Chinese farmer bots, which then have to rebuy and resubscribe?
- Because WoW has quite few truly gamebreaking bugs. Because major bugs in the game are fixed relatively quickly.
- Because Blizzard's outstanding art direction masks technical graphical inferiority. And I might add, graphical inferiority is inherent to the MMO genre simply for technical reasons. Say what you will about Blizzard, but their artists do an excellent job of making WoW (graphically weak even by MMO standards) look good.
- Because the combination of Blizzard's artistic design, world craftsmanship, and intuitive control scheme give the illusion of a very seamless environment. Contrast to GW, where your controls are extremely restricted as is your interaction with the world. Can't jump off ledges? WTF? Or EQ's horrid controls. WoW's character movement feels almost as fluid as an FPS. Freedom of movement - or the illusion thereof - is the first requirement in creating an enjoyable experience.
- Because the insidious level/gear curve is well hidden beneath of seamless overall game experience. You log into WoW. You are presented with a bunch of easy, fast quests that level you up fast. You do more quests, get better gear, on so on... before you know it, you've progressed to raiding and addicted. Watch Episode 6 of "Pure Pwnage", where Jeremy starts playing WoW and creates a new Night Elf. That nails the WoW experience to a T.
It's like a Twilight Zone episode where you don't even [i]realize[/i] you're on the treadmill... until it's too late. (Spooky music)
After my experience with WoW, I believe that the ideal MMO game must at minimum have the following features:
- "FPS" Based
As in, actual aiming and control of your character, not this "target" and "auto attack" garbage. It also needs actual moving to dodge/block/parry, not this outdate dice rolling nonsense. The reason? A game must be fun at its most basic level. People fight monsters in WoW to stay in the endless gear treadmill, not for fun. Hence why a big, bad "boss" is considered a "reward" - and the interposing "trash mobs" are exactly that. Monsters should drop loot, yes, but fighting them shouldn't be a chore, something to be skipped or exploited past if at all possible. People play FPS games for fun, without any persistent reward. Hell, even action orient games like God of War, Zelda, etc. It's fun to fight stuff.
- "Sandbox" style - Player Generated Content
I was going to write "no more grinding", but what is grinding? It's boring crap implemented to keep players occupied while developers create more stuff for them to do. In a dynamic, player run world, players create the content. This, coupled with active, engaging combat (see above) functionally eliminates (or greatly reduces) the need for "the grind".
EVE Online is an excellent example of player generated content. Everything in the game can be built by players, from the first step of mining an asteroid to selling it on the excellent auction system. You can build your own space station, which can do anything the NPC stations can. You can capture and hold territory. Show me another game in which the players have successfully launched an actual freaking IPO.
- Skill Based/No Gear Treadmill
The gear treadmill. It exists for two reasons. 1) to determine the winner and the loser, given the absence of another deciding factor, and 2) to provide players with something to do in a game with nothing else. The problem is you end up with ridiculous crap like "Super Amazing +500 Sword of Mega Slaying"... which actually sucks balls, cause it came out last expansion, see?
Gear should not make or break your character, and you shouldn't have to grind away for months raiding to get it. Look at how EVE does it - the Tier 1 stuff isn't that much worse than the Tier 2 stuff. It's also much easier to get, and you can remain competitive without the absolute best gear. Contrast WoW, where a new 70 in quest greens and blues will be absolutely destroyed by someone in Arena Season 3, or be blown up in raids without T6.
Now, if gear isn't impossible to acquire, and is hardly the be-all-end-all of combat, that opens the way for...
- Full Open PvP
Full PvP is the culmination of the above elements.
With an FPS style combat system, PVP can be fun to play. It's CS, CoD, UT, whatever - with additional elements of tactics, strategy, and logistics not present in those non persistent games.
In a non zero sum game, you end up with mudflation. In a "sandbox" game with an open economy, there must be attrition and loss to keep the economy balanced.
In a non-gear treadmill game, open PvP can be fair and balanced - newbies have a chance against veterans, and gear loss is not an insurmountable loss.
What a well written post. It's unfortunate that most will skim over it and cry "grief mechanics" and "I like easymode, screw you!".
I propose someone makes a poll(I would but I don't know how) just to see the percentage of people that actually do want a true pvp game. I would hope that more people would want a true pvp game than is suggested by some in this post.
As said by many in this post about eves true pvp concepts for people wanting true pvp to give that a test. Most people dont play eve who do appreciate its awesome(imo) pvp and player controlled territories, just simply because of its space only genre. Give me a fantasy version or a swg type model where ground is approachable as well, with player territory such as EVE and early SWG, and pvp with a risk, and I will buy that game right now.
I don't need stats to back it up, I was there when it happened and for a few years after. I saw the wasteland that Felucca eventualy turned into.
How do numbers make you feel? What does a plus sign smell like? Is the number 7 odd, or just different?
As far as those Felucca only free shards go, they don't seem to have enough players to support an actual game.
Never claimed they did - only that they represented a class of players who would be interested in a modern full PvP game.
However, with 500 people to a decent size shard, and 1000+ for a large one, that's quite a bit of devotion toward a decade old game. How many people does a niche MMO need to be successful? 50k? 100k?
Because all games that don't beat WoW are total failures, amirite?
My whole argument was trying to explain why majority of developers will not cater a hardcore PvP playstyle.
Since when did you become a mind reading game developer? Because you just know what people will like, right?
See, when I claim that people exist that like hardcore PvP, I cite evidence: the existence of UO shards, the fact that people still play a crappy game like Shadowbane, and EVE Online. You've offered nothing except assertions that people will damn well tell them what you want to like.
Holy crap, you really must be a game developer after all!
To answer your obvious troll:
Because most people obviously want to lose everything they gained over the last 3 months to a bored teenager on a rampage, amirite?
1. Nice job assuming what "most" people are thinking. Did that pearl of wisdom cost me anything, Miss Cleo?
2. Because a PvP game has to be designed in such a way that you'd have to grind for 3 months to get any gear of value, right? Because a PvP game has to be designed in such a way that if you lost all your precious gear you'd be screwed, right? Full loot won't work in a game like WoW, where you raid for months for phat epicz that double or triple your power relative to the ungeared. In game like EVE where equipment is not nearly as gamebreaking and much easier to come by...
3. EVE has 200k+ subscribers. Even considering how many may be dual accounts, apparently 100k+ people are in fact willing to risk everything for a chance at gaining everything in return. I guess " zomg teh evilz teenagerz" don't scare everybody.
Is the market lucrative enough for a MMORPG developer to make a game for it? No matter the number, I'm sure it's going to be a few million more than you have. But if you actualy do think that there is a large enough market for such a game, please feel free to write up a business plan and see if you can get anyone to invest.
Is the market not lucrative enough for a MMORPG developer to consider?
I've already proven the market exists, and I've given examples of successful games without WoW's subscription numbers.
Have you yet made a single claim without evidence?
Allow me to reiterate:
1. The hardcore PvP population exists. You can find them in UO shards, crappy games like Shadowbane, in EVE Online, or on forums and blogs wishing there were another UO.
2. A game does not require 10 million subscribers to be profitable. Hell, look at Vanguard, a AAA title with AAA development costs. 40k subscriptions.
Or you can be Darkfall. Which if memory serves me right should come out some time after Duke Nukem: Forever.
What does Darkfall even have to do with this? I was unaware that Darkfall had a copyright on unrestricted PvP.
Not really, there was a lot of complaining going on in the begining of boring gameplay which revolved mostly around staring at an asteroid. Not to mention the various game breaking bugs that were around.
And what does any of that have to do with PvP? They added new content... that's great. People still like new content. You still get blown up just as much. If anything, with the introduction of rigs, that's yet another thing you can permanently lose.
In order for you to help your case, you'll have to show EVE's subscriptions dramatically rose when they Trammel'ed it - which they've never done, and EVE's growth has been fairly even with few sharp spikes to begin with anyway.
What I was trying to explain that a lot of accounts do not mean a lot of unique people. EVE Online promotes players to get multiple accounts thus numberwise their playerbase looks big. What I would like to know is how many unique people play the game. Same thing goes for WoW. 10 million is a big number but how many unique people are there?
Who cares how many unique people play the game? You're not going to be able to easily find out that information anyway.
If your argument is that it's not profitable for developers to work on unrestricted PvP games, why do they care who's paying for an account, as long as they get their $15 bucks a month?
There is no cake.
Futilez - Mature MMORPG Community
Correcting people since birth.
It does NOT take a genius to figure out that this is NOT what most people enjoy. Don't expect any AAA games will cater to your niche preferences.
Well, EQ is a lot less popular than the more casual oriented games, isn't it?
{ Mod Edit } Nowadays theres no game with good PvE and good PvP mixed. Hell, even World of Warcraft has bad PvE when compared to past games.
Aren't we bitter? I suppose it is expected for someone whose gaming preference is on the margins. You can bitch and moan as much as you want and complain how unfair that WOW is getting its 10M customers and no developer "gets" your game.
You just don't get it. World of Warcraft is not an MMORPG. You haven't played a real MMORPG, your crappy game stole my and countless other players genre, its turned into something thats far from what it used to be. It'd be like if Real Time Strategy games suddenly died out because they were all turning into savage-like games, but without the option of becoming a commander. Or better yet if first person shooters suddenly stopped allowing you to aim freely and required you to click on a target and press a button and watch the target get attacked. These newer games are not MMORPGs. They are a de-evolution of the genre. Its the dumbing down of games on an epic scale.
could not agree more Scottc
Does anyone know how to make a mmoRPG anymore?
How many people does a niche game needs to be successful? I don't know ask the developers of Matrix Online or Seed or any other number of failed niche games.
That's exactly the point, games with 100k subscribers are still making money. Read.
Here's the thing, boss, you're not citing any evidence besides the fact that people like UO and EVE. Hell, even I love UO and EVE. People are playing UO because of nostalgia, even I get on a free shard every once in a while. EVE has a lot more to offer than just PvP with all of the politics and economy factors. Besides which, it's pretty much the only space mmo out there. And lastly, people are playing Shadowbane because it's free. It went free for a reason--no one wanted to pay for it.
So? The fact that people play UO and EVE at all mean people exist that will at the very least tolerate open PvP mechanics. Contrary to your assertation that "nobody wants to play a game in which you can lose all your stuff".
And Shadowbane was unpopular because it plain out sucked. People played it prior to it becoming free in 2006, despite it's horrid quality.
As for me being a mind reading developer, all I have to do is follow the trend of the MMORPGs under development to see where the market is heading and to which audience developers are trying to cater.
Like I said, whip out a MS Word and get cracking on that business plan. If you honestly believe that there is a market for it, get to it, boss.
Why?
Guess what <Mod edit> you're the one making comments about the state of developers' minds, and declaring by personal fiat what people will damn well enjoy in their games.
In other words, you are playing armchair developer, not me.
What did I say in my very first post?
1. Refuted the claim that nobody liked full loot
2. Pointed out the hypocrisy in protesting the OP's attitude toward "carebear" games, while doing the very same thing in reverse
3. Claimed that a hardcore PvP population exists, and that a game does not necessarily need WoW's numbers to be successful
If anybody here has game developer aspirations, it's you, so why don't you mathematically prove a MMO game featuring hardcore PvP cannot exist?
I'll give you a hint: "Hardcore PVP MMO" is not in and of itself an MMO genre, one that you can stereotype with certain featuresets. So the statement "All MMOs featuring hardcore PvP must make you grind for month, only to lose it all to those dastardly teenagers." is quite incorrect. Hardcore PvP MMO simply means any MMOG with hardcore PvP elements in it.
I'll give you another hint: EVE Online is an MMOG with semi-unrestricted PvP and full loot on death. That currently exists.
I'm only basing my comment on the 10 million players who pay Blizzard $15/month.
I'm sure each and every one of those 10 million people said to themselves: 'I'M GOING TO PLAY WOW SOLEY FOR THE REASON THAT NOBODY CAN KILL ME AND STEAL MY STUFF. BLIZZARD'S REPUTATION FOR DELIVERING HIGH QUALITY POLISHED GAMES, GLOWING REVIEWS BY GAMING MEDIA, LAX GRAPHICAL REQUIREMENTS, AND THE FACT THAT ALL MY FRIENDS ARE PLAYING IT HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH MY DECISION."
Yeah, I'm sure many WoW players like the relaxed death penalty. Like I said before, attributing WoW's success solely to this one factor is idiocy.
Using WoW's success as proof that nobody likes looting PvP is similarly retarded.
By your logic, since WoW lacks spaceships (Naaru dimensional fortresses exempted), and WoW is a 10 million user success, a certain space based game which features spaceships must therefore suck balls.
RPGs are designed around improving your character through levels/skills and equipment. Take that away and you don't have an MMORPG, you have an MMOG. If we're talking about MMOGs, than I agree with you.
Now you're splitting hairs. If you define RPG as "statistic based, leveling up game", then yes, I'm in agreement. To me, RPG simply means "role playing game", where you take on the role of a character.
Is EVE a traditional RPG? The EVE approach to equipment is what I was getting at, with the various T1 modules not being far inferior to T2.
I never said "implement full loot PvP in a game designed for grinding PvE like WoW". I said "Hey, it'd be cool if somebody made a full loot PvP game that was designed around it, like EVE.
I'll clarify: both an MMOG and an MMORPG can exist featuring hardcore PvP elements. "Hardcore PvP" being defined as unrestricted or semi-unrestricted PvP, with item loss on death.
UO was a hardcore PvP MMORPG. EVE is a hardcore PvP MMOG - it's up to you if you'd classify it as an RPG or not.
My claim is that hardcore PvP mechanics are compatible with both standard RPG formats and as well as less traditional skill-based formats.
With all of the insurance and the clones you aren't really risking anything, except maybe for your cargo and modules.
I'll concede the insurance, but you're still losing your stuff'; insurance is more to soften the blow. EVE is somewhat newbie friendly that way, because when you're first starting out, you don't lose much. Later on, your implants, T2 hulls, and T2 modules have a much bigger impact.
In any case, the point is people are willing to take risks in a game like EVE. People are willing to risk freaking Titans, Motherships and space stations in a game where risk and reward is meaningful, participation in the world is meaningful. Imagine that.
The hardcore population does exist, I'm not denying that. So does a furry population, however. And just how many games cater to furries? I'm sure that there are a couple of thousands of furries out there, why not cater to them?
Hey genius, hardcore PvP is a gameplay preference. Gee, what could be more far fetched than designing games to match a gameplay preference.
Furries are sexual/lifestyle fetishists. Huh, imagine that, they have websites, conventions, costumes, guess what, even games devoted to or compatible with their interests, albeit crappy ones.
No but Darkfall is the only MMORPG that is going to offer unrestricted PvP. If it ever comes out that is.
So what's your point for bringing it up? It's one of the few MMO games on the radar to offer unrestricted PvP, so?
They did add a lot more PVE content which greatly helped their game.
Again, so what? More content never hurt anybody. EVE adds PVE and PVP content all the time. All the better for it.
If you are trying to prove PVP is detrimental to EVE Online, you fail, because you haven't proven a thing.
If your point is that EVE requires both PVE and PVP elements, then I'm in agreement. Where did I ever claim mutual exclusivity between PvP and PvE?
PS: you hardcore PvPers are an angry bunch aren't you?
Hah. I'd love to see the reasoning behind that observation.