I just want the option I'm not saying there has to be no type of questing I'n those pvp areas and im not saying there doesn't have to be some type of consentual pvp I'n those pve areas. I want options and maybe someone wants to pve with that fear of being attached and maybe someone likes to flag up and pvp I'n a mostly quiet pve area. It's their choice to do so. Giving people choices is a good thing. This makes a game cater too all types of gamers. But when you start pushing mechanics on people that they don't want to take part I'n that's when I have an issue. I mean eve has empire space and it's perfect. People can still pvp or pve I'n relative peace. It works out.
What is the difference between a game pushing your options and a game that pursues a more focuses gameplay or the interests of other players? There are other players in the genre who do not want the same options as you. They may wany a game without pvp or with free-for-all pvp. Some will only want grouping and other solo. Should every game try to cater to everyone just because that is what you want? The one thing the genre really needs right now is diversity.
I find your example of eve as being perfect, because it is a ffa pvp game. There is no safe area in eve, none. High sec is filled with people screwing each other over all the time, but that is the point of the game. What you might call an ethug or griefer is a successful player in eve. The game encourages skullduggery amongs players.
A dungeon that allows any players to enter, solo, grouped, with any configuration/roles but would be practically impossible for a single person to complete without zerging for hours on end.
The way you geared your question is loaded... A less loaded way of saying it would be:
"A dungeon of set difficulty that allows a group of two or more to enter"
"A dungeon of set difficulty that allows a group of two or more of specific configuration to enter"
"A dungeon of set difficulty that requires a specific number of players to enter"
"A dungeon of set difficulty that allows anyone to enter."
The last is my preference. The world should have a wide range of difficulties, some should be easy some should be hard. All content is accessible but not necessarily doable by all players.
Think of it in terms of real life... just about anyone can rock climb, but not everyone can climb a mountain and many mountains require teams to successfully climb them. Does that mean a single person can't try? No, and occasionally one makes it, but often time they end up dead.
There should be dungeons in a game world from
"Easy for a solo guy" difficulty
to
"OH GOD THE PAIN FOR A xx MAN RAID"
Can a single person reasonably be expected to win the later? no, but should they have the ability to try? Absolutely. Crap some of the best times I ever had was on a rogue in eq1 sneaking through the god's planes trying to see how far I could get.
/me *loves* practically impossible... because it means, "Most people can't do it because they're to lame to figure out the right methodology or refuse to try anything new bug zerging" and "an actual challenge not dumbed down for the masses."
In most games, I've done content solo that was meant for groups long before I ever had the top end gear of any kind and often in raids i've parsed higher in dps and heals than people in gear significantly better than mine and higher level because i take the time to sit down and figure out my strength and weaknesses and learn to play my class well.
As a general rule however, I rarely agree with open world pvp. Not because of w:l ratio or anything just annoyance at idiots... stupid to have to stop what you're doing every 5m to kill the same idiot who keeps blindly attacking you. Most games don't have a big enough penalty for death to consider open world pvp.
Heavy pvp consequences are needed for the most part for open world pvp.
Yeah I was trying to tie down a better or more accurate view of "forced" game mechanics.
I've played LOTRO since beta and there were some places you didn't go into without a group or that you had outleveled and so could do by yourself. The Great Barrows for instance. Could you walk in there at level 17 with a group and fight it out? Sure. Could you get very far solo? Not so much...
But I don't think that was neccesarily a bad design.
I also walked alone all the way into Angmar at level 13, to that first camp after Aughaire. Solo friendly walk? Not really but the game at least allowed me to go as far as I was willing to go.
As was mentioned, even in 1.0 space you can be attacked by another player without having to raise a "PvP" flag. TO me the only importance FFA as a concept has to do wit the discussion is that it represents a system of total freedom, which I think the OP mistakenly says he wants. I think he really wants more options within the bounds of a controlled system.
"Heart grow stronger, Will becomes firm, the Mind more calm, as our Strength lessens..." Battle of Maldon 991 AD
I see I'm going to need to take this topic to mentally retarded paint by numbers levels for people to understand. I'll give an example. Im playing two mmos, In one mmo I can progress my character through solo play or grouping. I can explore the game world by myself or with friends, I can choose to pvp I'n dedicated areas or stick to pve areas and not worry about it. In mmo number two I'n order to get more than 100 yards beyond a city I need to LF a group, if I manage stray out of the safety of the city I get gang raped by ethugs... In which game do I have the freedom? Obviously it's game number 1. Yet the people that want freedom are pushing number 2 at us...
No game 'forces' you to group, that harder quests/dungeons/whatever require a group of players is not a 'forcing' mechanic, it merely means that there is A) content for those that like to group and content of varying difficulty levels that cannot be solo'd. Furthermore so long as you bother to actually look around you, there is nothing to stop you 'exploring' solo in an FFA pvp game.
FFA PvP does not force you to pvp, it merely means that there is the potential for pvp at any given moment. Tbh the fact you seem to equate anyone who kills you in an ffa sandbox with an 'ethug' points to the fact that you are looking at this entire argument from an extremely negatively biased perspective.
Option 1 in your examples forces people to pvp in specific areas. Option 2 forces pvp on no one, it simply means that it can occur in all locations. Option 2 clearly has more freedom than option 1.
The pve you described is a choice. As long as a player has an option to solo then it's fine. A force grouping game gives no said option. You are basically stuck unless you find a team. As for pvp it is a restriction if I want no part of pvp situation yet all the mechanics I do want are housed within that FFA zone.
I'm trying to figure out which game(s) you know of that force you to group or else render you "stuck". Old FFXI was like this so I'm told, but are/were there any others?
Its funny that you brought this up because most of my buddies at work were trying to label True forced grouping ones but struggled really bad. Obviously we pegged FFXI first and then the discussion went back adn forth when it came to EQ and AC1. Honestly there arent many and there's a reason for this... Because people generally dislike it.
I wonder why everyone always harps on it if there were very few Forced grouping games. I mean i could name a ton of Group focused games but all of them gave me options to solo.
First I'd like to say sorry if what I'm about to say has been said before but after reading through 2 pages (I have my posts per page set at 30 so it's more like 3 pages for most here) the extreme viewpoints here were turning my brain into Cottage Cheese.
Why does everything have to be so black and white? There are a lot of shades of gray inbetween that most here ignore. I personally like a game to give you the freedom of FFA PvP but have a ruleset that has serious consequenses for players that out and out gank other players. Those players are considered by the game to be outlaws and they are treated as such by the NPC Guards, NPC Merchants and it makes them a "Free Kill" for other players. This still allows for the freedom of open world PvP but keeps the wholesale ganking of newbies to a minimum. You can't murder someone in the real world without being held accountable for your actions so why should it be any different in a game? As for having designated PvP areas I think that extremely limits player freedom and those areas just become 'Gankfest Zones'. I think the player should have the freedom to choose to gank that Noob but they better be ready for the hard life as an outlaw that will follow.
As for forced grouping I've never been for that. I personally think that while the game should give some real benefits to grouping, soloing should always be a viable option as well. This allows players to choose what their play experience will be from one day to the next. This allows for maximum player freedom.
Why does everything have to be so black and white? There are a lot of shades of gray inbetween that most here ignore. I personally like a game to give you the freedom of FFA PvP but have a ruleset that has serious consequenses for players that out and out gank other players. Those players are considered by the game to be outlaws and they are treated as such by the NPC Guards, NPC Merchants and it makes them a "Free Kill" for other players. This still allows for the freedom of open world PvP but keeps the wholesale ganking of newbies to a minimum. You can't murder someone in the real world without being held accountable for your actions so why should it be any different in a game? As for having designated PvP areas I think that extremely limits player freedom and those areas just become 'Gankfest Zones'. I think the player should have the freedom to choose to gank that Noob but they better be ready for the hard life as an outlaw that will follow.
When a PvP game manages to really implement a system like that then the discussion will change. So far FFA PvP MMORPGs at best give a slap on the wrist and the 'outlaws' continue as before.
Forced grouping, forced pvp, forced pve progression, forced rulesets, forced this and forced that! How is that freedom? You want your freedom but constantly champion forced mechanics on others. I feel more restricted than ever...
FYI "forced PvP" actually means nobody can stop you PvPing.
Why does everything have to be so black and white? There are a lot of shades of gray inbetween that most here ignore. I personally like a game to give you the freedom of FFA PvP but have a ruleset that has serious consequenses for players that out and out gank other players. Those players are considered by the game to be outlaws and they are treated as such by the NPC Guards, NPC Merchants and it makes them a "Free Kill" for other players. This still allows for the freedom of open world PvP but keeps the wholesale ganking of newbies to a minimum. You can't murder someone in the real world without being held accountable for your actions so why should it be any different in a game? As for having designated PvP areas I think that extremely limits player freedom and those areas just become 'Gankfest Zones'. I think the player should have the freedom to choose to gank that Noob but they better be ready for the hard life as an outlaw that will follow.
When a PvP game manages to really implement a system like that then the discussion will change. So far FFA PvP MMORPGs at best give a slap on the wrist and the 'outlaws' continue as before.
He's describing EVE, which has exactly that system.
Without a lot of these things a game isn't a game it's just a sandbox with little content
From a westerners point of view, out of 10 mmorpg games in the last 6 years (aside from lets say WoW and Aion), only one carries as great and consistent a population base as most AAA studio games, and thats CCPs' EVE with it's sanboxy design and player-centric ecosystem where players drive and make the content. Interesting how it's successful, and more-so than most mmorpgs.
Yes you can get blown up but the upside is they will get blown up also. This keeps most people safe unless they happen to be traders. Shit I played eve for almost four years and my mission runner/explorer never got killed I'n empire it was t until I made the choice to go Into WH space that I got killed while afk lol. That's a choice.
So you spent almost 4 years in a FFA PvP game without being griefed by ethugs? Interesting.
It's laughably easy to avoid or escape "griefing" in EVE. The only difficulty is getting into some people's heads the idea that they have to do something about it, rather than cry about it until someone else comes to fix it. Once they make that philosophical leap, things suddenly get vastly easier.
It's extremely difficult to do anything to a player who is actively trying to avoid combat and who is aware of some elementary game mechanics like using the onboard scanner, session timers and basic ship fittings (none of which depend on skillpoints, or a trivial number in the case of required fittings; a few hours worth)
To many PvP games out there now the MMO world needs a PvE game now. without PvP where classes have there Unique skills that makes them dependant on each other. like Old Shcool EQ Harm Touch or Mana burn etc etc
Why does everything have to be so black and white? There are a lot of shades of gray inbetween that most here ignore. I personally like a game to give you the freedom of FFA PvP but have a ruleset that has serious consequenses for players that out and out gank other players. Those players are considered by the game to be outlaws and they are treated as such by the NPC Guards, NPC Merchants and it makes them a "Free Kill" for other players. This still allows for the freedom of open world PvP but keeps the wholesale ganking of newbies to a minimum. You can't murder someone in the real world without being held accountable for your actions so why should it be any different in a game? As for having designated PvP areas I think that extremely limits player freedom and those areas just become 'Gankfest Zones'. I think the player should have the freedom to choose to gank that Noob but they better be ready for the hard life as an outlaw that will follow.
When a PvP game manages to really implement a system like that then the discussion will change. So far FFA PvP MMORPGs at best give a slap on the wrist and the 'outlaws' continue as before.
He's describing EVE, which has exactly that system.
EVE might claim to have that kind of system but the rest of the game's mechanics trivialize it to a point where they really do not matter to the average player.
Yes you can get blown up but the upside is they will get blown up also. This keeps most people safe unless they happen to be traders. Shit I played eve for almost four years and my mission runner/explorer never got killed I'n empire it was t until I made the choice to go Into WH space that I got killed while afk lol. That's a choice.
So you spent almost 4 years in a FFA PvP game without being griefed by ethugs? Interesting.
It's laughably easy to avoid or escape "griefing" in EVE. The only difficulty is getting into some people's heads the idea that they have to do something about it, rather than cry about it until someone else comes to fix it. Once they make that philosophical leap, things suddenly get vastly easier.
It's extremely difficult to do anything to a player who is actively trying to avoid combat and who is aware of some elementary game mechanics like using the onboard scanner, session timers and basic ship fittings (none of which depend on skillpoints, or a trivial number in the case of required fittings; a few hours worth)
If a person understands the game mechanics well enought they can avoid the griefers for the most part. However, this makes certain fun playstyles unviable in the game. If you like the game primarily for those aspects then playing 'smart' also means not doing the fun stuff in the game.
Why does everything have to be so black and white? There are a lot of shades of gray inbetween that most here ignore. I personally like a game to give you the freedom of FFA PvP but have a ruleset that has serious consequenses for players that out and out gank other players. Those players are considered by the game to be outlaws and they are treated as such by the NPC Guards, NPC Merchants and it makes them a "Free Kill" for other players. This still allows for the freedom of open world PvP but keeps the wholesale ganking of newbies to a minimum. You can't murder someone in the real world without being held accountable for your actions so why should it be any different in a game? As for having designated PvP areas I think that extremely limits player freedom and those areas just become 'Gankfest Zones'. I think the player should have the freedom to choose to gank that Noob but they better be ready for the hard life as an outlaw that will follow.
When a PvP game manages to really implement a system like that then the discussion will change. So far FFA PvP MMORPGs at best give a slap on the wrist and the 'outlaws' continue as before.
He's describing EVE, which has exactly that system.
Actually I was thinking more of Lineage II's Karma system but EVE is a good fit as well. In L2 the more you outrite killed other players the deeper into 'Karma Debt' you would get. You could work this off by getting killed over and over(Massive EXP loss) or by killing mobs of the same level as you(Huge time sink as L2 is a grind game in the purest sense of the term). The more Karma you had the longer a process it would be to work it off and the whole time you were totally open to consequence free attack by other players. If you did it often enough you would get a high PK count and that would have it's own consequences. The only way to get rid of a high PK count was to do a real bitch of a quest over and over until you got it down to a reasonable level. There was also only one town where a PKer could trade or bank and guess where all of the PK hunters would hang out? Life was very hard for a PKer in L2.
Edit: Oh and L2 is not a full loot game. There was a slight chance you'd drop a piece of gear when you died but it didn't happen very often... unless you were flagged as a PKer. If you were flagged "red" the chances of actually dropping multiple pieces of gear went up by about 1000% when you died. This made PK hunting very profitable.
Not that L2 didn't have some serious other issues but the Karma system worked and it worked well. Sure you still had some gankers but they were nothing like you have in games like UO and DF that do only give you a slight slap on the hand.
To many PvP games out there now the MMO world needs a PvE game now. without PvP where classes have there Unique skills that makes them dependant on each other. like Old Shcool EQ Harm Touch or Mana burn etc etc
I think there is room for all 3 kinds of games, PvE only, PvP only and both.
Problem with having both is that it is almost impossible to get it well and I rather have 1 thing great than both so so.
Arenanet did solve the thing with skills by having some PvE only skills and separating the playstyles, that actually works fine.
But I agree there are room for more PvE only game, as well as there are for PvP only. Another problem with PvP only games is that they often uses the same mechanics as PvE only, and they are not that great even in PvE, in PvP it doesn't really work at all.
I am looking forward to seeing how GW2 are handling PvE and PvP, I think they are onto something there. Of course so was Mythic once but they messed it up.
Yes you can get blown up but the upside is they will get blown up also. This keeps most people safe unless they happen to be traders. Shit I played eve for almost four years and my mission runner/explorer never got killed I'n empire it was t until I made the choice to go Into WH space that I got killed while afk lol. That's a choice.
So you spent almost 4 years in a FFA PvP game without being griefed by ethugs? Interesting.
It's laughably easy to avoid or escape "griefing" in EVE. The only difficulty is getting into some people's heads the idea that they have to do something about it, rather than cry about it until someone else comes to fix it. Once they make that philosophical leap, things suddenly get vastly easier.
It's extremely difficult to do anything to a player who is actively trying to avoid combat and who is aware of some elementary game mechanics like using the onboard scanner, session timers and basic ship fittings (none of which depend on skillpoints, or a trivial number in the case of required fittings; a few hours worth)
If a person understands the game mechanics well enought they can avoid the griefers for the most part. However, this makes certain fun playstyles unviable in the game. If you like the game primarily for those aspects then playing 'smart' also means not doing the fun stuff in the game.
I'm not sure I take your meaning. Can you give examples? What playstyles are incompatible with remaining cloaked after jumping until the session timer has expired or with warping to a planet/belt/moon near a gate and scanning it before warping in or with fitting a nanofiber or two?
We don't hate mmo's we LOVE mmo's. We just don't really like the mmo's being churned out today.
Unfortunately most companies are going about the mmo thing like nuclear warheads. We all know they aren't good but alot of developers just want to "join the club" and have an mmo out making money.
Alot of the time it feels as though mmo development is stuck in some sort of "one step - follow the leader" type trap.Occasionally an mmo will make great innovation and then for the next batch of mmos they are basically catching up with that step to "join the club". Then some other mmo will make another innovation, and the next batch will catch up aswell.
If you aren't aiming for the absolute top with your mmo. Please don't f****ng bother. Don't just churn something out in the hope of making a profit.
By the very nature of mmo's we CAN'T pay for loads of them. So it's one ideally, maybe two or three with exceptions. If your mmo isn't the absolute best it's silly to make it. Make a great singleplayer game instead, that passes into legend and leave it at that. We can all play a singleplayer game, think it's the greatest of all time then move on to the next game - and most likely definately go back to check that companies next single player game.
Maybe some of you will say "what everyone thinks is best is different" maybe that's true. But what's wrong with an mmo that has it all. The absolute lot. Something so huge that there's enough content to appeal to every player.
Or possibly even just make an mmo that shows them things they never imagined.
But FFS.... Cut it out with all that instanced crap! I want to play an mmo. Not a chat room with avatars before heading out my groups private adventure.
"It's like a finger pointing away to the moon... Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all the heavenly glory" (Bruce Lee)
(Insert your favourite mmo here): ......And behold, a pale horse.... And a million hellishly bad mmos followed with it.
OP I see what you are saying. But the thing is, most of the people that are QQing about Forced grouping, are the Old School Theme Park fans, not the Sandbox fans
I see I'm going to need to take this topic to mentally retarded paint by numbers levels for people to understand. I'll give an example. Im playing two mmos, In one mmo I can progress my character through solo play or grouping. I can explore the game world by myself or with friends, I can choose to pvp I'n dedicated areas or stick to pve areas and not worry about it. In mmo number two I'n order to get more than 100 yards beyond a city I need to LF a group, if I manage stray out of the safety of the city I get gang raped by ethugs... In which game do I have the freedom? Obviously it's game number 1. Yet the people that want freedom are pushing number 2 at us...
There are dogs and there are cats.
If you are a dog, you will find number two gives you more freedom - And as a cat it will be number one.
As a cat I see your point, and agree that most new worlds are made for dogs.
There you go, lots a room for misinterpretations .. let the flames begin.
Comments
What is the difference between a game pushing your options and a game that pursues a more focuses gameplay or the interests of other players? There are other players in the genre who do not want the same options as you. They may wany a game without pvp or with free-for-all pvp. Some will only want grouping and other solo. Should every game try to cater to everyone just because that is what you want? The one thing the genre really needs right now is diversity.
I find your example of eve as being perfect, because it is a ffa pvp game. There is no safe area in eve, none. High sec is filled with people screwing each other over all the time, but that is the point of the game. What you might call an ethug or griefer is a successful player in eve. The game encourages skullduggery amongs players.
Yeah I was trying to tie down a better or more accurate view of "forced" game mechanics.
I've played LOTRO since beta and there were some places you didn't go into without a group or that you had outleveled and so could do by yourself. The Great Barrows for instance. Could you walk in there at level 17 with a group and fight it out? Sure. Could you get very far solo? Not so much...
But I don't think that was neccesarily a bad design.
I also walked alone all the way into Angmar at level 13, to that first camp after Aughaire. Solo friendly walk? Not really but the game at least allowed me to go as far as I was willing to go.
As was mentioned, even in 1.0 space you can be attacked by another player without having to raise a "PvP" flag. TO me the only importance FFA as a concept has to do wit the discussion is that it represents a system of total freedom, which I think the OP mistakenly says he wants. I think he really wants more options within the bounds of a controlled system.
"Heart grow stronger, Will becomes firm, the Mind more calm, as our Strength lessens..." Battle of Maldon 991 AD
Its funny that you brought this up because most of my buddies at work were trying to label True forced grouping ones but struggled really bad. Obviously we pegged FFXI first and then the discussion went back adn forth when it came to EQ and AC1. Honestly there arent many and there's a reason for this... Because people generally dislike it.
I wonder why everyone always harps on it if there were very few Forced grouping games. I mean i could name a ton of Group focused games but all of them gave me options to solo.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
The blue the bla the what ?
I never asked for "freedom" in my MMORPGs ... I want diversity and content.
Freedom can be a lot of different things.
The free market, for example, results in most people being little more than slaves.
First I'd like to say sorry if what I'm about to say has been said before but after reading through 2 pages (I have my posts per page set at 30 so it's more like 3 pages for most here) the extreme viewpoints here were turning my brain into Cottage Cheese.
Why does everything have to be so black and white? There are a lot of shades of gray inbetween that most here ignore. I personally like a game to give you the freedom of FFA PvP but have a ruleset that has serious consequenses for players that out and out gank other players. Those players are considered by the game to be outlaws and they are treated as such by the NPC Guards, NPC Merchants and it makes them a "Free Kill" for other players. This still allows for the freedom of open world PvP but keeps the wholesale ganking of newbies to a minimum. You can't murder someone in the real world without being held accountable for your actions so why should it be any different in a game? As for having designated PvP areas I think that extremely limits player freedom and those areas just become 'Gankfest Zones'. I think the player should have the freedom to choose to gank that Noob but they better be ready for the hard life as an outlaw that will follow.
As for forced grouping I've never been for that. I personally think that while the game should give some real benefits to grouping, soloing should always be a viable option as well. This allows players to choose what their play experience will be from one day to the next. This allows for maximum player freedom.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
When a PvP game manages to really implement a system like that then the discussion will change. So far FFA PvP MMORPGs at best give a slap on the wrist and the 'outlaws' continue as before.
FYI "forced PvP" actually means nobody can stop you PvPing.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
He's describing EVE, which has exactly that system.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
From a westerners point of view, out of 10 mmorpg games in the last 6 years (aside from lets say WoW and Aion), only one carries as great and consistent a population base as most AAA studio games, and thats CCPs' EVE with it's sanboxy design and player-centric ecosystem where players drive and make the content. Interesting how it's successful, and more-so than most mmorpgs.
It's laughably easy to avoid or escape "griefing" in EVE. The only difficulty is getting into some people's heads the idea that they have to do something about it, rather than cry about it until someone else comes to fix it. Once they make that philosophical leap, things suddenly get vastly easier.
It's extremely difficult to do anything to a player who is actively trying to avoid combat and who is aware of some elementary game mechanics like using the onboard scanner, session timers and basic ship fittings (none of which depend on skillpoints, or a trivial number in the case of required fittings; a few hours worth)
Give me liberty or give me lasers
To many PvP games out there now the MMO world needs a PvE game now. without PvP where classes have there Unique skills that makes them dependant on each other. like Old Shcool EQ Harm Touch or Mana burn etc etc
No Signature
EVE might claim to have that kind of system but the rest of the game's mechanics trivialize it to a point where they really do not matter to the average player.
If a person understands the game mechanics well enought they can avoid the griefers for the most part. However, this makes certain fun playstyles unviable in the game. If you like the game primarily for those aspects then playing 'smart' also means not doing the fun stuff in the game.
Actually I was thinking more of Lineage II's Karma system but EVE is a good fit as well. In L2 the more you outrite killed other players the deeper into 'Karma Debt' you would get. You could work this off by getting killed over and over(Massive EXP loss) or by killing mobs of the same level as you(Huge time sink as L2 is a grind game in the purest sense of the term). The more Karma you had the longer a process it would be to work it off and the whole time you were totally open to consequence free attack by other players. If you did it often enough you would get a high PK count and that would have it's own consequences. The only way to get rid of a high PK count was to do a real bitch of a quest over and over until you got it down to a reasonable level. There was also only one town where a PKer could trade or bank and guess where all of the PK hunters would hang out? Life was very hard for a PKer in L2.
Edit: Oh and L2 is not a full loot game. There was a slight chance you'd drop a piece of gear when you died but it didn't happen very often... unless you were flagged as a PKer. If you were flagged "red" the chances of actually dropping multiple pieces of gear went up by about 1000% when you died. This made PK hunting very profitable.
Not that L2 didn't have some serious other issues but the Karma system worked and it worked well. Sure you still had some gankers but they were nothing like you have in games like UO and DF that do only give you a slight slap on the hand.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
I think there is room for all 3 kinds of games, PvE only, PvP only and both.
Problem with having both is that it is almost impossible to get it well and I rather have 1 thing great than both so so.
Arenanet did solve the thing with skills by having some PvE only skills and separating the playstyles, that actually works fine.
But I agree there are room for more PvE only game, as well as there are for PvP only. Another problem with PvP only games is that they often uses the same mechanics as PvE only, and they are not that great even in PvE, in PvP it doesn't really work at all.
I am looking forward to seeing how GW2 are handling PvE and PvP, I think they are onto something there. Of course so was Mythic once but they messed it up.
I'm not sure I take your meaning. Can you give examples? What playstyles are incompatible with remaining cloaked after jumping until the session timer has expired or with warping to a planet/belt/moon near a gate and scanning it before warping in or with fitting a nanofiber or two?
Give me liberty or give me lasers
We don't hate mmo's we LOVE mmo's. We just don't really like the mmo's being churned out today.
Unfortunately most companies are going about the mmo thing like nuclear warheads. We all know they aren't good but alot of developers just want to "join the club" and have an mmo out making money.
Alot of the time it feels as though mmo development is stuck in some sort of "one step - follow the leader" type trap.Occasionally an mmo will make great innovation and then for the next batch of mmos they are basically catching up with that step to "join the club". Then some other mmo will make another innovation, and the next batch will catch up aswell.
If you aren't aiming for the absolute top with your mmo. Please don't f****ng bother. Don't just churn something out in the hope of making a profit.
By the very nature of mmo's we CAN'T pay for loads of them. So it's one ideally, maybe two or three with exceptions. If your mmo isn't the absolute best it's silly to make it. Make a great singleplayer game instead, that passes into legend and leave it at that. We can all play a singleplayer game, think it's the greatest of all time then move on to the next game - and most likely definately go back to check that companies next single player game.
Maybe some of you will say "what everyone thinks is best is different" maybe that's true. But what's wrong with an mmo that has it all. The absolute lot. Something so huge that there's enough content to appeal to every player.
Or possibly even just make an mmo that shows them things they never imagined.
But FFS.... Cut it out with all that instanced crap! I want to play an mmo. Not a chat room with avatars before heading out my groups private adventure.
"It's like a finger pointing away to the moon... Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all the heavenly glory" (Bruce Lee)
(Insert your favourite mmo here): ......And behold, a pale horse.... And a million hellishly bad mmos followed with it.
OP I see what you are saying. But the thing is, most of the people that are QQing about Forced grouping, are the Old School Theme Park fans, not the Sandbox fans
There are dogs and there are cats.
If you are a dog, you will find number two gives you more freedom - And as a cat it will be number one.
As a cat I see your point, and agree that most new worlds are made for dogs.
There you go, lots a room for misinterpretations .. let the flames begin.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0