The open world pvp is apparently on a different continent, so if you go to that continent you know what to expect.
as the OP have informed (believe it was anyway), the open FFA PvP is on another continent, but out of this area there is faction vs faction PvP...reason for this whole thread
I prefer faction vs faction vs faction, but most don't go the 3 faction route. I really like a sandbox game though. Crafting, building, ships, being a pirate, so many ways to play in Archeage.
Just add three different servers with different rule-sets like stated many times already, that results in everyone getting what they want. There's really no argument against that since it does not take away anything from anyone and makes the game a lot more popular than if it had less rule-sets.
Well there is, carebear games such as War, WoW, Swtor and GW 2 arent doing that stuff why should an eastern game do it?
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
It won't hit to well in the west I don't think, not at first anyway. Their using a pro Korean gamer focus group for feedback on shaping the game, Koreans and western gamers have very different tastes.
Ultima Online more than doubled its population after introducing Trammel and it's popularity pinnacle would have never gotten anywhere near where it did without it.
That's all I need to say really (for those that don't know - Trammel turned UO from a FFA game to a pvp optional game).
No it didn't.
Ultima Online had 150k player pre-trammel and was continually growing. It kept growing post trammel too, which proves nothing.
At no stage did UO get over 300k players.
So no.
I'd also like to point out Eve online has more than 300,000 subs now (a niche flight sim). When I played WOW half the population were on world PVP servers, and was the case with Rift (a PVE marketted game). Darktide is also AC1's most popular server today. Hell, even AOC PVP servers were also more popular than it's PVE servers. -> There is a huge untapped market there: for a good, AAA PVP (sandbox) MMO.
That is clearly not what the AAA developers think.
AAA developers have the market research team to find out where the money is, and it seems they all agree to leave FFA PvP to the indies.
Holy shite!! 37 pages...Alot of people looking forward to this game huh? I hope it turned out as awesome as it sounds. If the company running it is even slightly better then AV I'll give it a shot for sure :-)
The problem with FFA PvP is different really. It's not about being ganked, or loosing items. It's about the fact that very few games have a decent mechanics to make up for the losses.
Both "successfull" games with FFA PvP (UO and EvE) have equipement based on crafting or easily obtainable items. Sure there are "rare" drops or expensive stuff, but you can usually pick with what you go into the fight. In most modern, post-EQ/WoW-alike MMOs itemization is based on random drops from dungeons, and loosing an epic that took several weeks to obtain is not really what makes loss oriented PvP fun.
Another reason is lack of long term penalties. Again in both UO and Eve you have sort of "Criminal" status that cuts you from certain areas if you go crazy with PKing. It's not about having super storng guards in quest hubs, it's about having guards that will kill the PKer even weeks later if he is too aggressive in the game, providing some safe-haven to the players, especially new/low-level/low-skill ones.
Without those two aspects, any penalty based, ffa PvP game will fail at mass scale.
Just add three different servers with different rule-sets like stated many times already, that results in everyone getting what they want. There's really no argument against that since it does not take away anything from anyone and makes the game a lot more popular than if it had less rule-sets.
Well there is, carebear games such as War, WoW, Swtor and GW 2 arent doing that stuff why should an eastern game do it?
WoW, SWtoR, and GW2 all offer optional PvP... I don't understand your point. Elaborate?
I see the problem with pvp servers in the thought of "must kill other players".
ArcheAge has until what ive seen great features, but combined with open pvp and what most people understand about open pvp means to me, ill see again and again how ppl destroy what i create.
no thanks. no pve servers, no archeage, sorry.
the opposite would be most ppl think over, that the engine rules of pvp dont mean "kill everything in sight" but this wont happen.
World PVP is the best sort of PVP out there. I wouldnt even consider BG's and arenas PVP because in my eyes its more like a PVE grind for gear. I think you're wrong OP, there needs to be more world PVP.
Pros of world pvp:
1. Sense of danger
2. Risk vs reward
3. unfair or uneven fights (the best fights i've had in MMO's are when i've been out-numbered and came out victoroius)
4. Renown, you or your guild can get a rep as good pvpers. Impossible in instanced PVP
5. Builds a servers community (competitive atmosphere between guilds and striking up friendships by saving someones arse)
6. Fights are always different and unique
Cons of world pvp:
1. ...getting ganked i guess...not really a con if you can handle it (never had a problem with being ganked)...join a PVE server if you dislike it
Pros of instanced PVP:
1. ...hmmmm..nop
Cons of instanced pvp:
1. grind for gear
2. Like PVE (same crap over and over again)
3. Retarded group members (if your joining a random BG)
World PVP is the best sort of PVP out there. I wouldnt even consider BG's and arenas PVP because in my eyes its more like a PVE grind for gear. I think you're wrong OP, there needs to be more world PVP.
I don't understand how he is wrong based on what you posted, though I do think you didnt understand the OP at all. Whether you think open world PvP is 'the best' or not isnt the point of the conversation as far as I can see. It also has no relevance to another server offering a different rules set for those that disagree with you and prefer a different style of play, or what that would mean for the game over here.
op you are wrong!open world pvp is nice on a balanced server,but go in say wow rage of fireland daily.open instance so technicly best pvp on the planet,what kills it? take ilidan,if you are on horde side,it is heaven if your allies it is hell sent. unbalanced server is what kill this not the idea of open world pvp,also you want to bring in fun.the winner get a debuff ,why?to balance out the chance,they do that in racing in usa and ask those guys they never had so much fun.the winner even all buffed up still can lose because when he win they add weight the car.up to a max.they could come up with something similar in mmo!just my 2 cent
World PVP is the best sort of PVP out there. I wouldnt even consider BG's and arenas PVP because in my eyes its more like a PVE grind for gear. I think you're wrong OP, there needs to be more world PVP.
Pros of world pvp:
1. Sense of danger
2. Risk vs reward
3. unfair or uneven fights (the best fights i've had in MMO's are when i've been out-numbered and came out victoroius)
4. Renown, you or your guild can get a rep as good pvpers. Impossible in instanced PVP
5. Builds a servers community (competitive atmosphere between guilds and striking up friendships by saving someones arse)
6. Fights are always different and unique
Cons of world pvp:
1. ...getting ganked i guess...not really a con if you can handle it (never had a problem with being ganked)...join a PVE server if you dislike it
Pros of instanced PVP:
1. ...hmmmm..nop
Cons of instanced pvp:
1. grind for gear
2. Like PVE (same crap over and over again)
3. Retarded group members (if your joining a random BG)
World pvp has to be the way to go in a game hoping to be a sandbox hybrid. The obvious game to copy is eve online:
Zones have different risks, attacking someone in high security zone has a huge penalty. When you die you lose all you current armor, there is insurance to cope with this. Obviously game cant be themepark with end game tiered gear with this mode (thank god for that!) instead players will be able to replace armour with appropriate funds, top tier costs a fortune. Similar to Eve, don't wear what you cannot afford to lose, or stay in safer zones
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I agree with the OP . I'd even go further: if it doesn't already include PvE servers ( optional, those that want the "real thing " can still play it the way they want to b/c there'dbe two server types ) I'm gonna steer clear of it .
Actually world pvp is one of the biggest things about it even for the west as you call it no pvp would be the death , and pvp isnt forced so if yo uwant a pve server only find a pvp game only stop intruding on others .
Actually world pvp is one of the biggest things about it even for the west as you call it no pvp would be the death , and pvp isnt forced so if yo uwant a pve server only find a pvp game only stop intruding on others .
How is it not? Even as presented now PvP in this game is forced. Even your own team can kill you and only gets punished when they have accrued enough 'bloods'. Others, including the 'red' players, can kill you with impunity whenever.
As for the last point you make, you should read the thread. It has been said already multiple times that different servers will be offered from the start, so you need to stop acting like you own the game just because you personally like open world PvP, because XL don't agree.
Originally posted by SnarkRitter "Mass appeal" will be the thing that will completely kill this game. Sorry, but you can't have a good sandbox with "Mass appeal".
Why not? There's no reason you can't have a Sandbox that is accessible to many people. Allow progression along non-combat paths and provide protected areas for the non-pvp crowd. You'll get a ton of farmers and crafters hanging around paying their monthly dues and supplying the economy with everything that the remaining 20% needs to run around killing monsters and each other.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
"Mass appeal" will be the thing that will completely kill this game. Sorry, but you can't have a good sandbox with "Mass appeal".
Rubbish. The mass market loves sandbox elements, as proven with games like GTA and Oblivion.
And as far as MMORPGs with sandbox elements go, how do you know what the mass market likesor dosent like? When was the last time the mass market was offered a good quality well developed well launched MMORPG with strong sandbox elements?
What exactly is it that you actaully base your statement on?
Why not? There's no reason you can't have a Sandbox that is accessible to many people. Allow progression along non-combat paths and provide protected areas for the non-pvp crowd. You'll get a ton of farmers and crafters hanging around paying their monthly dues and supplying the economy with everything that the remaining 20% needs to run around killing monsters and each other.
A dynamic and healthy economy is one of the pillars of a good working sandbox MMORPG. To do that you need every items to be always in high demand. And the mass does not like the idea of having their gears permanently lost.. EVE's economy wouldn't be so wonderful if players ships don't get blown up by tens of thousands everyday.
Originally posted by Britas
Rubbish. The mass market loves sandbox elements, as proven with games like GTA and Oblivion.
There's a difference between sandbox and open world. And Oblivion is not as sandbox-ish as you think, at least when compared to it's predecessors.
And as far as MMORPGs with sandbox elements go, how do you know what the mass market likesor dosent like? When was the last time the mass market was offered a good quality well developed well launched MMORPG with strong sandbox elements?
What exactly is it that you actaully base your statement on?
I don't know....EVE Online? Oh yes EVE certainly now has millions of players and is competing with WoW for the top dog MMORPG title, isn't it?
Rubbish. The mass market loves sandbox elements, as proven with games like GTA and Oblivion.
There's a difference between sandbox and open world. And Oblivion is not as sandbox-ish as you think, at least when compared to it's predecessors.
Well, to be fair, he said 'sandbox elements'.
Open world can be considered a sandbox element.
I didnt read anywhere where the amount of sandbox he thought Oblivion has was quantified...
He does have a point though, and I would take it even further and say even Farmville proves the mass appeal of sandbox elements in their gaming and peoples desire to create within a game space, as does the success of Minecraft. We are getting off topic though
Comments
This thread needs to die already
NEW IDEAS that can refresh the STALE state of MMORPGs
as the OP have informed (believe it was anyway), the open FFA PvP is on another continent, but out of this area there is faction vs faction PvP...reason for this whole thread
I prefer faction vs faction vs faction, but most don't go the 3 faction route. I really like a sandbox game though. Crafting, building, ships, being a pirate, so many ways to play in Archeage.
Waiting for Camelot Unchained
Well there is, carebear games such as War, WoW, Swtor and GW 2 arent doing that stuff why should an eastern game do it?
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
It won't hit to well in the west I don't think, not at first anyway. Their using a pro Korean gamer focus group for feedback on shaping the game, Koreans and western gamers have very different tastes.
That is clearly not what the AAA developers think.
AAA developers have the market research team to find out where the money is, and it seems they all agree to leave FFA PvP to the indies.
Holy shite!! 37 pages...Alot of people looking forward to this game huh? I hope it turned out as awesome as it sounds. If the company running it is even slightly better then AV I'll give it a shot for sure :-)
"I play Tera for the gameplay"
The problem with FFA PvP is different really. It's not about being ganked, or loosing items. It's about the fact that very few games have a decent mechanics to make up for the losses.
Both "successfull" games with FFA PvP (UO and EvE) have equipement based on crafting or easily obtainable items. Sure there are "rare" drops or expensive stuff, but you can usually pick with what you go into the fight. In most modern, post-EQ/WoW-alike MMOs itemization is based on random drops from dungeons, and loosing an epic that took several weeks to obtain is not really what makes loss oriented PvP fun.
Another reason is lack of long term penalties. Again in both UO and Eve you have sort of "Criminal" status that cuts you from certain areas if you go crazy with PKing. It's not about having super storng guards in quest hubs, it's about having guards that will kill the PKer even weeks later if he is too aggressive in the game, providing some safe-haven to the players, especially new/low-level/low-skill ones.
Without those two aspects, any penalty based, ffa PvP game will fail at mass scale.
WoW, SWtoR, and GW2 all offer optional PvP... I don't understand your point. Elaborate?
I see the problem with pvp servers in the thought of "must kill other players".
ArcheAge has until what ive seen great features, but combined with open pvp and what most people understand about open pvp means to me, ill see again and again how ppl destroy what i create.
no thanks. no pve servers, no archeage, sorry.
the opposite would be most ppl think over, that the engine rules of pvp dont mean "kill everything in sight" but this wont happen.
World PVP is the best sort of PVP out there. I wouldnt even consider BG's and arenas PVP because in my eyes its more like a PVE grind for gear. I think you're wrong OP, there needs to be more world PVP.
Pros of world pvp:
1. Sense of danger
2. Risk vs reward
3. unfair or uneven fights (the best fights i've had in MMO's are when i've been out-numbered and came out victoroius)
4. Renown, you or your guild can get a rep as good pvpers. Impossible in instanced PVP
5. Builds a servers community (competitive atmosphere between guilds and striking up friendships by saving someones arse)
6. Fights are always different and unique
Cons of world pvp:
1. ...getting ganked i guess...not really a con if you can handle it (never had a problem with being ganked)...join a PVE server if you dislike it
Pros of instanced PVP:
1. ...hmmmm..nop
Cons of instanced pvp:
1. grind for gear
2. Like PVE (same crap over and over again)
3. Retarded group members (if your joining a random BG)
4. predictable
5. Fair (PVP is about overcoming the odds)
6. grind for gear
I don't understand how he is wrong based on what you posted, though I do think you didnt understand the OP at all. Whether you think open world PvP is 'the best' or not isnt the point of the conversation as far as I can see. It also has no relevance to another server offering a different rules set for those that disagree with you and prefer a different style of play, or what that would mean for the game over here.
op you are wrong!open world pvp is nice on a balanced server,but go in say wow rage of fireland daily.open instance so technicly best pvp on the planet,what kills it?
take ilidan,if you are on horde side,it is heaven if your allies it is hell sent.
unbalanced server is what kill this not the idea of open world pvp,also you want to bring in fun.the winner get a debuff ,why?to balance out the chance,they do that in racing in usa
and ask those guys they never had so much fun.the winner even all buffed up still can lose because when he win they add weight the car.up to a max.they could come up with something similar in mmo!just my 2 cent
Was this a troll post or serious?
World pvp has to be the way to go in a game hoping to be a sandbox hybrid. The obvious game to copy is eve online:
Zones have different risks, attacking someone in high security zone has a huge penalty. When you die you lose all you current armor, there is insurance to cope with this. Obviously game cant be themepark with end game tiered gear with this mode (thank god for that!) instead players will be able to replace armour with appropriate funds, top tier costs a fortune. Similar to Eve, don't wear what you cannot afford to lose, or stay in safer zones
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I want to play this SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BAD!
Currently Play: ?
Occasionally Play: Champions, Pirates of the Burning Sea, WOW, EVE ONLINE
I agree with the OP . I'd even go further: if it doesn't already include PvE servers ( optional, those that want the "real thing " can still play it the way they want to b/c there'dbe two server types ) I'm gonna steer clear of it .
Actually world pvp is one of the biggest things about it even for the west as you call it no pvp would be the death , and pvp isnt forced so if yo uwant a pve server only find a pvp game only stop intruding on others .
Seriously.. I've been waiting for a game that has open world pvp.. Still playing EVE and want an alternative.
PLEASE DO NOT NERF WESTERN SERVERS BY REMOVING OPEN WORLD PVP, CAREBEARS SHOULD PLAY SINGLE PLAYER GAMES.
How is it not? Even as presented now PvP in this game is forced. Even your own team can kill you and only gets punished when they have accrued enough 'bloods'. Others, including the 'red' players, can kill you with impunity whenever.
As for the last point you make, you should read the thread. It has been said already multiple times that different servers will be offered from the start, so you need to stop acting like you own the game just because you personally like open world PvP, because XL don't agree.
"Mass appeal" will be the thing that will completely kill this game. Sorry, but you can't have a good sandbox with "Mass appeal".
Why not? There's no reason you can't have a Sandbox that is accessible to many people. Allow progression along non-combat paths and provide protected areas for the non-pvp crowd. You'll get a ton of farmers and crafters hanging around paying their monthly dues and supplying the economy with everything that the remaining 20% needs to run around killing monsters and each other.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Rubbish. The mass market loves sandbox elements, as proven with games like GTA and Oblivion.
And as far as MMORPGs with sandbox elements go, how do you know what the mass market likesor dosent like? When was the last time the mass market was offered a good quality well developed well launched MMORPG with strong sandbox elements?
What exactly is it that you actaully base your statement on?
A dynamic and healthy economy is one of the pillars of a good working sandbox MMORPG. To do that you need every items to be always in high demand. And the mass does not like the idea of having their gears permanently lost.. EVE's economy wouldn't be so wonderful if players ships don't get blown up by tens of thousands everyday.
Well, to be fair, he said 'sandbox elements'.
Open world can be considered a sandbox element.
I didnt read anywhere where the amount of sandbox he thought Oblivion has was quantified...
He does have a point though, and I would take it even further and say even Farmville proves the mass appeal of sandbox elements in their gaming and peoples desire to create within a game space, as does the success of Minecraft. We are getting off topic though