Yea, you are totally wrong...you are looking at it from your own prospective because thats how you feel. Me personally, I think the game is somewhat carebear. When you say FFA, that should be FFA everywhere. So you are extreme one direction, I am extreme another direction...meet in the middle and you have a game that fits the majority of folks out there.
Incognito www.incognito-gaming.us "You're either with us or against us"
If XLGames isn't intending that Archeage be for a broad audience they are drastically underestimating what they have created. Take PvP completely out of the picture and you would have more erpers and those tired of the tracks than you can shake a stick at. It is a game bred for PvP though and looks to deliver hand over fist. So have both right? If David99 is correct there are more than enough pvpers that will opt for a true FFA game. Great, here are your FFA PvP servers. What would be the harm in having PvE severs where the east and west continents are left alone save for brave assassins? Subscription dollars go into the same bucket after all.
They'd have to go full retard to have FFA pvp throughout the entire game world. I don't know their current pvp plans but last I heard, there were continents players couldn't be attacked, maybe that's not right though, idk.
If I wanted a FFA game I'd be playing Darkfall. I won't play AA if it's all FFA, even as cool as other things sound.
If I wanted a FFA game I'd be playing Darkfall. I won't play AA if it's all FFA, even as cool as other things sound.
And If I wanted a generic zero risk forced faction PVP game I'd be playing WOW, or one of the other hundred or so other MMO's that offer pretty much the same thing.
See, that works both ways... except the FFA PVP market isn't flooded with choices, so it actually holds some merit when I say it.
For the life of me I have no idea why people are so scared of FFA. They will play a faction game knowing full well faction games always fail.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
If I wanted a FFA game I'd be playing Darkfall. I won't play AA if it's all FFA, even as cool as other things sound.
And If I wanted a generic zero risk forced faction PVP game I'd be playing WOW, or one of the other hundred or so other MMO's that offer pretty much the same thing.
See, that works both ways... except the FFA PVP market isn't flooded with choices, so it actually holds some merit when I say it.
Who said I wanted a faction based game? The only thing I want is optional PvP... meaning you can attack whoever else is flagged or on their orgy island or whatever.
FFA PvP, is a griefer style of gaming, nothing else. FFA PvP serves no true purpose other than to give power gaming kiddies the ability to take their childhood frustrations out on casual players, end of story. I've played AC1 Darktide, Shadowbane, Darkfall and AoC PvP but to be honest, none of them compared to Dark Age of Camelot in terms of fun factor. I just don't see the gaming value of FFA PvP, cause it opens up nothing to the gaming market except the ability to grief.
By the way, stop using Eve Online as an open FFA PvP game, cause it is not. FFA PvP games don't have guards protecting you in certain areas of the game, or in Eve Online's case, Concord.
Exactly, why do people need to kill the guy out picking fruit or milking his cows or even kill his cows?
If I wanted a FFA game I'd be playing Darkfall. I won't play AA if it's all FFA, even as cool as other things sound.
And If I wanted a generic zero risk forced faction PVP game I'd be playing WOW, or one of the other hundred or so other MMO's that offer pretty much the same thing.
See, that works both ways... except the FFA PVP market isn't flooded with choices, so it actually holds some merit when I say it.
Who said I wanted a faction based game? The only thing I want is optional PvP... meaning you can attack whoever else is flagged or on their orgy island or whatever.
Well the only choices are FFA or Factions AFAIK. And your quote was "If I wanted a FFA game I'd be playing Darkfall", which leaves... factions.
But anyway, I'd prefer FFA everywhere, but the DP needs to be meaningful to stop people playing the game like quake deathmatch, so accountability & guild politics kicks in.
I'd also like to see a system where criminals/murderers get tagged KOS to everyone, and when they die they encountered a harsher DP, such as item loss.
FFA PvP, is a griefer style of gaming, nothing else. FFA PvP serves no true purpose other than to give power gaming kiddies the ability to take their childhood frustrations out on casual players, end of story. I've played AC1 Darktide, Shadowbane, Darkfall and AoC PvP but to be honest, none of them compared to Dark Age of Camelot in terms of fun factor. I just don't see the gaming value of FFA PvP, cause it opens up nothing to the gaming market except the ability to grief.
By the way, stop using Eve Online as an open FFA PvP game, cause it is not. FFA PvP games don't have guards protecting you in certain areas of the game, or in Eve Online's case, Concord.
Exactly, why do people need to kill the guy out picking fruit or milking his cows or even kill his cows?
No other reason than to grief.
Funny thing is, it happens just as much, if not more in faction games where the red = mentality rules supreme. At least on FFA servers there will be guild politics that come into play.
I played on Vanguard team and FFA servers, guess which one had more ganking? Let me give you a guess, it wasn't the FFA server.
A well made FFA game will have type of risk associated with being a random killer, so people who act like tools will be held accountable. I believe AA has announced a system to do this.
If I wanted a FFA game I'd be playing Darkfall. I won't play AA if it's all FFA, even as cool as other things sound.
And If I wanted a generic zero risk forced faction PVP game I'd be playing WOW, or one of the other hundred or so other MMO's that offer pretty much the same thing.
See, that works both ways... except the FFA PVP market isn't flooded with choices, so it actually holds some merit when I say it.
Who said I wanted a faction based game? The only thing I want is optional PvP... meaning you can attack whoever else is flagged or on their orgy island or whatever.
Well the only choices are FFA or Factions AFAIK. And your quote was "If I wanted a FFA game I'd be playing Darkfall", which leaves... factions.
But anyway, I'd prefer FFA everywhere, but the DP needs to be meaningful to stop people playing the game like quake deathmatch, so accountability & guild politics kicks in.
I'd also like to see a system where criminals/murderers get tagged KOS to everyone, and when they die they encountered a harsher DP, such as item loss.
There hasn't been a developer to this day to have worthwhile consequences. Because eventualy the PK has nothing to lose... They start running around with naked gank squads. And those flagging systems are a joke with aiming type games since they can be so easily exploited.
In FFA games, griefers always have the upper hand.
FFA in AA will still come with a penalty if you kill someone in your faction. That was the delineation when seperate servers were brought up in an interview. There is a crime tagging system that can put someone in jail if they are caught and they have to wait it out or do chores to speed the time up. While don't this they could find a spoon and dig out. Also, there is more to AA than what type of PvP there will be or what type of restrictions will be placed on it. This "go play x or I'd play y if I wanted that" is short sided IMO and ignores the game as a whole.
FFA in AA will still come with a penalty if you kill someone in your faction. That was the delineation when seperate servers were brought up in an interview. There is a crime tagging system that can put someone in jail if they are caught and they have to wait it out or do chores to speed the time up. While don't this they could find a spoon and dig out. Also, there is more to AA than what type of PvP there will be or what type of restrictions will be placed on it. This "go play x or I'd play y if I wanted that" is short sided IMO and ignores the game as a whole.
Ya there's more things to the game but PvP rules are a major make or break feature for a lot, (most?) people.
Who cares if they have all these great features if your play time is gonna be made horrible by griefers?
FFA in AA will still come with a penalty if you kill someone in your faction. That was the delineation when seperate servers were brought up in an interview. There is a crime tagging system that can put someone in jail if they are caught and they have to wait it out or do chores to speed the time up. While don't this they could find a spoon and dig out. Also, there is more to AA than what type of PvP there will be or what type of restrictions will be placed on it. This "go play x or I'd play y if I wanted that" is short sided IMO and ignores the game as a whole.
Ya there's more things to the game but PvP rules are a major make or break feature for a lot, (most?) people.
Who cares if they have all these great features if your play time is gonna be made horrible by griefers?
You're right I'm sure it is just as important to both sides how PvP is set up which is why I think it would be good to have both types of servers. Personally I wouldn't mind the FFA ruleset with the prison system they are talking about. That's just me though and I would like to see AA do well here as to have the benefits that come along with healthy subs. I still have not heard a good reason why having both server types would be a bad thing. The only difference would be who you could kill so one server type would not affect the other from a development standpoint.
There will always be some sort of griefing regardless if you're on a PvP or PvE server. The developers can throw in some penalties for it, but ultimately it'll come down to the players to met out their own justice at times. Some folks seem to be under the impression that griefers are the majority, when that simply isn't the case.
Will there be different server types available? PvP servers with loot on death, PvE servers with PK disabled, for example.
Yes. It is not final yet, but we plan to have different types of servers. For example, there will be a PvP server where you can even PK characters of your own faction or alliance and a separate server where you can only PK those of the opposing sides.
Thus carebears and such will most likely have their PvE servers , so I wouldn't fret too much about it. Problem is, some of the features of the game may become moot without PvP, but we'll see how that goes.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed: And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!" ~Lord George Gordon Byron
People keep arguing different ways to implement PvP rules and penalties, but I still think the way Eve did it is one of the best ways to do it. The consequences are enough that people are very rarely going to just attack someone in lawful space. I wish more MMOs would implement item destruction at death. I know it sucks from an individual's standpoint but it does so much to promote an active economy and it hinders players from PvPing randoms in lawful space.
-------- "Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt: Front: UNO Chemistry Club Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
There will always be some sort of griefing regardless if you're on a PvP or PvE server. The developers can throw in some penalties for it, but ultimately it'll come down to the players to met out their own justice at times. Some folks seem to be under the impression that griefers are the majority, when that simply isn't the case.
Will there be different server types available? PvP servers with loot on death, PvE servers with PK disabled, for example.
Yes. It is not final yet, but we plan to have different types of servers. For example, there will be a PvP server where you can even PK characters of your own faction or alliance and a separate server where you can only PK those of the opposing sides.
Thus carebears and such will most likely have their PvE servers , so I wouldn't fret too much about it. Problem is, some of the features of the game may become moot without PvP, but we'll see how that goes.
This still doesn't provide any info about optional PvP. From what this says, players can still be openly killed anywhere, they just have to be a different faction on PvE servers. Might as well not even have PvE servers then, becuase in some games, that's the same as their PvP servers.
But then, I like open world PvP. It's a virtual world ... you won'r really die. I promise.
Christ, make it a little exciting and suspenseful anyway. If I'm not looking over my shoulder for a PK I'll be bored and quit in a month.
Look, I said already I don't mind the PKs and will play anyhow, no need for sarcastic comments like in red here. It dosent move the conversation anywhere useful.
Look beyond your personal preferences and see the big picture of what I am actually talking about.
What I am saying would not effect your game, you would play on a PvP server, obviously.
Again, in red here demonstrates the reason why the mainstream player will not play this game and why this is needed for those that don't want to deal with the 'leet bad ass PK' BS.
Please demonstrate why alternative rulesets 'ruin games', because from I see it would maybe mean moving this game from the tiny niche and into the realm of hige subs, while not effecting the open world PvP ruleset at al.
People keep arguing different ways to implement PvP rules and penalties, but I still think the way Eve did it is one of the best ways to do it. The consequences are enough that people are very rarely going to just attack someone in lawful space. I wish more MMOs would implement item destruction at death. I know it sucks from an individual's standpoint but it does so much to promote an active economy and it hinders players from PvPing randoms in lawful space.
I don't understand why most folks are against item destruction or item looting. If equipment and items aren't too troublesome to acquire, then it shouldn't matter right? I also hope there will be durability in this game. In other words, you have to get your items repaired, and eventually they must be replaced all together, to help keep the economy rolling.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed: And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!" ~Lord George Gordon Byron
The people who think they are bad ass PvPers since they play a FFA game where EVERY SECOND OH GOD THEY COULD DIE, and turn around and say, no one really kills freely due to punishment. And others mention how they get ganked more in a non FFA game. lol.
OR!!!!<---
The people who think that a FFA game will suddenly explode into a 10 million player game and validate their personal feelings on the type of game they enjoy.
It's just a simple fact. A game with FFA PvP will not ever have the chance at being HUGE. It can sure rise up like EvE did if done correctly with enough punishement. But again, EvE does NOT have Mass Appeal. It's a niche game. A great one for those that enjoy it, but not mainstream. As it is currently, FFA PvP will not be mainstream for some time.
From what I've read, it doesn't sound like the intent is mass appeal. It's a niche game and from the looks of the videos I've seen so far, it's easily the best built PVP Sandbox so far.
Maybe with any luck it won't be WoW-ized prior to release.
Where on earth have you read they want a niche game? I really need to see the link to where the company says it dosent want to make money.
And look, I get saying 'WoW' is some kind of call to arms for a lot of people, but switching off PvP on the two controlled islands isnt doing anything of the sort, so stop trying the create drama with this kind of thing.
This isnt about AA vs WoW, it isnt about carebear vs PK, it's a discussion about how offering an additional ruleset will move this game from a tiny 100,000 niche product up into potentiolly the big numbers of a couple of mill plus, while not effecting your style of game at all.
There will always be some sort of griefing regardless if you're on a PvP or PvE server. The developers can throw in some penalties for it, but ultimately it'll come down to the players to met out their own justice at times. Some folks seem to be under the impression that griefers are the majority, when that simply isn't the case.
Will there be different server types available? PvP servers with loot on death, PvE servers with PK disabled, for example.
Yes. It is not final yet, but we plan to have different types of servers. For example, there will be a PvP server where you can even PK characters of your own faction or alliance and a separate server where you can only PK those of the opposing sides.
Thus carebears and such will most likely have their PvE servers , so I wouldn't fret too much about it. Problem is, some of the features of the game may become moot without PvP, but we'll see how that goes.
This still doesn't provide any info about optional PvP. From what this says, players can still be openly killed anywhere, they just have to be a different faction on PvE servers. Might as well not even have PvE servers then, becuase in some games, that's the same as their PvP servers.
Exactly.
There has been no talk about what I am suggesting, and what is talked about here simply dosent cover it for the mainstream that want optional PvP by restricting it to the 3rd islands and BGs on a seperate server.
But... it does make it clear that XL are open to the idea of alternate servers which brings hope, especially if their publisher here in the West gets it.
This is why any optional PvP supporter has to let their feelings known right from the start. We have to let them know clearly that there is a demand for this ruleset in the West and underline the obvious benefits for all.
I don't think AA designers will be that stupid to force open world pvp through all their servers first, and most likely won't force it on their whole world as well. I'm pretty sure i read somewhere guild fight/land owning will be only on one continent, for me this clearly mean open world pvp will be only on one continent.
But it still wouldn't surprise me they don't want people to be super safe everywhere.
Open world pvp will be successfull if they manage to balance well the zoning/itemisation/leveling aspect of their game. If they don't, it will be a mess, just like L2, Aion was and many others.
But to be honest i don't think korean are ready to balance their usual itemisation/leveling aspect well. During the themepark golden time they had the most hardcore themepark feature of all the gaming world. Leveling and itmesation knew such an extrem in korean game, just like the trinity build. In some of their older game usual dungeon party would have make fun of the difficulty level of most raid today, and their boss need few hundred people at the most extreme time. This extremism is still so present, i just can't beleive this will be very good for that simple reason.
Also i'm confident such game can't and must not be beta tested only for few month, it must have a much longer testing phase, because tweaking a full sandbox is not an easy task, and will break the game if not done properly. AA don't do this.
Originally posted by Ballista
Originally posted by osc8r
Originally posted by Ballista
Originally posted by osc8r
Originally posted by Ballista
It's as simple as:
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.
Actually it did. So yes. There is actually a great analysis on the subject already available on the internet that actually uses *gasp* data!
And by the way, your argument just says, population was X pre trammel and never reached 2X, therefore the game did not reach it's population pinnacle after introduction of trammel. Do you see the problem there? You're not actually arguing against the population reaching a pinnacle post trammel. Just wanted to point that out... Instead, your whole argument hinges on that the population size wasn't doubled (which it actually was).
If you need to me to find the analysis blog for you I can in about 1 hour when I come back to my apartment. : )
In summary: providing more space and content for players who wanted to avoid pvp at their own freedom did actually contribute greatly to UO's success (success in terms of players paying for subscriptions).
1. Actually, no. You claimed that UO more than doubled it's population post trammel. Now, considering UO had 150k subs pre trammel and never ever went over 300k (i believe it peaked at 250k subs after AOS expansion in 03), please explain how that's possible.
2. UO was consistently growing pre-trammel. It continued growing post trammel. Now feel free to prove your second claim of ''it's popularity pinnacle would have never gotten anywhere near where it did without trammel'. Yes, evidence would be great (one with factual data, and not just some guys personal blog).
Don't get me wrong, I think trammel helped increase subs, but no where close to the scale which you're insinuating.
UO launched in 1997. Trammel came out in spring 2000 (3 years later). The population cap happened in 2003 (3 years post trammel, 6 years post launch). You want to continue arguing that the the highest population the game had ever seen occuring 3 years following the release of trammel wasn't monumentally derived from trammel, fine. The game launched in 1997 and had a very small population 3 years later right before trammel was released. The fact that in the same time span (3 years) UO became a big hit only after trammel was released speaks volumes.
Also it wasn't consistently climbing as you suggest when Trammel was released, that big climb in subscription numbers happened in the 3 years after the trammel patch.
It was a huge factor regardless of whether or not you wish acknowledge it. If you look at the first 3 years, then the next 3, there is a huge difference and the one thing dividing those brackets of time was trammel patch.
Anyways this is getting offtopic and specific and we can continue this is private msg - I will track down that post for you I said I would.
Thats funny how some poeple still have a grip about pvp and keep on the old trammel/fellucca argumentation, when everyone know that argumentation doesn't stand anymore if it ever had. There is no more dissociation around pve/pvp games anymore, all big title will offer strong pve/pvp features because most gamers will play both side, whatever gategory you want to fit those gamers in.
Also the all pre trammel/post trammel argumentation from the old day were failing to include very important datas. Internet grown, engine type, population type (rper % just swaped, it was very high with Uo, it is now very low)... If you reconsider the all trammel affair in the light of those thing your argumentation would change radically about the pve/pvp split. And as i said the proof came years later when pvp was a must in every big title, so you don't even need to argue it anymore.
I honestly think mmo designer and player are just way too much numbrilic, they seam to think everything depend on the way they play and make mmos, but the reality is just elsewhere for a big part.
In the end, I don't care what the developers do it's their game to design. But I don't think it'll be anywhere near as great as it could be if they made more space catering to pve'ers than "safe" areas that end around level 20. Look how that did for the pve crowd in Aion - it didn't help at all.
Personally, I think it's great AS IS.
You PVE'rs have hundereds of MMOs catering to you. Go play one of those and let those of us that love FFA have this one.
In the end, I don't care what the developers do it's their game to design. But I don't think it'll be anywhere near as great as it could be if they made more space catering to pve'ers than "safe" areas that end around level 20. Look how that did for the pve crowd in Aion - it didn't help at all.
Personally, I think it's great AS IS.
You PVE'rs have hundereds of MMOs catering to you. Go play one of those and let those of us that love FFA have this one.
Ya, all those PvE game where you can plant and cut down your own trees and throw ropes and climb em, or build a house, or build bridges, boats, have a farm...
Comments
Yea, you are totally wrong...you are looking at it from your own prospective because thats how you feel. Me personally, I think the game is somewhat carebear. When you say FFA, that should be FFA everywhere. So you are extreme one direction, I am extreme another direction...meet in the middle and you have a game that fits the majority of folks out there.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
Just not worth my time anymore.
They'd have to go full retard to have FFA pvp throughout the entire game world. I don't know their current pvp plans but last I heard, there were continents players couldn't be attacked, maybe that's not right though, idk.
If I wanted a FFA game I'd be playing Darkfall. I won't play AA if it's all FFA, even as cool as other things sound.
And If I wanted a generic zero risk forced faction PVP game I'd be playing WOW, or one of the other hundred or so other MMO's that offer pretty much the same thing.
See, that works both ways... except the FFA PVP market isn't flooded with choices, so it actually holds some merit when I say it.
For the life of me I have no idea why people are so scared of FFA. They will play a faction game knowing full well faction games always fail.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
Who said I wanted a faction based game? The only thing I want is optional PvP... meaning you can attack whoever else is flagged or on their orgy island or whatever.
Exactly, why do people need to kill the guy out picking fruit or milking his cows or even kill his cows?
No other reason than to grief.
Well the only choices are FFA or Factions AFAIK. And your quote was "If I wanted a FFA game I'd be playing Darkfall", which leaves... factions.
But anyway, I'd prefer FFA everywhere, but the DP needs to be meaningful to stop people playing the game like quake deathmatch, so accountability & guild politics kicks in.
I'd also like to see a system where criminals/murderers get tagged KOS to everyone, and when they die they encountered a harsher DP, such as item loss.
Funny thing is, it happens just as much, if not more in faction games where the red = mentality rules supreme. At least on FFA servers there will be guild politics that come into play.
I played on Vanguard team and FFA servers, guess which one had more ganking? Let me give you a guess, it wasn't the FFA server.
A well made FFA game will have type of risk associated with being a random killer, so people who act like tools will be held accountable. I believe AA has announced a system to do this.
There hasn't been a developer to this day to have worthwhile consequences. Because eventualy the PK has nothing to lose... They start running around with naked gank squads. And those flagging systems are a joke with aiming type games since they can be so easily exploited.
In FFA games, griefers always have the upper hand.
Just not worth my time anymore.
Ya there's more things to the game but PvP rules are a major make or break feature for a lot, (most?) people.
Who cares if they have all these great features if your play time is gonna be made horrible by griefers?
Ya there's more things to the game but PvP rules are a major make or break feature for a lot, (most?) people.
Who cares if they have all these great features if your play time is gonna be made horrible by griefers?
You're right I'm sure it is just as important to both sides how PvP is set up which is why I think it would be good to have both types of servers. Personally I wouldn't mind the FFA ruleset with the prison system they are talking about. That's just me though and I would like to see AA do well here as to have the benefits that come along with healthy subs. I still have not heard a good reason why having both server types would be a bad thing. The only difference would be who you could kill so one server type would not affect the other from a development standpoint.Just not worth my time anymore.
There will always be some sort of griefing regardless if you're on a PvP or PvE server. The developers can throw in some penalties for it, but ultimately it'll come down to the players to met out their own justice at times. Some folks seem to be under the impression that griefers are the majority, when that simply isn't the case.
Will there be different server types available? PvP servers with loot on death, PvE servers with PK disabled, for example.
Yes. It is not final yet, but we plan to have different types of servers. For example, there will be a PvP server where you can even PK characters of your own faction or alliance and a separate server where you can only PK those of the opposing sides.
Thus carebears and such will most likely have their PvE servers , so I wouldn't fret too much about it. Problem is, some of the features of the game may become moot without PvP, but we'll see how that goes.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"
~Lord George Gordon Byron
People keep arguing different ways to implement PvP rules and penalties, but I still think the way Eve did it is one of the best ways to do it. The consequences are enough that people are very rarely going to just attack someone in lawful space. I wish more MMOs would implement item destruction at death. I know it sucks from an individual's standpoint but it does so much to promote an active economy and it hinders players from PvPing randoms in lawful space.
--------
"Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt:
Front: UNO Chemistry Club
Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
This still doesn't provide any info about optional PvP. From what this says, players can still be openly killed anywhere, they just have to be a different faction on PvE servers. Might as well not even have PvE servers then, becuase in some games, that's the same as their PvP servers.
Look, I said already I don't mind the PKs and will play anyhow, no need for sarcastic comments like in red here. It dosent move the conversation anywhere useful.
Look beyond your personal preferences and see the big picture of what I am actually talking about.
What I am saying would not effect your game, you would play on a PvP server, obviously.
Again, in red here demonstrates the reason why the mainstream player will not play this game and why this is needed for those that don't want to deal with the 'leet bad ass PK' BS.
Please demonstrate why alternative rulesets 'ruin games', because from I see it would maybe mean moving this game from the tiny niche and into the realm of hige subs, while not effecting the open world PvP ruleset at al.
I don't understand why most folks are against item destruction or item looting. If equipment and items aren't too troublesome to acquire, then it shouldn't matter right? I also hope there will be durability in this game. In other words, you have to get your items repaired, and eventually they must be replaced all together, to help keep the economy rolling.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"
~Lord George Gordon Byron
I don't know what makes me giggle more...
The people who think they are bad ass PvPers since they play a FFA game where EVERY SECOND OH GOD THEY COULD DIE, and turn around and say, no one really kills freely due to punishment. And others mention how they get ganked more in a non FFA game. lol.
OR!!!!<---
The people who think that a FFA game will suddenly explode into a 10 million player game and validate their personal feelings on the type of game they enjoy.
It's just a simple fact. A game with FFA PvP will not ever have the chance at being HUGE. It can sure rise up like EvE did if done correctly with enough punishement. But again, EvE does NOT have Mass Appeal. It's a niche game. A great one for those that enjoy it, but not mainstream. As it is currently, FFA PvP will not be mainstream for some time.
Where on earth have you read they want a niche game? I really need to see the link to where the company says it dosent want to make money.
And look, I get saying 'WoW' is some kind of call to arms for a lot of people, but switching off PvP on the two controlled islands isnt doing anything of the sort, so stop trying the create drama with this kind of thing.
This isnt about AA vs WoW, it isnt about carebear vs PK, it's a discussion about how offering an additional ruleset will move this game from a tiny 100,000 niche product up into potentiolly the big numbers of a couple of mill plus, while not effecting your style of game at all.
Exactly.
There has been no talk about what I am suggesting, and what is talked about here simply dosent cover it for the mainstream that want optional PvP by restricting it to the 3rd islands and BGs on a seperate server.
But... it does make it clear that XL are open to the idea of alternate servers which brings hope, especially if their publisher here in the West gets it.
This is why any optional PvP supporter has to let their feelings known right from the start. We have to let them know clearly that there is a demand for this ruleset in the West and underline the obvious benefits for all.
I don't think AA designers will be that stupid to force open world pvp through all their servers first, and most likely won't force it on their whole world as well. I'm pretty sure i read somewhere guild fight/land owning will be only on one continent, for me this clearly mean open world pvp will be only on one continent.
But it still wouldn't surprise me they don't want people to be super safe everywhere.
Open world pvp will be successfull if they manage to balance well the zoning/itemisation/leveling aspect of their game. If they don't, it will be a mess, just like L2, Aion was and many others.
But to be honest i don't think korean are ready to balance their usual itemisation/leveling aspect well. During the themepark golden time they had the most hardcore themepark feature of all the gaming world. Leveling and itmesation knew such an extrem in korean game, just like the trinity build. In some of their older game usual dungeon party would have make fun of the difficulty level of most raid today, and their boss need few hundred people at the most extreme time. This extremism is still so present, i just can't beleive this will be very good for that simple reason.
Also i'm confident such game can't and must not be beta tested only for few month, it must have a much longer testing phase, because tweaking a full sandbox is not an easy task, and will break the game if not done properly. AA don't do this.
Thats funny how some poeple still have a grip about pvp and keep on the old trammel/fellucca argumentation, when everyone know that argumentation doesn't stand anymore if it ever had. There is no more dissociation around pve/pvp games anymore, all big title will offer strong pve/pvp features because most gamers will play both side, whatever gategory you want to fit those gamers in.
Also the all pre trammel/post trammel argumentation from the old day were failing to include very important datas. Internet grown, engine type, population type (rper % just swaped, it was very high with Uo, it is now very low)... If you reconsider the all trammel affair in the light of those thing your argumentation would change radically about the pve/pvp split. And as i said the proof came years later when pvp was a must in every big title, so you don't even need to argue it anymore.
I honestly think mmo designer and player are just way too much numbrilic, they seam to think everything depend on the way they play and make mmos, but the reality is just elsewhere for a big part.
Personally, I think it's great AS IS.
You PVE'rs have hundereds of MMOs catering to you. Go play one of those and let those of us that love FFA have this one.
MMO Strategy Guides
Ya, all those PvE game where you can plant and cut down your own trees and throw ropes and climb em, or build a house, or build bridges, boats, have a farm...
Let me go play the thousands of those...