Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The one thing that could 'kill' this game's mass appeal in the West...

1235716

Comments

  • Deron_BarakDeron_Barak Member Posts: 1,136

    Originally posted by Bainwalker

    Every game needs PVE not only to flesh out the world but for quests and the economy as well;  frankly I don't know a lot about this game at the moment so my post was more in a general sense than just in regards to this game.

     

    My point still stands.

     Your theory could valid depending on the specific game in developement but in the case of Archeage I don't agree. The difference between the PvE and PvP servers, according to XLGames, would be who you can attack:

    PvP = anyone

    PvE = opposing faction(s)

    Penatlies are still in play for PKing your own faction or murdering the opposition on their turf.  One important point to mention is that XLGames has not said the East and West continents are 100% safe zones.  The only safe zone I have heard mention of is a small area if the Notthern continent controlled by NPCs of the two static factions.

    By the way, being a called "carebear" or a pansy because someone doesn't want FFA full loot PvP is hilarious.  Most folk play games at a time of relaxation when the day is done and don't feel the need to exert such aggression.  Most (I hope) of the people who love PvP look for the competetive nature of it and I totally understand since I do as well.  Let's just keep things in perspective.

    Just not worth my time anymore.

  • SlyLoKSlyLoK Member RarePosts: 2,698

    Originally posted by Bainwalker

    Originally posted by Deron_Barak


    Originally posted by SlyLoK

    Simple.. Two different server rulesets.

    1. Open World PvP

    2. PvE with Optional PvP

    Done.

    Everyone is happy.

     

    Agreed and will probably happen this way. I'll be hitting FFA but look at this game! Why alienate anyone?

     

    Read my post above, again you cannot do this without making one or the other suffer.  I hope these developers are smart enough to realize this.  Besides if they make the game well enough there won't be any reasons for the tree-hugging-carebear-loving-pansies not to play.  

     

    Sorry I couldn't resist.

    Sure you can. Thats why its called " Rulesets". You dont just go in and turn FFA PvP off and call it done.

    And no.. Even if the game is good the players that like exploration , PvE and crafting / harvesting will not tolerate being ganked by a loser and his loser friends.

  • Southpaw.GamerSouthpaw.Gamer Member CommonPosts: 572

    Originally posted by SlyLoK

    Originally posted by Bainwalker


    Originally posted by Deron_Barak


    Originally posted by SlyLoK

    Simple.. Two different server rulesets.

    1. Open World PvP

    2. PvE with Optional PvP

    Done.

    Everyone is happy.

     

    Agreed and will probably happen this way. I'll be hitting FFA but look at this game! Why alienate anyone?

     

    Read my post above, again you cannot do this without making one or the other suffer.  I hope these developers are smart enough to realize this.  Besides if they make the game well enough there won't be any reasons for the tree-hugging-carebear-loving-pansies not to play.  

     

    Sorry I couldn't resist.

    Sure you can. Thats why its called " Rulesets". You dont just go in and turn PvP off and call it done.

    And no.. Even if the game is good the players that like exploration , PvE and crafting / harvesting will not tolerate being ganked by a loser and his loser friends.

    If a person that doesn't enjoy PvP very much has any intelligence what-so-ever getting "ganked" is easily avoidable.  At least to an extent.  I really don't understand what is so bad about dying every once in awhile.  

    "Rulesets" can fuck up core-mechanics.  I'd rather a game focus on being either a good PvP game or a PvE game.  The thing about making a good PvP game is that it requires a good PvE game within the PvP mechanics or it will flop regardless of how good the PvP may be.

     

    Just because a game is made for freedom in what a player wants to do (Which includes murder or "PKing") doesn't mean it won't be an amazing PvE experience as well.  

    Full Sail University - Game Design

  • SinellaSinella Member UncommonPosts: 343

    Originally posted by SlyLoK

    Originally posted by Bainwalker


    Originally posted by Deron_Barak


    Originally posted by SlyLoK

    Simple.. Two different server rulesets.

    1. Open World PvP

    2. PvE with Optional PvP

    Done.

    Everyone is happy.

     

    Agreed and will probably happen this way. I'll be hitting FFA but look at this game! Why alienate anyone?

     

    Read my post above, again you cannot do this without making one or the other suffer.  I hope these developers are smart enough to realize this.  Besides if they make the game well enough there won't be any reasons for the tree-hugging-carebear-loving-pansies not to play.  

     

    Sorry I couldn't resist.

    Sure you can. Thats why its called " Rulesets". You dont just go in and turn FFA PvP off and call it done.

    And no.. Even if the game is good the players that like exploration , PvE and crafting / harvesting will not tolerate being ganked by a loser and his loser friends.

    Agreed.I don't want to deal with lifeless jerks in my free time. I'm very happy they talked about different PvP ruleset servers.

  • 69Cuda69Cuda Member Posts: 251

     Let them make it how they want to make it maybe? Then play it if you like it. There are enough people that would like a decent "new" sandboxy game to make it a good niche game if nothing else. On the other hand if they water it down so much to appeal to the "now" somewhat pissed off wow base it will be hailed as another shitty wow clone with crafting or some such thing.

     There is something like 80% of the high fantasy games currently out that are pve themepark bullshit. Play one of those rather than dictate a new sandboxy game with ffa or pk'ers etc conform to the wow standard. The game doesn.t "NEED" 6 billion people to be successfull and fun.

    Just my opinion mind you . But im looking forward to the uo/eve feeling of watching my back. PvP with consequences. Bring it on. For the record I am not a big pk'er in general. I pvp but I want the housing and ship building and such with meaningfull pvp. on the flip side the whole rape and pillage on the high seas is kinda appealing :)P Anyone remember lobbing explosive pots in uo ship wars in the harbors ??? lol fun times.

  • Deron_BarakDeron_Barak Member Posts: 1,136

    Originally posted by 69Cuda

     Let them make it how they want to make it maybe? Then play it if you like it. There are enough people that would like a decent "new" sandboxy game to make it a good niche game if nothing else. On the other hand if they water it down so much to appeal to the "now" somewhat pissed off wow base it will be hailed as another shitty wow clone with crafting or some such thing.

     There is something like 80% of the high fantasy games currently out that are pve themepark bullshit. Play one of those rather than dictate a new sandboxy game with ffa or pk'ers etc conform to the wow standard. The game doesn.t "NEED" 6 billion people to be successfull and fun.

    Just my opinion mind you . But im looking forward to the uo/eve feeling of watching my back. PvP with consequences. Bring it on. For the record I am not a big pk'er in general. I pvp but I want the housing and ship building and such with meaningfull pvp. on the flip side the whole rape and pillage on the high seas is kinda appealing :)P Anyone remember lobbing explosive pots in uo ship wars in the harbors ??? lol fun times.

     There is nothing quite like Archeage out there for the PvE or PvP crowd and I think that's the overall point.  Both are hungry for the world that AA will bring while having different play styles.  Both crowds can point to other games that are similar but are simply not enough and that's the beauty of Archeage.

    Just not worth my time anymore.

  • CernanCernan Member UncommonPosts: 360

    Agree 100% with the OP.   A lot of the responses seem to be off topic.  I don't see how anyone could disagree with the fact that offering different server options would limit sales.  I would think having more options would increase sales.  I only heard one argument that offered a reason of why the sales could drop.  Someone mentioned the fact that the PvP only crowd may be worried that PvE servers would eventually affect development decisions.  Changes that get pushed to their server rulesets that they never wanted.   All of this because the primary PvE crowd complained about something specific on their servers.

  • CernanCernan Member UncommonPosts: 360

    Originally posted by 69Cuda

     Let them make it how they want to make it maybe? Then play it if you like it. There are enough people that would like a decent "new" sandboxy game to make it a good niche game if nothing else. On the other hand if they water it down so much to appeal to the "now" somewhat pissed off wow base it will be hailed as another shitty wow clone with crafting or some such thing.

    Umm, wow.  I don't think this dicussion is about making the game into WoW.  It's about offering another option to improve sales and increase the playerbase.  This means creating a 2nd server type to cater to more people.  The core game would be the same.  Perhaps you would consider the 2nd server type  as watered down since you could only ffa pvp on one island.  If that is true then don't play on that server type.  Seems simple enough to me. 

     There is something like 80% of the high fantasy games currently out that are pve themepark bullshit. Play one of those rather than dictate a new sandboxy game with ffa or pk'ers etc conform to the wow standard. The game doesn.t "NEED" 6 billion people to be successfull and fun.

    Where did the OP say he wants the game to not be a sandbox game?  Nowhere that I saw.  Again, your ffa pvps could keep your same server.  You aren't being asked to conform.  This is about offering more to increase popularity, not restricting.  Also do you think pve players don't like sandbox games?  The OP already mentioned A Tale in the Desert, which has no combat at all.  That game is far from themepark.  FFA-looting pvp does not make a game a sandbox game. 

    Just my opinion mind you . But im looking forward to the uo/eve feeling of watching my back. PvP with consequences. Bring it on. For the record I am not a big pk'er in general. I pvp but I want the housing and ship building and such with meaningfull pvp. on the flip side the whole rape and pillage on the high seas is kinda appealing :)P Anyone remember lobbing explosive pots in uo ship wars in the harbors ??? lol fun times.

  • RavenRaven Member UncommonPosts: 2,005

    As far as I know the PVP system wont be open in the sense of WoW faction pvp where you can just go and attack anyone but instead will be a flag system like L2, you flag for pvp ( by attacking or making yourself flagged ) and you are free game for anyone interested.

    If this pans out the same as in L2 then this will be a good system that wont promote griefing, because while you can just kill someone that isnt flagged there are penalties for you, you become a free kill for anyone and in L2 meant you could loose items and experience until your karma disappeared. It also meant you couldnt go into towns or use any of the services regular players could use such as the gatekeepers and shops, and were limited to only a single city in the entire world that would allow you to access your warehouse.

    With this in mind there were plenty of incentives to not randomly kill ppl, you really had to piss someone off for conflict to happen, this system also meant guilds were respected and most of the time were able to enforce their ruling on areas they "controlled" which I dont think is a bad thing. 

    image

  • k11keeperk11keeper Member UncommonPosts: 1,048

    Yeah honestly if anyone every tried L2 they would probably feel the same way I do about the PvP. The system was superb, the karma system, all of it was great. What kep that game from becoming insanely popular was the fact that it took so much time to level up. My god once I got into the upper 50s I couldn't handle it anymore. Funny thing is I played FFXI which was known for taking a long time to level (at least pre ToAU) and still L2 took so much longer to level.

    So I hope AA takes some tips from L2 in the PvP department. I'm not exaclty sure how the jail sytem will turn out but I don't really care because I plan on playing on an open PvP server. Hopefully I can find a good clan and we figure out a way to control as much territory as possible striking fear and respect in our adversaries.

  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,908

    Originally posted by rav3n2

    As far as I know the PVP system wont be open in the sense of WoW faction pvp where you can just go and attack anyone but instead will be a flag system like L2, you flag for pvp ( by attacking or making yourself flagged ) and you are free game for anyone interested.

     

    This has been covered about 20 times in this thread alone.

    But once again, as it stands now, you are mistaken.

    There is no flag system. 

    In AA anyone can kill anyone, at any time.

     

    The only control on it being that if you killl your own faction on the two controlled continents they will get a 'blood' saying you killed them. If enough bloods with your name on them are handed in to a NPC you get sent to jail for a time out. If they do this enough they become 'Reds'.

    The other factions (inc the Red outlaw one) do NOT generate bloods when they kill you. They are free to gank and camp you 24/7. There is no penalty for them doing so, in fact quite the opposite...

    There will some kind of player looting in, probably coin or gathers or something. Incentive enough to pillage farms of the enemy faction because, lets face it it's more fun for PKs to take yours rather then grow their own.

    On the 3rd continent it will be true FFA with player looting.

     

    I hope this helps clarify things :)

  • nyxiumnyxium Member UncommonPosts: 1,345

    I must admit I do like PVE servers for accumulating mats to craft and sell stuff. It's almost enjoyable when you know you won't get ganked. More enjoyable than getting ganked anyway, unless you like it, of course.

  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,908

    Originally posted by Bainwalker

    Originally posted by Deron_Barak


    Originally posted by SlyLoK

    Simple.. Two different server rulesets.

    1. Open World PvP

    2. PvE with Optional PvP

    Done.

    Everyone is happy.

     

    Agreed and will probably happen this way. I'll be hitting FFA but look at this game! Why alienate anyone?

     

    Read my post above, again you cannot do this without making one or the other suffer.

    I disagree.

    Besides if they make the game well enough there won't be any reasons for the tree-hugging-carebear-loving-pansies not to play.  

    Open world PvP perma ganking will be enough.

    As Aion why it introduced the nerf into it's open world PvP in order to stop the flood of cancels for that very stated reason.

  • RavenRaven Member UncommonPosts: 2,005

    Originally posted by vesavius

    Originally posted by rav3n2

    As far as I know the PVP system wont be open in the sense of WoW faction pvp where you can just go and attack anyone but instead will be a flag system like L2, you flag for pvp ( by attacking or making yourself flagged ) and you are free game for anyone interested.

     

    This has been covered about 20 times in this thread alone.

    But once again, as it stands now, you are mistaken.

    There is no flag system. 

    In AA anyone can kill anyone, at any time.

     

    The only control on it being that if you killl your own faction on the two controlled continents they will get a 'blood' saying you killed them. If enough bloods with your name on them are handed in to a NPC you get sent to jail for a time out. If they do this enough they become 'Reds'.

    The other factions (inc the Red outlaw one) do NOT generate bloods when they kill you. They are free to gank and camp you 24/7. There is no penalty for them doing so, in fact quite the opposite...

    There will some kind of player looting in, probably coin or gathers or something. Incentive enough to pillage farms of the enemy faction because, lets face it it's more fun for PKs to take yours rather then grow their own.

    On the 3rd continent it will be true FFA with player looting.

     

    I hope this helps clarify things :)

     

    Ok I didnt read the whole thread so you have clarified things thank you.

     

    I have read now a few posts and after reading your information it does seem like same faction killing will be moderated by the jail/blood system so I can expect ppl not to PK same faction at random because there are actual consequences this works the same as a karma system essentially it will hinder your gameplay, and as in L2 it will discourage ppl from doing it without a reason.

    Now to your second point you made out throughout this thread about FFA on other factions and the camping, you advocate that ppl hate FFA and that this can be a "killer", if you do a case comparison with lets say world of warcraft which has free for all killing between factions there are gankers ofc  but its not enough to put ppl off, the reason this happens is cause Blizzard was clever in the way they presented the factions, you feel some genuine dislike for the other faction.

    When two ppl from each faction meet up chances are both want to kill eachother, and that is the key to make it a success if the story and the way they present the factions is good enough ppl will want the conflict you will know its there, your part of it and you accept it.

    Now putting this into the context of AA where it is quite sandbox, ppl will build villages, fences, walls and quite possibly hire NPC guards ( I wouldnt be surprised if this ends up in game dont quote me on it tho just speculating ) , I think it will really tone down the pillaging and ganking paradise you are envisioning, ofc I expect if you go into the wild on your own and build a farm it is going to be vulnerable. Even same faction killings will be affected by this if the tools are indeed there for you to build your own community it being a village or city, ppl will eventually help eachother and random ganking just wont be tolerated.

    To round this up however I do agree that they should probably offer some other server ruleset, more options are not a bad thing at all, nor would this take away from other essential features, I dont see why they wouldnt offer a PVE and a PVP server and even the RP variations at launch. What I dont believe is that the FFA system they are presenting will be a "killer" at all.

    Personally I would never play on a PVE server even if I was only planting trees and they got stolen on a daily basis, just because I feel I am not getting the full game experience, I just dont want a special modified version, I would rather accept the challenge and adapt, but hey that is just me and this is no way means ppl that ppl that prefer PVE servers dont have their own reasons.

     

    image

  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,908

    Originally posted by Bainwalker

    Originally posted by vesavius


    Originally posted by Bainwalker

    I couldn't disagree more, why? Because look at the followings games like Darkfall and Mortal Online had pre-launch.  People WANT a virtual WORLD, one in which there are little restrictions.  If Darkfall would have launched with all the features they had been talking about for years they'd likely have two servers filled up for both regions of the world.

     

     

    I am not sure what you disagree with so strongly... I am not saying that there isnt a limited market for open world PvP games. I am not saying that AA shouldnt have open world PvP servers.

    I am saying that aiming at only the open world pvP players in the West this game will gimp it's sales, and badly. Is that what you disagree with? You think that, despite all evidence, that a gankfest open world PvP game can be as big as one that offers optional PvP as well? Really?

    If so, I personally find that assertion silly...  and it flies in the face of all evidence.

    Ask NCS how open world PvP worked for them in Aion... Maybe they will explain to you why they had to nerf it in order to stop the flood of cancels for that stated reason.

     

    Look, again, I am not saying not to have open world PvP servers, I am saying that having alternate optional PvP servers would move this game from niche and into the big leagues,which has to be great for the XL and the player, and without cost to either camp of PvPers.

    (As I have stated like 50 times in this thread, but is still ignored or not understood by the Open Worlders who seem to 'strongly disagree' without understanding whats being said)

     

    You of course realize if you make a game suited towards a certain group of people the core-mechanics of the game are specifically made for that game.

    Not true at all. Plenty of MMORPGs have core systems that work fine with both styles of play.

    In fact, with AA being a 50/ 50 PvE themepark/ PvE game it's core systems are obviously going to flexible and designed from the ground up to suit that style of play as well as open world ganking, even without taking into account the sandbox elements of building, farming etc.

    In short, AA is obviously going to be designed to work in both spheres from the start. There is no reason at all at this point to assume your right and that the core systems will be so specific and limited as to not be able to allow a server with optional PvP limited to the 3rd island and BGs.

    One of the reasons I fight so much in regards to people wanting "Safe Zones" is that it just makes a game far too easy and boring.

    'Easy' and 'boring' are subjective terms. You,ofc, mean easy and boring for YOU according to your tastes.

    You don't like something, so no one should have it? Really?

    Why is that a reason to fight others having it on another server though? How will it bother you what they do?

     I don't like the fact a lot of games have you only facing a dim-witted AI when you could be facing actual people.  

    Again, YOU don't like.

    Look, heres a tip... if thats the case don't choose the optional PvP server...

  • Deron_BarakDeron_Barak Member Posts: 1,136

    Originally posted by vesavius

    There will some kind of player looting in, probably coin or gathers or something.

    On the 3rd continent it will be true FFA with player looting.

     Did you find a source for this? I'm not sure player looting has been covered by XLGames yet.

    Just not worth my time anymore.

  • AvatarBladeAvatarBlade Member UncommonPosts: 757

    Originally posted by vesavius

    Originally posted by Bainwalker


    Originally posted by vesavius


    Originally posted by Bainwalker

    I couldn't disagree more, why? Because look at the followings games like Darkfall and Mortal Online had pre-launch.  People WANT a virtual WORLD, one in which there are little restrictions.  If Darkfall would have launched with all the features they had been talking about for years they'd likely have two servers filled up for both regions of the world.

     

     

    I am not sure what you disagree with so strongly... I am not saying that there isnt a limited market for open world PvP games. I am not saying that AA shouldnt have open world PvP servers.

    I am saying that aiming at only the open world pvP players in the West this game will gimp it's sales, and badly. Is that what you disagree with? You think that, despite all evidence, that a gankfest open world PvP game can be as big as one that offers optional PvP as well? Really?

    If so, I personally find that assertion silly...  and it flies in the face of all evidence.

    Ask NCS how open world PvP worked for them in Aion... Maybe they will explain to you why they had to nerf it in order to stop the flood of cancels for that stated reason.

     

    Look, again, I am not saying not to have open world PvP servers, I am saying that having alternate optional PvP servers would move this game from niche and into the big leagues,which has to be great for the XL and the player, and without cost to either camp of PvPers.

    (As I have stated like 50 times in this thread, but is still ignored or not understood by the Open Worlders who seem to 'strongly disagree' without understanding whats being said)

     

    You of course realize if you make a game suited towards a certain group of people the core-mechanics of the game are specifically made for that game.

    Not true at all. Plenty of MMORPGs have core systems that work fine with both styles of play.

    In fact, with AA being a 50/ 50 PvE themepark/ PvE game it's core systems are obviously going to flexible and designed from the ground up to suit that style of play as well as open world ganking, even without taking into account the sandbox elements of building, farming etc.

    In short, AA is obviously going to be designed to work in both spheres from the start. There is no reason at all at this point to assume your right and that the core systems will be so specific and limited as to not be able to allow a server with optional PvP limited to the 3rd island and BGs.

    One of the reasons I fight so much in regards to people wanting "Safe Zones" is that it just makes a game far too easy and boring.

    'Easy' and 'boring' are subjective terms. You,ofc, mean easy and boring for YOU according to your tastes.

    You don't like something, so no one should have it? Really?

    Why is that a reason to fight others having it on another server though? How will it bother you what they do?

     I don't like the fact a lot of games have you only facing a dim-witted AI when you could be facing actual people.  

    Again, YOU don't like.

    Look, heres a tip... if thats the case don't choose the optional PvP server...

    Agree with vesavius, having servers with different rule sets would help the game in the west. Don't understand why some are so against there being different server types. People that like the whole ffa pvp could chose that server while the ones that don't can choose the "pve" server.  Two groups are happy instead of just one. That's actually a good thing as far as I see it.

    What I think would hurt it more tho, along with only pvp servers, in the west at least, is full player looting. I am sure that if they implement that it would be easier to get gear than in a raid focused game, but I think, might be wrong here, that alot of people hate losing gear, even if it took a couple of hours to get, let's say. I am almost willing to bet that most of the current mmo players would quit if they lost all their gear because they wanted to try pvp a couple of times.

    Whatever the case I hope they succede in making an enjoyable game, hopefully for as many people as possible.

  • Dionysus187Dionysus187 Member Posts: 302

    Well I know for fact myself and several of my friends dropped out of Aion once we figured out post-20 your options were to grind while avoiding PvP or to just flat out PvP. I like PvP a lot actually, but when PvP is forced upon me with FFA PvP it ceases to be PvE, I don't care what you call it.

    It could be the most intricate, complex storyline with record breaking amounts of PvE content, if there is FFA PvP, it is a PvP game. Period. FFA PvP supercedes all playstyles, and I don't mean in fun or quality, I mean no other playstyle can fully exist alongside FFA PvP.

    The western market is a PvE centric. Even PvP servers on western MMO's have a ton of PvE and ways to avoid PvP. I think the OP is spot on here. There have been several PvP centric games released in the west and at best see moderate success and not all at the same time or for long periods save for maybe EvE.

    History has shown people who do not enjoy being PK'd will not tolerate it AT ALL. You need only look at the current game market and games that are no longer around. So don't get in a huff by the prospect of PvE servers, because the majority of players on those servers will only play on those types of servers or not at all. Not like PvE servers are stealing tons of possible PvP server players.

    TL;DR: Look at a game with PvE and PvP servers, now realize most of those people on PvE servers wouldn't play the game AT ALL if the PvE servers didn't exist. Not having a PvE solution will hurt this game in the West.

    image

  • MyrdynnMyrdynn Member RarePosts: 2,483

    Im all for ffa world pvp, personally Im not a big pvp'r, but I always play on pvp servers for that little "extra" what irritates me is guys who roll on pvp servers, and continually bitch about being farmed, ganked, camped etc.

    a server (or servers) with pvp only on isle 3 is a perfect solution.  This game has a lot to offer I truly believe, and I want to enjoy it, so ill normally start on a pve server, then eventually reroll on a pvp server if I enjoy the game.

  • osc8rosc8r Member UncommonPosts: 688

    Originally posted by Dionysus187

    Well I know for fact myself and several of my friends dropped out of Aion once we figured out post-20 your options were to grind while avoiding PvP or to just flat out PvP. I like PvP a lot actually, but when PvP is forced upon me with FFA PvP it ceases to be PvE, I don't care what you call it.

    People need to quit spouting Aion as a FFA game, it was TEAM PVP. There were also zones which didn't have exit rifts, meaning PVP could easily be avoided. And you know what limited the success of the game here, it was the grind/mat grind, it wasn't 'world pvp'. But yes, the TEAM PVP setup in that game failed. Level 50's who wanted to PVP had no choice but to enter the lower level 40's rift/zone and no the max level zone, so all we can conclude is that poorly made world PVP setups fail, but poorly made PVE setups fail even harder.

    It could be the most intricate, complex storyline with record breaking amounts of PvE content, if there is FFA PvP, it is a PvP game. Period. FFA PvP supercedes all playstyles, and I don't mean in fun or quality, I mean no other playstyle can fully exist alongside FFA PvP.

    Tell that to all the people in EVE, and UO who do/did nothing but craft, or harvest etc. And in AC1, a lot of the PVE 'world firsts' or 'one time events' were claimed by people on the FFA PVP server.

    The western market is a PvE centric. Even PvP servers on western MMO's have a ton of PvE and ways to avoid PvP. I think the OP is spot on here. There have been several PvP centric games released in the west and at best see moderate success and not all at the same time or for long periods save for maybe EvE.

    Compared to what? How many AAA PVE/PVP-lite MMO's have we seen fail lately? TONNES! The only AAA/AA FFA PVP MMO's I can think of are UO and EVE, and both of them were hugely succesful - UO broke records (pre tram), and EVE has seen continued growth for 8 years now. Scroll back a few pages for fruther examples and data.

    TL;DR: Look at a game with PvE and PvP servers, now realize most of those people on PvE servers wouldn't play the game AT ALL if the PvE servers didn't exist. Not having a PvE solution will hurt this game in the West.

    The reverse is also true. Even primarily PVE focused games like Rift and WOW (with poor world PVP) had/have ~50% of their players on PVP servers. Now consider how saturated the PVE/PVP-lite market is these days, and who you are competing against, and well...

    But as I've said, I have no problems with AA adding a PVE server (as long as they don't start adding epics / gear grinds for PVE'rs that trump player skill in PVP, or force PVP'ers to spend hours doing raids to be competitive etc etc), but please stop theorising #'s, making false claims, or putting down PVP'ers in the process.

  • Deron_BarakDeron_Barak Member Posts: 1,136

    I think the reason this tug-of-war is such a hot debate is that what's out there for PvP and PvE just isn't good enough.  This game has brought hope to everyone that there is something better coming.  AA is not being developed by an indie developer that is aiming for a small market.  Have you read about the money involved with this game? It seems as though they are putting it to good use and I guarantee they're looking to get it back.

    Jake said he thought modern MMOs limited the players too much and I agree with him, freedom is good.  PvP should be a major part of the game and it obviously will be.  PvEers should take heart in the fact that any rational developer that knows that there needs to be safe places of play if they want that market of players.

    Now we wait...and hopefully take a breath.

    Just not worth my time anymore.

  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,908

    Originally posted by osc8r

    Originally posted by Dionysus187

    Well I know for fact myself and several of my friends dropped out of Aion once we figured out post-20 your options were to grind while avoiding PvP or to just flat out PvP. I like PvP a lot actually, but when PvP is forced upon me with FFA PvP it ceases to be PvE, I don't care what you call it.

    People need to quit spouting Aion as a FFA game, it was TEAM PVP.

    People are 'spouting' Aion as an open world PvP game, not a FFA one. You have missed the point.

    ...limited the success of the game here, it was the grind/mat grind, it wasn't 'world pvp'.

    Yes it was, it was a stated reason for a ton of cancels. That is why NCS introduced the open world PvP buff to nerf it.

    The masses wanted to level in peace, and quit when they couldnt. it's as simple as that. It wasnt the game's only issue, but it was the one big enough to take the action they did.

    But as I've said, I have no problems with AA adding a PVE server (as long as they don't start adding epics / gear grinds for PVE'rs that trump player skill in PVP, or force PVP'ers to spend hours doing raids to be competitive etc etc)

    You are aware that AA already is PvE heavy and gear/ level dependent right?

    If you want a drop in PvP game, I hear theres a new Medal of Honor title coming out soon...

    Joking aside though, I am glad you are at least one of the open worlders that maybe gets it's better to support pro optional players getting a server of their own.

    The last thing I would want as a open world PvPer is my server full of players that love the game enough to buy and try it but loathe gankfests and want optional PvP...  because imo they will hugely out number the niche open world crowd and when they start quitting and giving that as the reason your open world XL will obviously follow the money,

    Smart open worlders should be supporting alternate rules servers tbh- that way way get rid of the bluebies sharing their space and protect exactly the type of game they want toplay.

  • CernanCernan Member UncommonPosts: 360

    Originally posted by Myrdynn

    Im all for ffa world pvp, personally Im not a big pvp'r, but I always play on pvp servers for that little "extra" what irritates me is guys who roll on pvp servers, and continually bitch about being farmed, ganked, camped etc.

    a server (or servers) with pvp only on isle 3 is a perfect solution.  This game has a lot to offer I truly believe, and I want to enjoy it, so ill normally start on a pve server, then eventually reroll on a pvp server if I enjoy the game.

    This..

    I find it annoying as well when people roll on pvp servers and then complain.  In Aion I heard a lot of complaining, but people didn't have much of a choice.  I started playing with a co-workers and group of about 5 friends.  A couple quit in their 20s when they got ganked, the rest quit in their 30s.

    I can see the same thing happening in AA.  People do the quests that lasts into their 20s.  Then after that they start out in the world looking to have fun, get killed a few times while farming crops, complain in chat nonstop, and eventually cancel their accounts.  I would actually prefer they just cancel their accounts instead of spamming chat.  However, the better option would be a 2nd server type with more limited pvp.  This keeps money in the companies pocket.  It also keeps the devs from trying to come up with a solution, aka Aion, debuffs and whatever else they needed to deter killing lower levels.  If enough people complain and money lose occurs those stock holders will want to see something change.  Better to just offer than 2nd option in the first place and avoid the situation.

  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,771

    Originally posted by Bainwalker

    Originally posted by Deron_Barak

    Originally posted by SlyLoK

    Simple.. Two different server rulesets.

    1. Open World PvP

    2. PvE with Optional PvP

    Done.

    Everyone is happy.

     

    Agreed and will probably happen this way. I'll be hitting FFA but look at this game! Why alienate anyone?

     

    Read my post above, again you cannot do this without making one or the other suffer.  I hope these developers are smart enough to realize this.  Besides if they make the game well enough there won't be any reasons for the tree-hugging-carebear-loving-pansies not to play.  

     

    Sorry I couldn't resist.

     So if you are saying there are two server types:  PVE and PVPFFA, that people will choose to flock to the PVE rather than stick to the PVPFFA server.  If the game only have PVPFFA servers, then that will be popular.  IS that correct?

    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • mrw0lfmrw0lf Member Posts: 2,269

    Originally posted by waynejr2

    Originally posted by Bainwalker


    Originally posted by Deron_Barak


    Originally posted by SlyLoK

    Simple.. Two different server rulesets.

    1. Open World PvP

    2. PvE with Optional PvP

    Done.

    Everyone is happy.

     

    Agreed and will probably happen this way. I'll be hitting FFA but look at this game! Why alienate anyone?

     

    Read my post above, again you cannot do this without making one or the other suffer.  I hope these developers are smart enough to realize this.  Besides if they make the game well enough there won't be any reasons for the tree-hugging-carebear-loving-pansies not to play.  

     

    Sorry I couldn't resist.

     So if you are saying there are two server types:  PVE and PVPFFA, that people will choose to flock to the PVE rather than stick to the PVPFFA server.  If the game only have PVPFFA servers, then that will be popular.  IS that correct?

    The principle of PVE and PVP servers is flawed it just masks poor design.

    -----
    “The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.”

Sign In or Register to comment.