I don't think FFA PvP can ever work in a MMORPG, because of the people who generally play these games. Imagine FFA PvP where the only type of people who play them are mature intelligent players who, instead of making the game a gankfest, build kingdoms and only use PvP as governments would in the real world. Players only kill other players when there's a legitamate cause for it, such as war. Yet wars aren't declared "just because" people want to fight. Instead wars are only declared for the same reasons they are declared in the real world.
So far, they've given no specifics, but at least they do acknowledge they are well aware of the issue, and are designing the game from its foundation to have a wider focus than just PvP.
Shrug.. as you said, it is easier said then done. I can remember Henrik typing long walls of text on forums about him being aware of what a sandbox is, about his great vision of tools and content for both pve and pvp, yada yada.. we saw how that turned out.
Originally posted by Rob
but I do believe they are biased based on the track record of such games and not giving us a fair chance by just dismissing the game.
Well, duh.. once you get burned by fire, you kinda get.. careful, you know?
I don't think FFA PvP can ever work in a MMORPG, because of the people who generally play these games. Imagine FFA PvP where the only type of people who play them are mature intelligent players who, instead of making the game a gankfest, build kingdoms and only use PvP as governments would in the real world. Players only kill other players when there's a legitamate cause for it, such as war. Yet wars aren't declared "just because" people want to fight. Instead wars are only declared for the same reasons they are declared in the real world.
I know this will never happen, but what if they applied permadeath to the system, and allowed players to only create a certain amount of characters in a day? This could discourage ganking.
I don't think FFA PvP can ever work in a MMORPG, because of the people who generally play these games. Imagine FFA PvP where the only type of people who play them are mature intelligent players who, instead of making the game a gankfest, build kingdoms and only use PvP as governments would in the real world. Players only kill other players when there's a legitamate cause for it, such as war. Yet wars aren't declared "just because" people want to fight. Instead wars are only declared for the same reasons they are declared in the real world.
I know this will never happen, but what if they applied permadeath to the system, and allowed players to only create a certain amount of characters in a day? This could discourage ganking.
I'd love a permadeath system personally. What if a person becomes flagged for permadeath if they initiate an attack on an innocent person not affiliated with a guild that the ganker is at war with? For instance, if a person attacks a player who isn't guilded, or is in a guild that isn't at war with the guild that the ganker is in, then that ganker becomes permadeath flagged for x amount of time or forever. This would work if there was only allowed 1 character per server.
I'd love a permadeath system personally. What if a person becomes flagged for permadeath if they initiate an attack on an innocent person not affiliated with a guild that the ganker is at war with? For instance, if a person attacks a player who isn't guilded, or is in a guild that isn't at war with the guild that the ganker is in, then that ganker becomes permadeath flagged for x amount of time or forever. This would work if there was only allowed 1 character per server.
That's a good idea!
I think this was partially done with Jedis in pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies. If you became a Jedi, you were flagged for permadeath and if you died X amount of times your character would permanently die. I disagree with it, because Jedi were never in Star Wars during the period Galaxies was in, BUT if there was another game where you could flag yourself for permadeath (which would be permanent to your character) BUT become super-powerful because of it, that could create unique dynamics of what it means to be mortal.
I don't think FFA PvP can ever work in a MMORPG, because of the people who generally play these games. Imagine FFA PvP where the only type of people who play them are mature intelligent players who, instead of making the game a gankfest, build kingdoms and only use PvP as governments would in the real world. Players only kill other players when there's a legitamate cause for it, such as war. Yet wars aren't declared "just because" people want to fight. Instead wars are only declared for the same reasons they are declared in the real world.
I know this will never happen, but what if they applied permadeath to the system, and allowed players to only create a certain amount of characters in a day? This could discourage ganking.
I'd love a permadeath system personally. What if a person becomes flagged for permadeath if they initiate an attack on an innocent person not affiliated with a guild that the ganker is at war with? For instance, if a person attacks a player who isn't guilded, or is in a guild that isn't at war with the guild that the ganker is in, then that ganker becomes permadeath flagged for x amount of time or forever. This would work if there was only allowed 1 character per server.
so all you would have is guilds of griefers waiting for a player to AOE and just step into the AOE attack thus flagging the other person for permadeath.
think it wont happen, go to a PVE server in rift and see how many of the opposing faction flags for PVP hoping to catch that one newbie that didn't turn off his flag and AOEd. they just stand there waiting not doing anything else.
just put in a flagging system like SWG. these sandbox games need to realize that freedom for PVpers mean oppression for every other playstyle and those other playstyles are usually what pays the developers bills.
Ahh I love full loot pvp beats the hell outta grinding up battleground points and calling it pvp anyday. Also defeats the whole res pad spam oops i died oh I'm only 30 seconds away from the fight meh i got nothing to lose. PVP fights in games where there is no full loot isnt exciting its a battle of who gets bored first. Atleast when I take ur shit u walk home naked and hafta go pay a crafter for another set of gear.
I don't think FFA PvP can ever work in a MMORPG, because of the people who generally play these games. Imagine FFA PvP where the only type of people who play them are mature intelligent players who, instead of making the game a gankfest, build kingdoms and only use PvP as governments would in the real world. Players only kill other players when there's a legitamate cause for it, such as war. Yet wars aren't declared "just because" people want to fight. Instead wars are only declared for the same reasons they are declared in the real world.
I know this will never happen, but what if they applied permadeath to the system, and allowed players to only create a certain amount of characters in a day? This could discourage ganking.
I'd love a permadeath system personally. What if a person becomes flagged for permadeath if they initiate an attack on an innocent person not affiliated with a guild that the ganker is at war with? For instance, if a person attacks a player who isn't guilded, or is in a guild that isn't at war with the guild that the ganker is in, then that ganker becomes permadeath flagged for x amount of time or forever. This would work if there was only allowed 1 character per server.
so all you would have is guilds of griefers waiting for a player to AOE and just step into the AOE attack thus flagging the other person for permadeath.
think it wont happen, go to a PVE server in rift and see how many of the opposing faction flags for PVP hoping to catch that one newbie that didn't turn off his flag and AOEd. they just stand there waiting not doing anything else.
just put in a flagging system like SWG. these sandbox games need to realize that freedom for PVpers mean oppression for every other playstyle and those other playstyles are usually what pays the developers bills.
A flaggin system turns everyone into a ganker....with zero accountablity from anyone.
Just like a sandbox, you have to deal with risk of other kids flying from the swings to land on top of your castle. You deal with it by building with friends or finding a sandpit few know about. Or you could just gripe to the moms(devs) about keeping their kids out and only let them in when I say I want them in (flagging).
The playstyle is always dictated by the game. The player just doesn't what's available within those boundaries. Would rage at the game devs because you can't down a 40 man boss solo and that it oppresses your playstyle?
I don't think FFA PvP can ever work in a MMORPG, because of the people who generally play these games. Imagine FFA PvP where the only type of people who play them are mature intelligent players who, instead of making the game a gankfest, build kingdoms and only use PvP as governments would in the real world. Players only kill other players when there's a legitamate cause for it, such as war. Yet wars aren't declared "just because" people want to fight. Instead wars are only declared for the same reasons they are declared in the real world.
I know this will never happen, but what if they applied permadeath to the system, and allowed players to only create a certain amount of characters in a day? This could discourage ganking.
I'd love a permadeath system personally. What if a person becomes flagged for permadeath if they initiate an attack on an innocent person not affiliated with a guild that the ganker is at war with? For instance, if a person attacks a player who isn't guilded, or is in a guild that isn't at war with the guild that the ganker is in, then that ganker becomes permadeath flagged for x amount of time or forever. This would work if there was only allowed 1 character per server.
so all you would have is guilds of griefers waiting for a player to AOE and just step into the AOE attack thus flagging the other person for permadeath.
think it wont happen, go to a PVE server in rift and see how many of the opposing faction flags for PVP hoping to catch that one newbie that didn't turn off his flag and AOEd. they just stand there waiting not doing anything else.
just put in a flagging system like SWG. these sandbox games need to realize that freedom for PVpers mean oppression for every other playstyle and those other playstyles are usually what pays the developers bills.
A flaggin system turns everyone into a ganker....with zero accountablity from anyone.
Just like a sandbox, you have to deal with risk of other kids flying from the swings to land on top of your castle. You deal with it by building with friends or finding a sandpit few know about. Or you could just gripe to the moms(devs) about keeping their kids out and only let them in when I say I want them in (flagging).
The playstyle is always dictated by the game. The player just doesn't what's available within those boundaries. Would rage at the game devs because you can't down a 40 man boss solo and that it oppresses your playstyle?
I actually prefer a faction system like DAoC's realms or SWG's system (Empire vs. Rebels). This gives players a valid reason to PvP within the lore of the game. PvP makes sense, adds immersion, and gives purpose to playing the game, because players feel invested into their faction and desire their faction to win.
Typical FFA PvPers desire the same thing, except want player ran factions in the form of guilds. The problem with this is that players lack the maturity, intelligence, and ambition to design truely immersive factions. An intelligent player with a lot of charisma and leadership skills would build a kingdom from the ground up. They'd have positions in the guild akin to what you'd see in a real world government. Councils, Generals, Footsoldiers, crafting sectors, builders, regular citizens and the whole 9 yards. They'd have a code of ethics, constitutions, laws, and etc that gives their guild structure and purpose. When you have several of these guilds/kingdoms, some with similar goals, which become allies, and others with conflicting goals, which become enemies, you'll have a good world to live in, ganker free, with plenty of opportunities and reasons to war with other nations eventually.
The problem is that players lack imagination and the patience to build that kind of atmosphere and instead form guilds, which are no better than gangs in real life in structure and purpose, and they never evolve. Ganking runs rampant, ruining an otherwise good sandbox. It turns a sandbox game into something unbearable to play in, that before release had lots of promise and potential.
This is why games, even sandboxes, need NPC ran factions that players join, which provides the structure and purpose needed to PvP in a productive and fun way. Most players enjoy PvP, in varying degrees. Even the so called "carebears." They just don't enjoy the senseless ganking and the loss of gear and items that they worked hard for. You can add penalties for dying in PvP that doesn't nueter a player, but still makes them play smarter. Hell, a death penalty that damages your gear, a loss of xp, and a stat reduction buff is enough to make players plan ahead and play smarter. If the penalty is severe enough, it'll take the player out of the fight for 15 minutes or so, allowing a faction to actually win a battle, instead of having an endless PvP match until one side gets tired.
Ahh I love full loot pvp beats the hell outta grinding up battleground points and calling it pvp anyday. Also defeats the whole res pad spam oops i died oh I'm only 30 seconds away from the fight meh i got nothing to lose. PVP fights in games where there is no full loot isnt exciting its a battle of who gets bored first. Atleast when I take ur shit u walk home naked and hafta go pay a crafter for another set of gear.
If your only argument for the sake of full loot is downtime between dying and being combat ready again, then it is easy to solve in themeparks with a debuff and longer distance between graveyards. As for losing armor in a full loot game.. so what? Armor in such games is easy to obtain and usually is just a matter of a quick trip to a bank to grab yet another set, and an hour long grind in order to stack up on the sets every day. Doesnt sound really fun to me.
Ahh I love full loot pvp beats the hell outta grinding up battleground points and calling it pvp anyday. Also defeats the whole res pad spam oops i died oh I'm only 30 seconds away from the fight meh i got nothing to lose. PVP fights in games where there is no full loot isnt exciting its a battle of who gets bored first. Atleast when I take ur shit u walk home naked and hafta go pay a crafter for another set of gear.
If your only argument for the sake of full loot is downtime between dying and being combat ready again, then it is easy to solve in themeparks with a debuff and longer distance between graveyards. As for losing armor in a full loot game.. so what? Armor in such games is easy to obtain and usually is just a matter of a quick trip to a bank to grab yet another set, and an hour long grind in order to stack up on the sets every day. Doesnt sound really fun to me.
That and you feel like you actually WON something for the fight instead of a couple dozen bp points twords ur next armor set.... If your actually good at pvp you have a ton of armor from fallen foes in your bank and if ur not ur buddy who is has a bunch to give you since he never dies.
Ahh I love full loot pvp beats the hell outta grinding up battleground points and calling it pvp anyday. Also defeats the whole res pad spam oops i died oh I'm only 30 seconds away from the fight meh i got nothing to lose. PVP fights in games where there is no full loot isnt exciting its a battle of who gets bored first. Atleast when I take ur shit u walk home naked and hafta go pay a crafter for another set of gear.
If your only argument for the sake of full loot is downtime between dying and being combat ready again, then it is easy to solve in themeparks with a debuff and longer distance between graveyards. As for losing armor in a full loot game.. so what? Armor in such games is easy to obtain and usually is just a matter of a quick trip to a bank to grab yet another set, and an hour long grind in order to stack up on the sets every day. Doesnt sound really fun to me.
That and you feel like you actually WON something for the fight instead of a couple dozen bp points twords ur next armor set.... If your actually good at pvp you have a ton of armor from fallen foes in your bank and if ur not ur buddy who is has a bunch to give you since he never dies.
I often notice that in full loot people don't even bother to pick up armor after a while, since it is worthles most of the time as an upgrade. I've got yet another set like the other 10 I have in bank.. so what? At least in a themepark with those "bp points" you mention I know I can get a significant upgrade to my armor. Again, sense of achivement seems stronger.
I don't really favour themeparks over "sandboxes", mind you, just playing devils advocate here.
Let me put it another way... say you play on a golf league/bowling/softball league whatever you kick in so much money a week for prize money. True you could just play the game for points I bowled a 300 or I shot a 70 on 18 at firestone country club. But since you have something to lose IE your prize money its more exciting if you win or lose. Your prize money could be a couple hours of work at your actual job not playing a video game.
Even if you dont want the armor you want the reagents/potions"input random consumable". Not to mention typical sandbox games the diffrence in armor isnt like it is in WoW or whatever its just marginally better. You have 2% more damage reduction to slashing or whatever not oh god my battle ground rank 10 armor gives me another 5000 hp.
Correct. However, it is entirely possible, given enough time, resources and training; that guard forces could easily over-come groups of criminals. This brings into play the choices of using stealth (not a magical poof I vanish skill, but the actual effort to be stealthy) and guile to get somewhere where you're a known criminal, or to band together in large bands that are capable of fighting off the guards and their player support.
Then comes the whole is it worth it bit... if you basically have to wage war with 50 guards, the players, and lose half of your little bandit army in the process, is it worth it to raid a well defended town? Not likely...
This means small towns and villages will be the likely targets since they will have less defenders, while larger cities, hubs and surrounding areas will rarely be a target and will largely be safe. This then brings in one purpose of building up your city, your territories wealth and strength, so that you can provide more protection, build walls, etc etc. Very realistic, and fun for pvpers, while providing safer areas and cities for those not wanting pvp.
PvP is an essential part of a game world like this, but it is NOT the entire purpose of the game. Just a cog in the machine so to speak. And what a magnificent machine it will be!
Granted, so far, FS hasn't given any hard information, other than put out their perfect vision in nothing more than words. The real test will be turning that vision into concrete systems that satisfy the intent of the vision.
A post in this thread was referenced by Forsaken in asking a question to the members regarding how they think open PvP and/or factions should work. The discussion is here:
I was reading through some posts that have been popping up since we announced our game name and our little demo, and one in particular caught my attention. here's a short excerpt, along with a link to the full post...
"I actually prefer a faction system like DAoC's realms or SWG's system (Empire vs. Rebels). This gives players a valid reason to PvP within the lore of the game. PvP makes sense, adds immersion, and gives purpose to playing the game, because players feel invested into their faction and desire their faction to win.
Typical FFA PvPers desire the same thing, except want player ran factions in the form of guilds. The problem with this is that players lack the maturity, intelligence, and ambition to design truely immersive factions. An intelligent player with a lot of charisma and leadership skills would build a kingdom from the ground up. They'd have positions in the guild akin to what you'd see in a real world government. Councils, Generals, Footsoldiers, crafting sectors, builders, regular citizens and the whole 9 yards. They'd have a code of ethics, constitutions, laws, and etc that gives their guild structure and purpose. When you have several of these guilds/kingdoms, some with similar goals, which become allies, and others with conflicting goals, which become enemies, you'll have a good world to live in, ganker free, with plenty of opportunities and reasons to war with other nations eventually." - nate1980
While I did actually enjoy DAOC very much and liked the faction based pvp, I do not agree with the general statement here, that being the stuff marked in bold. I think the problem is not that players lack the maturity, intelligence, nor ambition, I believe it is that no game has provided adequate tools to allow players to actually accomplish these things. At least no game that I am aware of. Also, I personally am not fond of artificial/preset factions/reasons to fight, as I believe players should be able to make their own choices and draw their lines (and borders) where they please...
Sure, most games have guilds or clans, with a decent number of in house tools to manage the people within that particular entity, but they fall short in offering the tools I feel are necessary for leaders of these groups to extend their influence and abilities in regards to building beyond the confines of the groups membership and some simple structures within it. I believe this problem, coupled with the fact that too often players are pushed to fight just for the sake of fighting, and true societies never really evolve simply because there are no reasons for them to.
So that brings me to my questions.
Do you guys believe as I do, that providing starting points for player controlled factions as well as plenty of tools to control and manage them is the answer here?
Do you believe that there are enough leaders out there that would want to 'build kingdoms from the ground up.' and thus create player controlled factions capable of taking the place of npc factions like those in DAOC?
Or is nater1980 correct, and mmo players just can't handle running things themselves?
Share your thoughts, comments, and perhaps most importantly your concerns.
I for one love the idea of having the ability for player built factions, player kingdoms even, to spring up and take the place of static npc cities and areas common in other games. However, be aware I have no intention of just throwing you an empty world with no back story and cultural differences, and assuming players will make the history... that's my job, I just want to make sure the players are given the right tool for the future. But I am interested to hear what you think about these things.
Nice hyperbole Mendel. "problem players" can be sanctioned perfectly well ingame (see EVE security status). If they can't be, that's bad design. Nobody needs to be banned and what the hell's with "banning the household"
I live in a house with 3 other mmo players, If i decided to try something new and was auto banned that would be ridiculous.
I'm also intrigued by the dev's "putting the security rating in the player's hands" comment, something i've always wanted in EVE. I can't stand fantasy games but I wish them the best of luck.
You guys realise that if you punish one kind of PvP you punish them all.
"Make ganking unprofithable, and very hurtful to the ganker"
Ok.. so whats to make people want to PvP at all? Clearly you get fucked up really harshly when you pvp, so why do it? No If you want to punish the ganker take away open pvp. Im a RPK in MO simply because there isnt much else to do, and im bored. Make me less bored developers, and ill stop pking.
Before MO came out i wasnt even intrested in PvP, and i still played themparks at the time (yet unlike you cowards) the idea of open full loot pvp fascinated me. But i wanted to make a village, and live in a fantasy MMO where i was free from stupid classes, and carebear restricions. I guess above all else the sense of danger attracted me to Mortal.
Clearly Open pvp isnt ment for many people, but there are enough people to make a game succesful if they want it.
Wanna know why MO/DF are dieng? Beecause they sucked when they game out, bugs, exploits, lack of GM's, etc. Not because of open PvP. Darkfall attracted 10000+ people to it. Those people knew that it had open PvP, thats enough people to make a very succesful game. Wanna know why only 400+ play it now? Because realese was awful, and drew to mant people away from it.
Originally posted by lonewolf9567Im a RPK in MO simply because there isnt much else to do, and im bored. Make me less bored developers, and ill stop pking.
i love full loot open pvp but i expect a mmorpg to have more to it than that, which MO didnt have. pvp was the only thing that was remotely fun. AI improvements kept getting promised and well that never happened. a full loot game needs some restrictions but more importantly it needs many other gameplay elements & tools also to keep people from doing what this guy talks about. pretty much why UO worked so good in its prime, i had tailoring, taming, trading, and a house that kept me occupied. I'm sure other ppl had other aspects they enjoyed besides just the pvp which was just a plus
Originally posted by Rohn
I agree with your concern. The creative director did have this to say:
I remember the MO devs talking about how great their guards would be. Devs can promise as much as they want but until its shown in a somewhat working form I won't be impressed
I don't think FFA PvP can ever work in a MMORPG, because of the people who generally play these games. Imagine FFA PvP where the only type of people who play them are mature intelligent players who, instead of making the game a gankfest, build kingdoms and only use PvP as governments would in the real world. Players only kill other players when there's a legitamate cause for it, such as war. Yet wars aren't declared "just because" people want to fight. Instead wars are only declared for the same reasons they are declared in the real world.
I know this will never happen, but what if they applied permadeath to the system, and allowed players to only create a certain amount of characters in a day? This could discourage ganking.
I'd love a permadeath system personally. What if a person becomes flagged for permadeath if they initiate an attack on an innocent person not affiliated with a guild that the ganker is at war with? For instance, if a person attacks a player who isn't guilded, or is in a guild that isn't at war with the guild that the ganker is in, then that ganker becomes permadeath flagged for x amount of time or forever. This would work if there was only allowed 1 character per server.
so all you would have is guilds of griefers waiting for a player to AOE and just step into the AOE attack thus flagging the other person for permadeath.
think it wont happen, go to a PVE server in rift and see how many of the opposing faction flags for PVP hoping to catch that one newbie that didn't turn off his flag and AOEd. they just stand there waiting not doing anything else.
just put in a flagging system like SWG. these sandbox games need to realize that freedom for PVpers mean oppression for every other playstyle and those other playstyles are usually what pays the developers bills.
If you are not flagged, AoEs cannot hit you. That fixed your problem.
I agree with you whole hearted. Concensual PvP is good, option and choice is good. I hate the exploiters who flags himself and run into the AoE range of non flagged players (usually lowbies) get him flagged and surprise-gank. If my AoE cannot hit anyone until I flag myself, this loophole can be fixed.
Ahh I love full loot pvp beats the hell outta grinding up battleground points and calling it pvp anyday. Also defeats the whole res pad spam oops i died oh I'm only 30 seconds away from the fight meh i got nothing to lose. PVP fights in games where there is no full loot isnt exciting its a battle of who gets bored first. Atleast when I take ur shit u walk home naked and hafta go pay a crafter for another set of gear.
If your only argument for the sake of full loot is downtime between dying and being combat ready again, then it is easy to solve in themeparks with a debuff and longer distance between graveyards. As for losing armor in a full loot game.. so what? Armor in such games is easy to obtain and usually is just a matter of a quick trip to a bank to grab yet another set, and an hour long grind in order to stack up on the sets every day. Doesnt sound really fun to me.
DAoC has a good balance. When you die you respawn way back at the entrance to the frontier. That means a long walk to the combat zones unless the enemies are attacking very near the frontier entrance (extremely unlikely).
Do I see right that this is a "hobby" development team, i.e. with volunteers artists, programmers and designers and without anything like a real development budget? Getting by through sponsors and donations?
Has such a thing ever been done before for an MMORPG?
Apologies for my negativity, but I don't expect that this game will ever see anything like a release day.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
Comments
are you also adding full loot to that question?
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
I don't think FFA PvP can ever work in a MMORPG, because of the people who generally play these games. Imagine FFA PvP where the only type of people who play them are mature intelligent players who, instead of making the game a gankfest, build kingdoms and only use PvP as governments would in the real world. Players only kill other players when there's a legitamate cause for it, such as war. Yet wars aren't declared "just because" people want to fight. Instead wars are only declared for the same reasons they are declared in the real world.
Shrug.. as you said, it is easier said then done. I can remember Henrik typing long walls of text on forums about him being aware of what a sandbox is, about his great vision of tools and content for both pve and pvp, yada yada.. we saw how that turned out.
Well, duh.. once you get burned by fire, you kinda get.. careful, you know?
I know this will never happen, but what if they applied permadeath to the system, and allowed players to only create a certain amount of characters in a day? This could discourage ganking.
No FFA PvP in my sandbox...
No bitchers.
I'd love a permadeath system personally. What if a person becomes flagged for permadeath if they initiate an attack on an innocent person not affiliated with a guild that the ganker is at war with? For instance, if a person attacks a player who isn't guilded, or is in a guild that isn't at war with the guild that the ganker is in, then that ganker becomes permadeath flagged for x amount of time or forever. This would work if there was only allowed 1 character per server.
That's a good idea!
I think this was partially done with Jedis in pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies. If you became a Jedi, you were flagged for permadeath and if you died X amount of times your character would permanently die. I disagree with it, because Jedi were never in Star Wars during the period Galaxies was in, BUT if there was another game where you could flag yourself for permadeath (which would be permanent to your character) BUT become super-powerful because of it, that could create unique dynamics of what it means to be mortal.
so all you would have is guilds of griefers waiting for a player to AOE and just step into the AOE attack thus flagging the other person for permadeath.
think it wont happen, go to a PVE server in rift and see how many of the opposing faction flags for PVP hoping to catch that one newbie that didn't turn off his flag and AOEd. they just stand there waiting not doing anything else.
just put in a flagging system like SWG. these sandbox games need to realize that freedom for PVpers mean oppression for every other playstyle and those other playstyles are usually what pays the developers bills.
Ahh I love full loot pvp beats the hell outta grinding up battleground points and calling it pvp anyday. Also defeats the whole res pad spam oops i died oh I'm only 30 seconds away from the fight meh i got nothing to lose. PVP fights in games where there is no full loot isnt exciting its a battle of who gets bored first. Atleast when I take ur shit u walk home naked and hafta go pay a crafter for another set of gear.
A flaggin system turns everyone into a ganker....with zero accountablity from anyone.
Just like a sandbox, you have to deal with risk of other kids flying from the swings to land on top of your castle. You deal with it by building with friends or finding a sandpit few know about. Or you could just gripe to the moms(devs) about keeping their kids out and only let them in when I say I want them in (flagging).
The playstyle is always dictated by the game. The player just doesn't what's available within those boundaries. Would rage at the game devs because you can't down a 40 man boss solo and that it oppresses your playstyle?
I actually prefer a faction system like DAoC's realms or SWG's system (Empire vs. Rebels). This gives players a valid reason to PvP within the lore of the game. PvP makes sense, adds immersion, and gives purpose to playing the game, because players feel invested into their faction and desire their faction to win.
Typical FFA PvPers desire the same thing, except want player ran factions in the form of guilds. The problem with this is that players lack the maturity, intelligence, and ambition to design truely immersive factions. An intelligent player with a lot of charisma and leadership skills would build a kingdom from the ground up. They'd have positions in the guild akin to what you'd see in a real world government. Councils, Generals, Footsoldiers, crafting sectors, builders, regular citizens and the whole 9 yards. They'd have a code of ethics, constitutions, laws, and etc that gives their guild structure and purpose. When you have several of these guilds/kingdoms, some with similar goals, which become allies, and others with conflicting goals, which become enemies, you'll have a good world to live in, ganker free, with plenty of opportunities and reasons to war with other nations eventually.
The problem is that players lack imagination and the patience to build that kind of atmosphere and instead form guilds, which are no better than gangs in real life in structure and purpose, and they never evolve. Ganking runs rampant, ruining an otherwise good sandbox. It turns a sandbox game into something unbearable to play in, that before release had lots of promise and potential.
This is why games, even sandboxes, need NPC ran factions that players join, which provides the structure and purpose needed to PvP in a productive and fun way. Most players enjoy PvP, in varying degrees. Even the so called "carebears." They just don't enjoy the senseless ganking and the loss of gear and items that they worked hard for. You can add penalties for dying in PvP that doesn't nueter a player, but still makes them play smarter. Hell, a death penalty that damages your gear, a loss of xp, and a stat reduction buff is enough to make players plan ahead and play smarter. If the penalty is severe enough, it'll take the player out of the fight for 15 minutes or so, allowing a faction to actually win a battle, instead of having an endless PvP match until one side gets tired.
If your only argument for the sake of full loot is downtime between dying and being combat ready again, then it is easy to solve in themeparks with a debuff and longer distance between graveyards. As for losing armor in a full loot game.. so what? Armor in such games is easy to obtain and usually is just a matter of a quick trip to a bank to grab yet another set, and an hour long grind in order to stack up on the sets every day. Doesnt sound really fun to me.
i just hope they focus on other things beside just pvp for this sandbox. pvp should just be 1/10 of what the game offers or so.
That and you feel like you actually WON something for the fight instead of a couple dozen bp points twords ur next armor set.... If your actually good at pvp you have a ton of armor from fallen foes in your bank and if ur not ur buddy who is has a bunch to give you since he never dies.
I often notice that in full loot people don't even bother to pick up armor after a while, since it is worthles most of the time as an upgrade. I've got yet another set like the other 10 I have in bank.. so what? At least in a themepark with those "bp points" you mention I know I can get a significant upgrade to my armor. Again, sense of achivement seems stronger.
I don't really favour themeparks over "sandboxes", mind you, just playing devils advocate here.
Let me put it another way... say you play on a golf league/bowling/softball league whatever you kick in so much money a week for prize money. True you could just play the game for points I bowled a 300 or I shot a 70 on 18 at firestone country club. But since you have something to lose IE your prize money its more exciting if you win or lose. Your prize money could be a couple hours of work at your actual job not playing a video game.
Even if you dont want the armor you want the reagents/potions"input random consumable". Not to mention typical sandbox games the diffrence in armor isnt like it is in WoW or whatever its just marginally better. You have 2% more damage reduction to slashing or whatever not oh god my battle ground rank 10 armor gives me another 5000 hp.
I agree with your concern. The creative director did have this to say:
Re: Optional PVP status, toggled in character selection
Correct. However, it is entirely possible, given enough time, resources and training; that guard forces could easily over-come groups of criminals. This brings into play the choices of using stealth (not a magical poof I vanish skill, but the actual effort to be stealthy) and guile to get somewhere where you're a known criminal, or to band together in large bands that are capable of fighting off the guards and their player support.
Then comes the whole is it worth it bit... if you basically have to wage war with 50 guards, the players, and lose half of your little bandit army in the process, is it worth it to raid a well defended town? Not likely...
This means small towns and villages will be the likely targets since they will have less defenders, while larger cities, hubs and surrounding areas will rarely be a target and will largely be safe. This then brings in one purpose of building up your city, your territories wealth and strength, so that you can provide more protection, build walls, etc etc. Very realistic, and fun for pvpers, while providing safer areas and cities for those not wanting pvp.
PvP is an essential part of a game world like this, but it is NOT the entire purpose of the game. Just a cog in the machine so to speak. And what a magnificent machine it will be!
http://forums.forsakenstudios.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=108&p=1077#p1077
Granted, so far, FS hasn't given any hard information, other than put out their perfect vision in nothing more than words. The real test will be turning that vision into concrete systems that satisfy the intent of the vision.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
A post in this thread was referenced by Forsaken in asking a question to the members regarding how they think open PvP and/or factions should work. The discussion is here:
http://forums.forsakenstudios.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&p=1209#p1198
Open Pvp stuff - questions for community.
I was reading through some posts that have been popping up since we announced our game name and our little demo, and one in particular caught my attention. here's a short excerpt, along with a link to the full post...
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4393892
"I actually prefer a faction system like DAoC's realms or SWG's system (Empire vs. Rebels). This gives players a valid reason to PvP within the lore of the game. PvP makes sense, adds immersion, and gives purpose to playing the game, because players feel invested into their faction and desire their faction to win.
Typical FFA PvPers desire the same thing, except want player ran factions in the form of guilds. The problem with this is that players lack the maturity, intelligence, and ambition to design truely immersive factions. An intelligent player with a lot of charisma and leadership skills would build a kingdom from the ground up. They'd have positions in the guild akin to what you'd see in a real world government. Councils, Generals, Footsoldiers, crafting sectors, builders, regular citizens and the whole 9 yards. They'd have a code of ethics, constitutions, laws, and etc that gives their guild structure and purpose. When you have several of these guilds/kingdoms, some with similar goals, which become allies, and others with conflicting goals, which become enemies, you'll have a good world to live in, ganker free, with plenty of opportunities and reasons to war with other nations eventually." - nate1980
While I did actually enjoy DAOC very much and liked the faction based pvp, I do not agree with the general statement here, that being the stuff marked in bold. I think the problem is not that players lack the maturity, intelligence, nor ambition, I believe it is that no game has provided adequate tools to allow players to actually accomplish these things. At least no game that I am aware of. Also, I personally am not fond of artificial/preset factions/reasons to fight, as I believe players should be able to make their own choices and draw their lines (and borders) where they please...
Sure, most games have guilds or clans, with a decent number of in house tools to manage the people within that particular entity, but they fall short in offering the tools I feel are necessary for leaders of these groups to extend their influence and abilities in regards to building beyond the confines of the groups membership and some simple structures within it. I believe this problem, coupled with the fact that too often players are pushed to fight just for the sake of fighting, and true societies never really evolve simply because there are no reasons for them to.
So that brings me to my questions.
Do you guys believe as I do, that providing starting points for player controlled factions as well as plenty of tools to control and manage them is the answer here?
Do you believe that there are enough leaders out there that would want to 'build kingdoms from the ground up.' and thus create player controlled factions capable of taking the place of npc factions like those in DAOC?
Or is nater1980 correct, and mmo players just can't handle running things themselves?
Share your thoughts, comments, and perhaps most importantly your concerns.
I for one love the idea of having the ability for player built factions, player kingdoms even, to spring up and take the place of static npc cities and areas common in other games. However, be aware I have no intention of just throwing you an empty world with no back story and cultural differences, and assuming players will make the history... that's my job, I just want to make sure the players are given the right tool for the future. But I am interested to hear what you think about these things.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
Nice hyperbole Mendel. "problem players" can be sanctioned perfectly well ingame (see EVE security status). If they can't be, that's bad design. Nobody needs to be banned and what the hell's with "banning the household"
I live in a house with 3 other mmo players, If i decided to try something new and was auto banned that would be ridiculous.
I'm also intrigued by the dev's "putting the security rating in the player's hands" comment, something i've always wanted in EVE. I can't stand fantasy games but I wish them the best of luck.
<Welcome to my world>
You guys realise that if you punish one kind of PvP you punish them all.
"Make ganking unprofithable, and very hurtful to the ganker"
Ok.. so whats to make people want to PvP at all? Clearly you get fucked up really harshly when you pvp, so why do it? No If you want to punish the ganker take away open pvp. Im a RPK in MO simply because there isnt much else to do, and im bored. Make me less bored developers, and ill stop pking.
Before MO came out i wasnt even intrested in PvP, and i still played themparks at the time (yet unlike you cowards) the idea of open full loot pvp fascinated me. But i wanted to make a village, and live in a fantasy MMO where i was free from stupid classes, and carebear restricions. I guess above all else the sense of danger attracted me to Mortal.
Clearly Open pvp isnt ment for many people, but there are enough people to make a game succesful if they want it.
Wanna know why MO/DF are dieng? Beecause they sucked when they game out, bugs, exploits, lack of GM's, etc. Not because of open PvP. Darkfall attracted 10000+ people to it. Those people knew that it had open PvP, thats enough people to make a very succesful game. Wanna know why only 400+ play it now? Because realese was awful, and drew to mant people away from it.
i love full loot open pvp but i expect a mmorpg to have more to it than that, which MO didnt have. pvp was the only thing that was remotely fun. AI improvements kept getting promised and well that never happened. a full loot game needs some restrictions but more importantly it needs many other gameplay elements & tools also to keep people from doing what this guy talks about. pretty much why UO worked so good in its prime, i had tailoring, taming, trading, and a house that kept me occupied. I'm sure other ppl had other aspects they enjoyed besides just the pvp which was just a plus
I remember the MO devs talking about how great their guards would be. Devs can promise as much as they want but until its shown in a somewhat working form I won't be impressed
If you are not flagged, AoEs cannot hit you. That fixed your problem.
I agree with you whole hearted. Concensual PvP is good, option and choice is good. I hate the exploiters who flags himself and run into the AoE range of non flagged players (usually lowbies) get him flagged and surprise-gank. If my AoE cannot hit anyone until I flag myself, this loophole can be fixed.
DAoC has a good balance. When you die you respawn way back at the entrance to the frontier. That means a long walk to the combat zones unless the enemies are attacking very near the frontier entrance (extremely unlikely).
Do I see right that this is a "hobby" development team, i.e. with volunteers artists, programmers and designers and without anything like a real development budget? Getting by through sponsors and donations?
Has such a thing ever been done before for an MMORPG?
Apologies for my negativity, but I don't expect that this game will ever see anything like a release day.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.