I'm someone who like pvp more than anything (and can't wait until L2:GoD releases...and DF 2.0 hopefully), but I agree that PvP in TSW makes COMPLETE sense.
What I disagree with are the people saying that open PvP games are all about ganking people who have no chance. If this was the case, every open PvP game would have most of the population hanging out in lower areas. That isn't the case. FEW PvPers actually do the ganking lowbie thing, but it's those FEW who give the games a bad rep. Open PvP works. It worked in SWG, L2, L1, SB (the only games I delved into it a lot). The problem is that WoW has been successful. Most mmo gamers want to play a game in a "quick and dirty" kind of way. I like games that go beyond being a game and try to engoulf the user into an alternate reality. If I'm on a ship, I should be willing to travel across the sea in the amount of time it takes a ship to travel across the sea. Now if the LORE explains why my ship can travel from California to Japan in 30 seconds, that's fine, but if it doesn't....it doesn't make sense.
In TSW pretty much EVERYTHING makes sense (NO LEVELS!!!...COLLECT ALL SKILLSS!!! NOT BROKEN OPEN PVP like most Indie games have), which is why I haven't been excited for a game this much in the past 7 or so years. Yeah, it's not complete freedom, but in the real world players are bound by morallity and TSW is set in the real world. The three societies have created a "gentleman's war" type of situation.
More people want it quick and dirty and don't care about the grander view of the game... that's really the only difference between the "old" and the "new". I just wish DF 2.0 is as fixed as DF 1.0 should have been lol.... and L2: GoD is going to bring back a lot of people.
Sorry you're heartbroken but I'm thrilled. I hate open world PvP. I might still be playing Aion except for the annoyance of getting ganked by a toon 20 levels above me while questing. No fun imo.
This is good news some of the developers are starting to realise why some previous MMOs have gone terribly wrong . Hopefully this will start the removal ofOpen World PvP from MMOs and put it clearly back into the genres where it fits.
I would gank both of you 24/7 if I could for the following reason: faulty logic (plus because you seem like the boring type of players who don't really belong to PvP games anyway).
@senadina: Now, in TSW there are supposedly no levels (only skills). Which means getting ganked by a "toon 20 levels above me while questing" should not happen if it was possible (hopefully). True, Aion design was "bad" in the sense that when a player 20 levels higher than you attacked you, you stood no chance. This might be bad design, but this has nothing to do with "open world PvP" (open world PvP, if well designed, can be fun - even for you). Although to be completely honest with you about Aion, rifts (to the ennemy PvE land) were always part of the contract when playing the game, and this was one of the feature that was advertised the most - so you can't really pretend being ganked by rifters came as a surprise.
@Isane: No, MMOs have not gone terribly wrong because 3 players have been ganked here and there and decided it was too much for them to take... Ganking is different from Open world PvP as someone pointed out already... "Open World PvP" can be fun, however most "Open world PvP" designs we have seen were wrong because they were not designed to be in the game from the start (i.e. inherent part of the game, not as an extra), or because it is designed in a way that favors level/equipment over skills.
I think your mentality actually hurt the PvP-MMO industry more than anything else, by thinking that "open World PvP" is inherently bad, whereas it is the implementations of open world PvP we have seen recently that are bad (not the concept in itself).
This sux, so Secret World won't be "AOC evolved" after all.
Sadly - it got everything to be excelent PVP game - no levels = player skill based, yet they too wanna make another grind fest for the chieldren.
Oh well, let's hope World of Darkness wil offer some serious PVP experience ...
Baby steps man.
We've been stuck in class-mode forever (well there was a good balance of classless and class mmo games before wow). Just be glad that a good developer (Yes...funcom is a good dev.) is making a classless model and levelless model at the moment. It's these things that will turn the tides of the current mmo-market stagnation if it succeeds.
Let them make an "AoC evolved"... (well I don't want that, but meh) after they prove you can STILL have good mmos without levels/classes.
But honestly, TSW explains why PvP is the way it is very well.
I'm just happy that it's not some PvP that's just "tossed in".
There will be great and massive<--(key word) times had with this 100+ man zone. Too many games shrink the gaming world's effect into battlegrounds/instances removing the massively from PvP and PvE as well. I miss bosses that require a whole guild to defeat lol.
Well this is news to me I don't see me playing this game now at now untill it go's F2P. I was vary iffy of it in the 1st place it's a funcom game. 2ed is it's a P2P with a cashshop and that one broke my back and cracked my skull and put me on life support.
Now number 3 and the plug is pulled no world PVP with 3 factions really from what it sound like to me it would have world pvp. O well I will maybe try it after 4 or 5 months after release when this make it F2P.
All the whining and bitching about no World PvP makes me smile inside.
Freaking idiots dont even understand that there is PvP in this game in the form of PvP areas (LIKE DAoC FRONTIERS) and instanced PvP (which I hate too), this game is going to be all the better because FUNCOM is removing the ability for asshats to do nothing but gank all day ruining my immersion into a detailed and non typical story.
THANK YOU FUNCOM FOR MAKING ASSHATS NOT WANT TO PLAY.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
So just like SW:TOR, TSW will also be a CORPG, falsely labeled as a massively-multiplayer online game, unless ones definition of MMO is 100's of players cooperating and competing in text-writing/chatting within a general chat-box simultaneoulsy.
Shows you know very little about Swtor.
Which will in fact offer pvp servers with open world pvp as well as objective based world pvp with territorial control on all kinds of servers. (and also a means to get your pvp gear just through world pvp if you dislike instanced pvp).
TSW is much more shaping up like GW2: Three factions yet no pvp in the open game world, to name two smashing similarities.
Considering that world pvp in ToR doesn't start till around lvl 30, I'm thinking you are overestimating the pvp experience Bioware are making.
How long does it take to get there? A few weeks on average? I'm fine with that. I'm ok with getting your bearing and get used to a game, your class and enjoy the story for a while.
A few weeks is incredibly optmisitic from what I've heard. So long as you understand that ToR won't offer you your coveted open world pvp experience right out of the gate then that's fine. Point is that GW2 actually does.
You can't even really do the objectives on the pvp planet till you are lvl 50.
If so: we'll all end up there sooner or later. But next to that, on pvp servers you can go out and explore to find your enemy faction much earlier if you so desire. There are pvp related objectives on other planets too. (Not that I need those incentives very much: I prefer the RP'd group pvp incentives you can come up with yourself as a player).
Not much earlier. Over half way through the game.
On a side note, you keep banging on about this whole world pvp and GW2's lack of it, but I already explained to you months ago that the 'mysts' are in essence a pvp zone where you are flagged the moment you enter. How is this any different from world pvp in any other MMO? You have safe zones and you have zones where you are flagged to be ganked. If the only difference is that entering the mysts may not be 'seamless' then I think you are underestimating what this pvp could potentially offer.
Please note I wasn't even that judgemental in above post. I just noted the similarities between TSW and GW2.
And please note: I never said that WvWvW can't be a lot of fun.
... but it is no open world pvp, which doesn't only bring pvp encounters, but also excitement. Having to be on your guard while you are out in the world doing other stuff, helping friends and guildies out facestomping gankers, fighting over objectives YOU picked , rather than those the game picked for you. Building reputations and cherrishing wraths for others who also play on your server, just to name just a few aspects in which WvWvW is not the same as world pvp.
It isn't so much about how much fun the Mysts will be, to me it is about the lack of freedom and excitement in the rest of the gameworld. I hope you understand that.
Firstly, you do keep banging on about this. It's gotten to the point where I am actually surprised to see a pony post that doesn't mention your coveted open world pvp.
You've also made a lot of assumptions and offered no real reason as to why GW2 pvp is not openworld pvp. I would argue that everything you listed as reasons why the mysts isn't openworld are in actuality present.
Excitement? Check.
Having to be on your guard? Check.
Helping friends and guildies? Double Check.
Fighting over objectives YOU picked? How can you possibly suggest that this won't happen until the game actually comes out? For that matter, how do you know ToR will even have this?
Once again, the mysts are no different from a regular old fashioned openworld pvp zone. Is there less of it than other pvp MMO's? Sure. Still doesn't change that fact that it is still the same as your presented definition of open world pvp.
Edit: One more point. You can enter the mysts and start 'open world' pvping from the start of the game (excepting tutorial of course). You can even lvl to 80 just by pvping in the mysts. This is not something you can do in ToR through open world pvp alone.
That's cool. I just hope it won't be boring and "same old, same old" once you finally get to level 80. I'm fine with limited access to world pvp at earlier levels if that means there won't be too much artificial stat-boosting mechanics in place.
Only reason I mentioned it is because open world pvp is apparently so important to you (see the theme yet? :P ).
Orangy bits be mine. Peace
And here I was thinking the white was yours.
Comments above.
You failed to read a certain line with a key point in my defense, your honor. I made the letters extra big now, for easier reading. I hope that will make you understand the whole point I want to get across about the big difference between having "world" pvp limited to a specific instance zone or area OR to allow it (on pvp servers), in the game world itself, in the shape of OPEN world pvp.
Open World PvP and MMORPG are two mutually exclusive terms. You can't have one and the other.
MMORPG indicates character progression, improvement of the avatar, increase in power over time, creating sometimes colossal differences in strength between 2 players. Adding PvP intp such an enviroment must always, inevitably, end in a system, where 99% of the population gets annoyed by constant ganking, while 1% has fun doing the ganking. Simple human nature. To have meaningful PvP you *must* have characters which are nearly on the same power level, so only skill is taken into account. And you can not have identical characters in the open world in a RPG game! It is by definition undoable. GW2 is the only MMO i know of that finally does it right, understanding that the core PvP games, namely FPP and RTS, work and have worked for so long, because they are skill, not level/item based. Would you want to play a football match where the other team has 34 players and you only 11? I don't think so, it would be pure nonsense.
Only 10 out of 100 people would enjoy Open World PvP. 9 out of the 10 would be griefers, and 1 would do PvP 24/7 only to not be instantly ganked by the other 9.. It s a no brainer why devs don't even consider that idea. "Don't feed the trolls" rule applies here.
So just like SW:TOR, TSW will also be a CORPG, falsely labeled as a massively-multiplayer online game, unless ones definition of MMO is 100's of players cooperating and competing in text-writing/chatting within a general chat-box simultaneoulsy.
Shows you know very little about Swtor.
Which will in fact offer pvp servers with open world pvp as well as objective based world pvp with territorial control on all kinds of servers. (and also a means to get your pvp gear just through world pvp if you dislike instanced pvp).
TSW is much more shaping up like GW2: Three factions yet no pvp in the open game world, to name two smashing similarities.
Considering that world pvp in ToR doesn't start till around lvl 30, I'm thinking you are overestimating the pvp experience Bioware are making.
How long does it take to get there? A few weeks on average? I'm fine with that. I'm ok with getting your bearing and get used to a game, your class and enjoy the story for a while.
A few weeks is incredibly optmisitic from what I've heard. So long as you understand that ToR won't offer you your coveted open world pvp experience right out of the gate then that's fine. Point is that GW2 actually does.
You can't even really do the objectives on the pvp planet till you are lvl 50.
If so: we'll all end up there sooner or later. But next to that, on pvp servers you can go out and explore to find your enemy faction much earlier if you so desire. There are pvp related objectives on other planets too. (Not that I need those incentives very much: I prefer the RP'd group pvp incentives you can come up with yourself as a player).
Not much earlier. Over half way through the game.
On a side note, you keep banging on about this whole world pvp and GW2's lack of it, but I already explained to you months ago that the 'mysts' are in essence a pvp zone where you are flagged the moment you enter. How is this any different from world pvp in any other MMO? You have safe zones and you have zones where you are flagged to be ganked. If the only difference is that entering the mysts may not be 'seamless' then I think you are underestimating what this pvp could potentially offer.
Please note I wasn't even that judgemental in above post. I just noted the similarities between TSW and GW2.
And please note: I never said that WvWvW can't be a lot of fun.
... but it is no open world pvp, which doesn't only bring pvp encounters, but also excitement. Having to be on your guard while you are out in the world doing other stuff, helping friends and guildies out facestomping gankers, fighting over objectives YOU picked , rather than those the game picked for you. Building reputations and cherrishing wraths for others who also play on your server, just to name just a few aspects in which WvWvW is not the same as world pvp.
It isn't so much about how much fun the Mysts will be, to me it is about the lack of freedom and excitement in the rest of the gameworld. I hope you understand that.
Firstly, you do keep banging on about this. It's gotten to the point where I am actually surprised to see a pony post that doesn't mention your coveted open world pvp.
You've also made a lot of assumptions and offered no real reason as to why GW2 pvp is not openworld pvp. I would argue that everything you listed as reasons why the mysts isn't openworld are in actuality present.
Excitement? Check.
Having to be on your guard? Check.
Helping friends and guildies? Double Check.
Fighting over objectives YOU picked? How can you possibly suggest that this won't happen until the game actually comes out? For that matter, how do you know ToR will even have this?
Once again, the mysts are no different from a regular old fashioned openworld pvp zone. Is there less of it than other pvp MMO's? Sure. Still doesn't change that fact that it is still the same as your presented definition of open world pvp.
Edit: One more point. You can enter the mysts and start 'open world' pvping from the start of the game (excepting tutorial of course). You can even lvl to 80 just by pvping in the mysts. This is not something you can do in ToR through open world pvp alone.
That's cool. I just hope it won't be boring and "same old, same old" once you finally get to level 80. I'm fine with limited access to world pvp at earlier levels if that means there won't be too much artificial stat-boosting mechanics in place.
Only reason I mentioned it is because open world pvp is apparently so important to you (see the theme yet? :P ).
Orangy bits be mine. Peace
And here I was thinking the white was yours.
Comments above.
You failed to read a certain line with a key point in my defense, your honor. I made the letters extra big now, for easier reading. I hope that will make you understand the whole point I want to get across about the big difference between having "world" pvp limited to a specific instance zone or area OR to allow it (on pvp servers), in the game world itself, in the shape of OPEN world pvp.
One giant instance in a magical land that doesn't effect the rest of the game... yah, doesn't sound like OPEN world PvP to me either. Could still be fun, but definitely not open world.
Pve and 24/7 faction vs faction conflict can co-exist.....LOOK AT DAOC.(fight when you want....pve when you don't).This game is looking more and more like just another pve game with instanced small group pvp.
I don't know what water source some of these developers keep drinking ? What ever it is...please tell the "great unwashed"..... so we can avoid the the IQ lowering contamination.
Thats definitely a blow in my eyes(if true).I just assumed there would be some form of world pvp since there are 3 warring factions,seperate pvp zones,lakes or whatever.
Or am I looking at all wrong? does he mean there will be places in the world(besides battlegrounds) to fight it out?
just not anywhere and everywhere?
if thats the case then Im fine with that.
Well... there's the 100+ area/instance/control point thing that I'd assume is probably open at all times.
Then I can live with that...
Though,Im surprised they wouldnt even consider atleast a open pvp server.With the way TSW seems to be set up thats just weird thinking to me.
All the people saying they hate World PvP are mentioning Aion and Darkfall? One is faction vs faction the other is FFA. If anything, you would need to compare this game to DAOC in terms of World PvP. 3 Factions make a huge difference in the way it is set up. Having no World PvP is just stupid imo.
I love the irony of this post when DAOC main PVP was the frontiers not just people running around every where ganking anyone and everyone. But people like forgetting that and saying man I wish the good old days of world PVP like DAOC would return when DAOC PVP was nothing like what they are asking for! From the things I have read about TSW they are going to have PVP lakes that are really similar to the frontier system of DAOC, they are just not going to have pure open world PVP.
But we all know every game has to have full open world PVP to be good right? After all that is why DAOC sucked because it did not have full open world PVP! /end sarcasm
Because you have different ideas of what "open-world PvP" means. When people use DAOC as an example, doesn't it logically follow that maybe that's exactly what they mean by open-world PvP?
Now, what I'm confused about, is what the OP meant. Will AoC have open-world PvP zones, ala the frontiers or Darkness Falls in DAOC, or is it more like DAOC's battlegrounds only, or more like the battlegrounds in WoW and Rift? What is it that TSW won't have exactly, that got this whole thread started? Maybe it needs to be made more clear, since "open-world" is looking like some vague term some of you seem to equate with PvP-everywhere.
..or whatever, just go on, keep arguing with your imaginary demons, instead. Must be more fun that way or something.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
It sounds mroe like it is a kind of battleground pvp over zone/world pvp, mostly ecause you are only trying to capture the sites or artifacts when they are active not take and then defend what you have taken. In a more world pvp based setting yo would battle for thee site and then after winning you would battle off invading factions to keep it from them in a constant and flowing style. It though is more like a timed bg that is activated maybe at certain times, or is just qued for.
World pvp is not ganking or griefing maybe, but open world pvp does bring forth that group of players. Open world pvp to some extent nurtures that type of playstyle in people, because you have the ability to attack people in the world as you wish without warning. I love open world pvp, but i hate that griefing and ganking have become basically linked to it and shal be forever, which is why i refrain from open world pvp alot/ ALso the attitude of most pvp and world pvp players that if you can not take getting ganked or killed/attacked without warning, then you should grow up is one reason why world pvp will not be in alot of games. The majority of gamers do not want that hastle as well as prefer bg/arena play over world pvp play.There are many that want it yet trully if you pay attention vastly higher numbers of people do not want it at all or are not worried if you have it or not.
THe lore of tsw, as well as feel of it does not support open world pvp, unless it were done in secluded or hidden away locals. Like alleyes, parking garages, woodlands, and such. Mostly bevcause they are secrective wanting to keep their actions and presence out of the public eye. The reasons for it would be the powwers that they have and use would be used to either imprison or create even another inquisition-like event. Look at the groups in real life overall they thrive on secrecy, not being open and showing or telling what they knwo to everyone. Truthfully by that simple fact open world pvp would be against the ideals of the main groups that make up tsw.
I think there is no good reason to not have at least one Open World faction pvp server. Some people like it. I really don't. But those who do should have the chance to play a game they like with a ruleset they prefer.
I also think there should be at least one FFA server, and one strict roleplaying server. And perhaps even roleplaying servers with the different PvP rulesets. There should be no reason not to.
And, if more games had these different servers, then we could see what people like to play most based on who is there using which servers. It would be a good way to gauge what people enjoy doing, because most people aren't here talking about it, and we could get better statistics that way.
But more options are always good.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I think there is no good reason to not have at least one Open World faction pvp server. Some people like it. I really don't. But those who do should have the chance to play a game they like with a ruleset they prefer.
I also think there should be at least one FFA server, and one strict roleplaying server. And perhaps even roleplaying servers with the different PvP rulesets. There should be no reason not to.
And, if more games had these different servers, then we could see what people like to play most based on who is there using which servers. It would be a good way to gauge what people enjoy doing, because most people aren't here talking about it, and we could get better statistics that way.
But more options are always good.
Exactly Dub, you get a big plus one for that one. That's the point I'm trying to make...the pver's of the world are far more vocal than the pvpers...that doesn't mean there are more of them, just just tend to be more active in forums, etc. So developers often times listen just to that crowd, not that I can fully blame them. However, games such as wow have shown that pve and pvp servers seperate make everyone happy...so only choosing one makes no sense.
Incognito www.incognito-gaming.us "You're either with us or against us"
At this point, I'm looking forward to The Secret World and Guild Wars 2 both. I intend to pvp a lot in both of them, maybe more than I pve. But I'm still happy about not having to constantly look over my shoulder everywhere I go. I've tried open world pvp games, at times I've even gotten some enjoyment from them, but after awhile, I find it detracts from the rest of the game, and even or close matches are very, very rare. Open world pvpers are too good at risk assessment and most of them won't fight unless they know they're going to win.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
I think there is no good reason to not have at least one Open World faction pvp server. Some people like it. I really don't. But those who do should have the chance to play a game they like with a ruleset they prefer.
I also think there should be at least one FFA server, and one strict roleplaying server. And perhaps even roleplaying servers with the different PvP rulesets. There should be no reason not to.
And, if more games had these different servers, then we could see what people like to play most based on who is there using which servers. It would be a good way to gauge what people enjoy doing, because most people aren't here talking about it, and we could get better statistics that way.
But more options are always good.
I disagree, you're basically saying a company must make every game with that play-style in mind, which is bonkers.
As for it being a gauge to track behavior, again seems bonkers to me, as DEVs have that information already either way. FC already has that game available BTW in AOC, they already have something to look at in terms of what people partake in. I can tell you from personal experience that PVE servers do far better than PVP servers in terms of steady population in just about every game since DAOC. Just about anyone who's been into this genre for a number of years could as well.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Distopia Originally posted by Dubhlaith I think there is no good reason to not have at least one Open World faction pvp server. Some people like it. I really don't. But those who do should have the chance to play a game they like with a ruleset they prefer.
I also think there should be at least one FFA server, and one strict roleplaying server. And perhaps even roleplaying servers with the different PvP rulesets. There should be no reason not to. And, if more games had these different servers, then we could see what people like to play most based on who is there using which servers. It would be a good way to gauge what people enjoy doing, because most people aren't here talking about it, and we could get better statistics that way.
But more options are always good.
I disagree, you're basically saying a company must make every game with that play-style in mind, which is bonkers. As for it being a gauge to track behavior, again seems bonkers to me, as DEVs have that information already either way. FC already has that game available BTW in AOC, they already have something to look at in terms of what people partake in. I can tell you from personal experience that PVE servers do far better than PVP servers in terms of steady population in just about every game since DAOC. Just about anyone who's been into this genre for a number of years could as well.
No, I am not saying that. Even GW2 should have an open PvP (by race, perhaps?) and even a FFA server. I mean this without changing anything else I have heard about the game. I would likely not play on these servers much, but there are people who would enjoy it.
The PvE servers could, and should be promoted as the intended playstyle, and there would certainly be fewer, if even more than one of the PvP ruleset. But there are people who would enjoy that regardless. They could do the Dynamic Events and try to mess with people, and kill people for fun, and have guilds fighting for territory, or control over boss encounters, or whatever else people do on these servers.
I wouldn't like that sort of thing, but there are people who really do, and there is no good reason not to let them. It would take very little extra work, and it would let people enjoy the world in the way they want to.
I use GW2 as an example because it is very heavily PvE. Even with that, it could easily have a PvP server or two, and there are people who would eat it up. What's the harm in that?
And I am not saying that more people want to PvP. I am saying they could add a server or two if more people play on that ruleset than they expect. And, tracking on what servers people like to play must be a good way to see in what direction future development should go. I will reiterate that I prefer PvE in the world, and PvP in instanced, balance arenas. But there are people who do enjoy that, and, PvP servers usually do quite well as well. There are players on both sides of the coin, and regardless of which has the higher population, there is no reason to not give both what they want.
I also want to use this space as a chance to say again that, in addition to PvP and FFA rulesets, there should be serious RP rulesets for the same reason. I won't elaborate on that much, as it isn't the point here, but server rulesets are easy to do, and marking a server as Standard, PvP, FFA, RP, FFARP, or whatever, is a good way to separate the community into groups of players that general enjoy the same thing. Even serious PVP games in the vein of Darkfall could and should have PvE rulesets for the same reason.
Why would we not want more options? How could that ever be a bad thing. I could go to some RP server, someone else could go to a regular server, and the OP could go to a PvP server, and everyone gets what they want. Of course, this only works if the game is good enough to have a large, stable population, but that is a measure of a decent game, and shouldn't have a bearing on this discussion.
The bottom line is, having more options available for how to play in our virtual worlds has to be a good thing.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Originally posted by Dubhlaith Originally posted by Distopia
Originally posted by Dubhlaith I think there is no good reason to not have at least one Open World faction pvp server. Some people like it. I really don't. But those who do should have the chance to play a game they like with a ruleset they prefer.
I also think there should be at least one FFA server, and one strict roleplaying server. And perhaps even roleplaying servers with the different PvP rulesets. There should be no reason not to. And, if more games had these different servers, then we could see what people like to play most based on who is there using which servers. It would be a good way to gauge what people enjoy doing, because most people aren't here talking about it, and we could get better statistics that way.
But more options are always good.
I disagree, you're basically saying a company must make every game with that play-style in mind, which is bonkers. As for it being a gauge to track behavior, again seems bonkers to me, as DEVs have that information already either way. FC already has that game available BTW in AOC, they already have something to look at in terms of what people partake in. I can tell you from personal experience that PVE servers do far better than PVP servers in terms of steady population in just about every game since DAOC. Just about anyone who's been into this genre for a number of years could as well.
No, I am not saying that. Even GW2 should have an open PvP (by race, perhaps?) and even a FFA server. I mean this without changing anything else I have heard about the game. I would likely not play on these servers much, but there are people who would enjoy it.
The PvE servers could, and should be promoted as the intended playstyle, and there would certainly be fewer, if even more than one of the PvP ruleset. But there are people who would enjoy that regardless. They could do the Dynamic Events and try to mess with people, and kill people for fun, and have guilds fighting for territory, or control over boss encounters, or whatever else people do on these servers.
I wouldn't like that sort of thing, but there are people who really do, and there is no good reason not to let them. It would take very little extra work, and it would let people enjoy the world in the way they want to.
I use GW2 as an example because it is very heavily PvE. Even with that, it could easily have a PvP server or two, and there are people who would eat it up. What's the harm in that?
And I am not saying that more people want to PvP. I am saying they could add a server or two if more people play on that ruleset than they expect. And, tracking on what servers people like to play must be a good way to see in what direction future development should go. I will reiterate that I prefer PvE in the world, and PvP in instanced, balance arenas. But there are people who do enjoy that, and, PvP servers usually do quite well as well. There are players on both sides of the coin, and regardless of which has the higher population, there is no reason to not give both what they want.
I also want to use this space as a chance to say again that, in addition to PvP and FFA rulesets, there should be serious RP rulesets for the same reason. I won't elaborate on that much, as it isn't the point here, but server rulesets are easy to do, and marking a server as Standard, PvP, FFA, RP, FFARP, or whatever, is a good way to separate the community into groups of players that general enjoy the same thing. Even serious PVP games in the vein of Darkfall could and should have PvE rulesets for the same reason.
Why would we not want more options? How could that ever be a bad thing. I could go to some RP server, someone else could go to a regular server, and the OP could go to a PvP server, and everyone gets what they want. Of course, this only works if the game is good enough to have a large, stable population, but that is a measure of a decent game, and shouldn't have a bearing on this discussion.
The bottom line is, having more options available for how to play in our virtual worlds has to be a good thing.
So...Hello Kitty Online should have a PvP Server? A FFA PvP Server? Wizard 101 should have a PvP server? A FFA PvP server?
Not every game will benefit from open world PvP or FFA PvP. Just because players want open world pvp or ffa pvp everwhere does not mean it's the right choice to make as a developer.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
lizardbones, I did of course mean real MMOs, and/or MMOs for adults, or at least adolescents. Children's games do and should have different rules. I don't know about Hello Kitty Online, but in Wizard 101 you can't even make up your own name; you have to pick from a list.
So why don't we keep the discussion to games where people old enough to care about PvP are playing? Why in the world would you use children's games to prove a point about full-featured games for gamers?
BS arguments with ridiculous, outlandish examples don't really help your point.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Originally posted by Dubhlaith lizardbones, I did of course mean real MMOs, and/or MMOs for adults, or at least adolescents. Children's games do and should have different rules. I don't know about Hello Kitty Online, but in Wizard 101 you can't even make up your own name; you have to pick from a list. So why don't we keep the discussion to games where people old enough to care about PvP are playing? Why in the world would you use children's games to prove a point about full-featured games for gamers? BS arguments with ridiculous, outlandish examples don't really help your point.
So the reverse is also true. Darkfall and Eve should both have PvE only servers?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This one thing won't stop me from playing or looking forward to the game. We have other games out there with open world PvP and PvP servers. Not every game HAS to have it.
Comments
I'm someone who like pvp more than anything (and can't wait until L2:GoD releases...and DF 2.0 hopefully), but I agree that PvP in TSW makes COMPLETE sense.
What I disagree with are the people saying that open PvP games are all about ganking people who have no chance. If this was the case, every open PvP game would have most of the population hanging out in lower areas. That isn't the case. FEW PvPers actually do the ganking lowbie thing, but it's those FEW who give the games a bad rep. Open PvP works. It worked in SWG, L2, L1, SB (the only games I delved into it a lot). The problem is that WoW has been successful. Most mmo gamers want to play a game in a "quick and dirty" kind of way. I like games that go beyond being a game and try to engoulf the user into an alternate reality. If I'm on a ship, I should be willing to travel across the sea in the amount of time it takes a ship to travel across the sea. Now if the LORE explains why my ship can travel from California to Japan in 30 seconds, that's fine, but if it doesn't....it doesn't make sense.
In TSW pretty much EVERYTHING makes sense (NO LEVELS!!!...COLLECT ALL SKILLSS!!! NOT BROKEN OPEN PVP like most Indie games have), which is why I haven't been excited for a game this much in the past 7 or so years. Yeah, it's not complete freedom, but in the real world players are bound by morallity and TSW is set in the real world. The three societies have created a "gentleman's war" type of situation.
More people want it quick and dirty and don't care about the grander view of the game... that's really the only difference between the "old" and the "new". I just wish DF 2.0 is as fixed as DF 1.0 should have been lol.... and L2: GoD is going to bring back a lot of people.
I would gank both of you 24/7 if I could for the following reason: faulty logic (plus because you seem like the boring type of players who don't really belong to PvP games anyway).
@senadina: Now, in TSW there are supposedly no levels (only skills). Which means getting ganked by a "toon 20 levels above me while questing" should not happen if it was possible (hopefully). True, Aion design was "bad" in the sense that when a player 20 levels higher than you attacked you, you stood no chance. This might be bad design, but this has nothing to do with "open world PvP" (open world PvP, if well designed, can be fun - even for you). Although to be completely honest with you about Aion, rifts (to the ennemy PvE land) were always part of the contract when playing the game, and this was one of the feature that was advertised the most - so you can't really pretend being ganked by rifters came as a surprise.
@Isane: No, MMOs have not gone terribly wrong because 3 players have been ganked here and there and decided it was too much for them to take... Ganking is different from Open world PvP as someone pointed out already... "Open World PvP" can be fun, however most "Open world PvP" designs we have seen were wrong because they were not designed to be in the game from the start (i.e. inherent part of the game, not as an extra), or because it is designed in a way that favors level/equipment over skills.
I think your mentality actually hurt the PvP-MMO industry more than anything else, by thinking that "open World PvP" is inherently bad, whereas it is the implementations of open world PvP we have seen recently that are bad (not the concept in itself).
This sux, so Secret World won't be "AOC evolved" after all.
Sadly - it got everything to be excelent PVP game - no levels = player skill based, yet they too wanna make another grind fest for the chieldren.
Oh well, let's hope World of Darkness wil offer some serious PVP experience ...
This is a disapointment. With only WOW type pvp, I certainly won't be playing this.
Prime Battle for Dominus and maybe Guild Wars 2 seem to be the only upcoming games with a decent chance of having meaningful and fun PVP/RVR.
Baby steps man.
We've been stuck in class-mode forever (well there was a good balance of classless and class mmo games before wow). Just be glad that a good developer (Yes...funcom is a good dev.) is making a classless model and levelless model at the moment. It's these things that will turn the tides of the current mmo-market stagnation if it succeeds.
Let them make an "AoC evolved"... (well I don't want that, but meh) after they prove you can STILL have good mmos without levels/classes.
But honestly, TSW explains why PvP is the way it is very well.
I'm just happy that it's not some PvP that's just "tossed in".
There will be great and massive<--(key word) times had with this 100+ man zone. Too many games shrink the gaming world's effect into battlegrounds/instances removing the massively from PvP and PvE as well. I miss bosses that require a whole guild to defeat lol.
Well this is news to me I don't see me playing this game now at now untill it go's F2P. I was vary iffy of it in the 1st place it's a funcom game. 2ed is it's a P2P with a cashshop and that one broke my back and cracked my skull and put me on life support.
Now number 3 and the plug is pulled no world PVP with 3 factions really from what it sound like to me it would have world pvp. O well I will maybe try it after 4 or 5 months after release when this make it F2P.
All the whining and bitching about no World PvP makes me smile inside.
Freaking idiots dont even understand that there is PvP in this game in the form of PvP areas (LIKE DAoC FRONTIERS) and instanced PvP (which I hate too), this game is going to be all the better because FUNCOM is removing the ability for asshats to do nothing but gank all day ruining my immersion into a detailed and non typical story.
THANK YOU FUNCOM FOR MAKING ASSHATS NOT WANT TO PLAY.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
You failed to read a certain line with a key point in my defense, your honor. I made the letters extra big now, for easier reading. I hope that will make you understand the whole point I want to get across about the big difference between having "world" pvp limited to a specific instance zone or area OR to allow it (on pvp servers), in the game world itself, in the shape of OPEN world pvp.
My brand new bloggity blog.
Open World PvP and MMORPG are two mutually exclusive terms. You can't have one and the other.
MMORPG indicates character progression, improvement of the avatar, increase in power over time, creating sometimes colossal differences in strength between 2 players. Adding PvP intp such an enviroment must always, inevitably, end in a system, where 99% of the population gets annoyed by constant ganking, while 1% has fun doing the ganking. Simple human nature. To have meaningful PvP you *must* have characters which are nearly on the same power level, so only skill is taken into account. And you can not have identical characters in the open world in a RPG game! It is by definition undoable. GW2 is the only MMO i know of that finally does it right, understanding that the core PvP games, namely FPP and RTS, work and have worked for so long, because they are skill, not level/item based. Would you want to play a football match where the other team has 34 players and you only 11? I don't think so, it would be pure nonsense.
Only 10 out of 100 people would enjoy Open World PvP. 9 out of the 10 would be griefers, and 1 would do PvP 24/7 only to not be instantly ganked by the other 9.. It s a no brainer why devs don't even consider that idea. "Don't feed the trolls" rule applies here.
My Guild Wars 2 First Beta Weekend "reviewette" : http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4944570/thread/349125#4944570
One giant instance in a magical land that doesn't effect the rest of the game... yah, doesn't sound like OPEN world PvP to me either. Could still be fun, but definitely not open world.
Pve and 24/7 faction vs faction conflict can co-exist.....LOOK AT DAOC.(fight when you want....pve when you don't).This game is looking more and more like just another pve game with instanced small group pvp.
I don't know what water source some of these developers keep drinking ? What ever it is...please tell the "great unwashed"..... so we can avoid the the IQ lowering contamination.
Then I can live with that...
Though,Im surprised they wouldnt even consider atleast a open pvp server.With the way TSW seems to be set up thats just weird thinking to me.
Because you have different ideas of what "open-world PvP" means. When people use DAOC as an example, doesn't it logically follow that maybe that's exactly what they mean by open-world PvP?
Now, what I'm confused about, is what the OP meant. Will AoC have open-world PvP zones, ala the frontiers or Darkness Falls in DAOC, or is it more like DAOC's battlegrounds only, or more like the battlegrounds in WoW and Rift? What is it that TSW won't have exactly, that got this whole thread started? Maybe it needs to be made more clear, since "open-world" is looking like some vague term some of you seem to equate with PvP-everywhere.
..or whatever, just go on, keep arguing with your imaginary demons, instead. Must be more fun that way or something.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
It sounds mroe like it is a kind of battleground pvp over zone/world pvp, mostly ecause you are only trying to capture the sites or artifacts when they are active not take and then defend what you have taken. In a more world pvp based setting yo would battle for thee site and then after winning you would battle off invading factions to keep it from them in a constant and flowing style. It though is more like a timed bg that is activated maybe at certain times, or is just qued for.
World pvp is not ganking or griefing maybe, but open world pvp does bring forth that group of players. Open world pvp to some extent nurtures that type of playstyle in people, because you have the ability to attack people in the world as you wish without warning. I love open world pvp, but i hate that griefing and ganking have become basically linked to it and shal be forever, which is why i refrain from open world pvp alot/ ALso the attitude of most pvp and world pvp players that if you can not take getting ganked or killed/attacked without warning, then you should grow up is one reason why world pvp will not be in alot of games. The majority of gamers do not want that hastle as well as prefer bg/arena play over world pvp play.There are many that want it yet trully if you pay attention vastly higher numbers of people do not want it at all or are not worried if you have it or not.
THe lore of tsw, as well as feel of it does not support open world pvp, unless it were done in secluded or hidden away locals. Like alleyes, parking garages, woodlands, and such. Mostly bevcause they are secrective wanting to keep their actions and presence out of the public eye. The reasons for it would be the powwers that they have and use would be used to either imprison or create even another inquisition-like event. Look at the groups in real life overall they thrive on secrecy, not being open and showing or telling what they knwo to everyone. Truthfully by that simple fact open world pvp would be against the ideals of the main groups that make up tsw.
I think there is no good reason to not have at least one Open World faction pvp server. Some people like it. I really don't. But those who do should have the chance to play a game they like with a ruleset they prefer.
I also think there should be at least one FFA server, and one strict roleplaying server. And perhaps even roleplaying servers with the different PvP rulesets. There should be no reason not to.
And, if more games had these different servers, then we could see what people like to play most based on who is there using which servers. It would be a good way to gauge what people enjoy doing, because most people aren't here talking about it, and we could get better statistics that way.
But more options are always good.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Exactly Dub, you get a big plus one for that one. That's the point I'm trying to make...the pver's of the world are far more vocal than the pvpers...that doesn't mean there are more of them, just just tend to be more active in forums, etc. So developers often times listen just to that crowd, not that I can fully blame them. However, games such as wow have shown that pve and pvp servers seperate make everyone happy...so only choosing one makes no sense.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
At this point, I'm looking forward to The Secret World and Guild Wars 2 both. I intend to pvp a lot in both of them, maybe more than I pve. But I'm still happy about not having to constantly look over my shoulder everywhere I go. I've tried open world pvp games, at times I've even gotten some enjoyment from them, but after awhile, I find it detracts from the rest of the game, and even or close matches are very, very rare. Open world pvpers are too good at risk assessment and most of them won't fight unless they know they're going to win.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
I disagree, you're basically saying a company must make every game with that play-style in mind, which is bonkers.
As for it being a gauge to track behavior, again seems bonkers to me, as DEVs have that information already either way. FC already has that game available BTW in AOC, they already have something to look at in terms of what people partake in. I can tell you from personal experience that PVE servers do far better than PVP servers in terms of steady population in just about every game since DAOC. Just about anyone who's been into this genre for a number of years could as well.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Get used to heart break, its a Funcom game afterall.
All these years later and AoC still does not hall all the features that are listed on the original box....
Beyond that unless you build your entire game around it from day 1 Open World PvP actually limits what developers can do with a game IMHO.
As for it being a gauge to track behavior, again seems bonkers to me, as DEVs have that information already either way. FC already has that game available BTW in AOC, they already have something to look at in terms of what people partake in. I can tell you from personal experience that PVE servers do far better than PVP servers in terms of steady population in just about every game since DAOC. Just about anyone who's been into this genre for a number of years could as well.
No, I am not saying that. Even GW2 should have an open PvP (by race, perhaps?) and even a FFA server. I mean this without changing anything else I have heard about the game. I would likely not play on these servers much, but there are people who would enjoy it.
The PvE servers could, and should be promoted as the intended playstyle, and there would certainly be fewer, if even more than one of the PvP ruleset. But there are people who would enjoy that regardless. They could do the Dynamic Events and try to mess with people, and kill people for fun, and have guilds fighting for territory, or control over boss encounters, or whatever else people do on these servers.
I wouldn't like that sort of thing, but there are people who really do, and there is no good reason not to let them. It would take very little extra work, and it would let people enjoy the world in the way they want to.
I use GW2 as an example because it is very heavily PvE. Even with that, it could easily have a PvP server or two, and there are people who would eat it up. What's the harm in that?
And I am not saying that more people want to PvP. I am saying they could add a server or two if more people play on that ruleset than they expect. And, tracking on what servers people like to play must be a good way to see in what direction future development should go. I will reiterate that I prefer PvE in the world, and PvP in instanced, balance arenas. But there are people who do enjoy that, and, PvP servers usually do quite well as well. There are players on both sides of the coin, and regardless of which has the higher population, there is no reason to not give both what they want.
I also want to use this space as a chance to say again that, in addition to PvP and FFA rulesets, there should be serious RP rulesets for the same reason. I won't elaborate on that much, as it isn't the point here, but server rulesets are easy to do, and marking a server as Standard, PvP, FFA, RP, FFARP, or whatever, is a good way to separate the community into groups of players that general enjoy the same thing. Even serious PVP games in the vein of Darkfall could and should have PvE rulesets for the same reason.
Why would we not want more options? How could that ever be a bad thing. I could go to some RP server, someone else could go to a regular server, and the OP could go to a PvP server, and everyone gets what they want. Of course, this only works if the game is good enough to have a large, stable population, but that is a measure of a decent game, and shouldn't have a bearing on this discussion.
The bottom line is, having more options available for how to play in our virtual worlds has to be a good thing.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
As for it being a gauge to track behavior, again seems bonkers to me, as DEVs have that information already either way. FC already has that game available BTW in AOC, they already have something to look at in terms of what people partake in. I can tell you from personal experience that PVE servers do far better than PVP servers in terms of steady population in just about every game since DAOC. Just about anyone who's been into this genre for a number of years could as well.
No, I am not saying that. Even GW2 should have an open PvP (by race, perhaps?) and even a FFA server. I mean this without changing anything else I have heard about the game. I would likely not play on these servers much, but there are people who would enjoy it.
The PvE servers could, and should be promoted as the intended playstyle, and there would certainly be fewer, if even more than one of the PvP ruleset. But there are people who would enjoy that regardless. They could do the Dynamic Events and try to mess with people, and kill people for fun, and have guilds fighting for territory, or control over boss encounters, or whatever else people do on these servers.
I wouldn't like that sort of thing, but there are people who really do, and there is no good reason not to let them. It would take very little extra work, and it would let people enjoy the world in the way they want to.
I use GW2 as an example because it is very heavily PvE. Even with that, it could easily have a PvP server or two, and there are people who would eat it up. What's the harm in that?
And I am not saying that more people want to PvP. I am saying they could add a server or two if more people play on that ruleset than they expect. And, tracking on what servers people like to play must be a good way to see in what direction future development should go. I will reiterate that I prefer PvE in the world, and PvP in instanced, balance arenas. But there are people who do enjoy that, and, PvP servers usually do quite well as well. There are players on both sides of the coin, and regardless of which has the higher population, there is no reason to not give both what they want.
I also want to use this space as a chance to say again that, in addition to PvP and FFA rulesets, there should be serious RP rulesets for the same reason. I won't elaborate on that much, as it isn't the point here, but server rulesets are easy to do, and marking a server as Standard, PvP, FFA, RP, FFARP, or whatever, is a good way to separate the community into groups of players that general enjoy the same thing. Even serious PVP games in the vein of Darkfall could and should have PvE rulesets for the same reason.
Why would we not want more options? How could that ever be a bad thing. I could go to some RP server, someone else could go to a regular server, and the OP could go to a PvP server, and everyone gets what they want. Of course, this only works if the game is good enough to have a large, stable population, but that is a measure of a decent game, and shouldn't have a bearing on this discussion.
The bottom line is, having more options available for how to play in our virtual worlds has to be a good thing.
So...Hello Kitty Online should have a PvP Server? A FFA PvP Server? Wizard 101 should have a PvP server? A FFA PvP server?
Not every game will benefit from open world PvP or FFA PvP. Just because players want open world pvp or ffa pvp everwhere does not mean it's the right choice to make as a developer.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
lizardbones, I did of course mean real MMOs, and/or MMOs for adults, or at least adolescents. Children's games do and should have different rules. I don't know about Hello Kitty Online, but in Wizard 101 you can't even make up your own name; you have to pick from a list.
So why don't we keep the discussion to games where people old enough to care about PvP are playing? Why in the world would you use children's games to prove a point about full-featured games for gamers?
BS arguments with ridiculous, outlandish examples don't really help your point.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
So the reverse is also true. Darkfall and Eve should both have PvE only servers?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This one thing won't stop me from playing or looking forward to the game. We have other games out there with open world PvP and PvP servers. Not every game HAS to have it.