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've seen a lot of requests for that in those two games, especially. It's the PvP that makes the game for some, but for sandbox fans who don't like FFA gankfest PvP, it's the one reason they won't play either of them.
Course, devs tend to have thier hands full with one game, without juggling three different variations, so its still a tough decision.
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.
You can like or dislike any game you want. I like reading about people's tastes in gaming. But I would hope by now that we realize each and every MMO is its own microcosm. Each one, no matter how similar they may be in game mechanics, attracts specifics groups of gamers. Even all the so called "WoW Clones" begin to feel different after you play them for a while. Hell you can play the same MMO and get totally different experiences just by playing on different servers. So can we please stop trying to create some sort of MMO posterchild? There is no all encompassing formula that every MMO should have.
Alot of great PvE games that offer PvP servers ultimately get ruined by the subsequent demand by the PvP base for class balance in a PvP setting. The fact that this game is PvE only (except for mini-games) is promising in that they can hopefully focus on content and encounter challenge rather than having to constantly tweak abilties to balance things ala rock/paper/scissors.
Alot of great PvE games that offer PvP servers ultimately get ruined by the subsequent demand by the PvP base for class balance in a PvP setting. The fact that this game is PvE only (except for mini-games) is promising in that they can hopefully focus on content and encounter challenge rather than having to constantly tweak abilties to balance things ala rock/paper/scissors.
I've seen a lot more games suffer from devs who hate seeing players wtfpwning thier content, than those where they try to stop them from them wtfpwning eachother.
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.
Originally posted by lizardbones 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?
That is not the reverse. Children's games should have policies for children. Games like Darkfall and EVE are full featured and purported to be for an older group. Games designed for an older group should have options for an older group.
The exception here would be something like EVE, where they want all people to be on only one server. But a world in which everyone exists in the exact same place is a somewhat different design decision (And I don't really agree with it. A PvE server in EVE would be a good thing for a lot of people, I think.) If you are going to have a normal MMO, where you have multiple servers, they should have different rulesets. This isn't a complicated idea.
Of course there are exceptions. There always are. Children's games, single-server games, and perhaps some games I haven't thought of in which either PvE or PvP wouldn't make sense or function. (I really can't think of any, and I've tried.)
I don't understand why anyone would argue against this. Who would not want more options for everyone. The people who enjoy the open-world PvP will be on a different server from those who prefer only PvE in the world, and so they can both enjoy the game more. How could this be a problem? I mean, seriously, what is the problem with that?
"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 Ozivois Alot of great PvE games that offer PvP servers ultimately get ruined by the subsequent demand by the PvP base for class balance in a PvP setting. The fact that this game is PvE only (except for mini-games) is promising in that they can hopefully focus on content and encounter challenge rather than having to constantly tweak abilties to balance things ala rock/paper/scissors.
Erm, you are misinterpreting stuff.
Game is NOT PVE-Only.
PVP part is separated - you still have persistent, always open factional PVP territories(as well as non-persistent, instanced minigames).
The concept like this has ALWAYS been there since the begining of this game's development:
"on the surface" all the factions are sort of working for common goals, yet at the same employing dirty tricks, manipulation and trickery to gain power over other factions, yet remaining blame-less.
"on the below", you have the full on war between the factions, a war that is not stopping, nor getting interrupted, nor getting instanced. A persistent war for objectives, goals, resources and technologies.
In a sense, this factional PVP itself affects heavily PVE and the overall storyline, so everyone has a drive to get into the factional warfare.
Game is not just "pve stuff". THE GAME IS BUILT AROUND factional conflict. Its just that the more manipulative part of conflict is entirely separated from the brutal direct conflict.
ITS NOT pve-only game. Its pretty much RvRvR game. It is still quite pvp-centrict, just IT IS NOT ganker-paradise.
# A GRIM, ODD, ARCANE SKY # ANY GOD, I MARK SACRED # A MASKED CRY ADORING # A DREAMY, SICK DRAGON
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?
That is not the reverse. Children's games should have policies for children. Games like Darkfall and EVE are full featured and purported to be for an older group. Games designed for an older group should have options for an older group.
The exception here would be something like EVE, where they want all people to be on only one server. But a world in which everyone exists in the exact same place is a somewhat different design decision (And I don't really agree with it. A PvE server in EVE would be a good thing for a lot of people, I think.) If you are going to have a normal MMO, where you have multiple servers, they should have different rulesets. This isn't a complicated idea.
Of course there are exceptions. There always are. Children's games, single-server games, and perhaps some games I haven't thought of in which either PvE or PvP wouldn't make sense or function. (I really can't think of any, and I've tried.)
I don't understand why anyone would argue against this. Who would not want more options for everyone. The people who enjoy the open-world PvP will be on a different server from those who prefer only PvE in the world, and so they can both enjoy the game more. How could this be a problem? I mean, seriously, what is the problem with that?
Games should follow their design philosophies. If the game is not designed to have open world pvp, then it shouldn't have it. Adding an element to a game that it's not designed for does not make the game better.
** edit ** What about Aion? Should it have a PvE only server? How about a Tale In The Desert? It's not a child game...should it have open world PvP? How about Lord of the Rings? It hardly has PvP at all...I suppose it should have open world PvP as well.
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.
So the reverse is also true. Darkfall and Eve should both have PvE only servers?
That is not the reverse. Children's games should have policies for children. Games like Darkfall and EVE are full featured and purported to be for an older group. Games designed for an older group should have options for an older group.
The exception here would be something like EVE, where they want all people to be on only one server. But a world in which everyone exists in the exact same place is a somewhat different design decision (And I don't really agree with it. A PvE server in EVE would be a good thing for a lot of people, I think.) If you are going to have a normal MMO, where you have multiple servers, they should have different rulesets. This isn't a complicated idea.
Of course there are exceptions. There always are. Children's games, single-server games, and perhaps some games I haven't thought of in which either PvE or PvP wouldn't make sense or function. (I really can't think of any, and I've tried.)
I don't understand why anyone would argue against this. Who would not want more options for everyone. The people who enjoy the open-world PvP will be on a different server from those who prefer only PvE in the world, and so they can both enjoy the game more. How could this be a problem? I mean, seriously, what is the problem with that?
Games should follow their design philosophies. If the game is not designed to have open world pvp, then it shouldn't have it. Adding an element to a game that it's not designed for does not make the game better.
** edit **
What about Aion? Should it have a PvE only server? How about a Tale In The Desert? It's not a child game...should it have open world PvP? How about Lord of the Rings? It hardly has PvP at all...I suppose it should have open world PvP as well.
Exactly what I was going to reply.
I am a massive PvP fan, yet I don't want to see PvP being forced into a game not designed for it. I don't understand why most people can't grasp that concept.
Yes, you can always add a server and say: "Ok, you PvP people now have a PvP server... Why don't you go and have fun over there?". Well, this is not going to work, because the game from the ground up was not designed to be a PvP game, so the game rules (created by the designers) are just not made to catter for PvP (so if your only response is to create a "PvP only server", it is too late already).
The only thing that would happen then is having yet another poor implementation of World PvP (in which PvP players would not even have fun - I know I would not even touch it with a stick, implementation which of course would not be successful), and a lot more PvE-people having seen a pathetic attempt at world PvP in a game not built for it: "Wow, world PvP is really bad! It really needs to be put on a separate server, apart from the main crowd!".
No, World PvP is not inherently bad. The implementation suggested by the other poster (a "PvP ruleset server") would certainly be bad. I don't understand why most people think of "PvP" as just additional content (that need to be added towards the end of the game development, when 95% of the game has already been designed - yes, PvP is going to be bad if this is the case). It has mostly been additional content over the recent years, but it does not have to be the case.
Has anyone ever thought for a minute that maybe PVP is not as popular as you think?
There was a poll, not long ago, on MMORPG.COM and it shown that only around 30% of voters did not want to engage in any kind of PvP. Is that representetive of the MMORPG population? Who knows, you would think that the biggest MMORPG site would be, but it still indicates that a large majority of voters on that poll wanted some kind of PvP in an MMORPG.
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?
That is not the reverse. Children's games should have policies for children. Games like Darkfall and EVE are full featured and purported to be for an older group. Games designed for an older group should have options for an older group.
The exception here would be something like EVE, where they want all people to be on only one server. But a world in which everyone exists in the exact same place is a somewhat different design decision (And I don't really agree with it. A PvE server in EVE would be a good thing for a lot of people, I think.) If you are going to have a normal MMO, where you have multiple servers, they should have different rulesets. This isn't a complicated idea.
Of course there are exceptions. There always are. Children's games, single-server games, and perhaps some games I haven't thought of in which either PvE or PvP wouldn't make sense or function. (I really can't think of any, and I've tried.)
I don't understand why anyone would argue against this. Who would not want more options for everyone. The people who enjoy the open-world PvP will be on a different server from those who prefer only PvE in the world, and so they can both enjoy the game more. How could this be a problem? I mean, seriously, what is the problem with that?
Games should follow their design philosophies. If the game is not designed to have open world pvp, then it shouldn't have it. Adding an element to a game that it's not designed for does not make the game better.
** edit **
What about Aion? Should it have a PvE only server? How about a Tale In The Desert? It's not a child game...should it have open world PvP? How about Lord of the Rings? It hardly has PvP at all...I suppose it should have open world PvP as well.
Exactly what I was going to reply.
I am a massive PvP fan, yet I don't want to see PvP being forced into a game not designed for it. I don't understand why most people can't grasp that concept.
Yes, you can always add a server and say: "Ok, you PvP people now have a PvP server... Why don't you go and have fun over there?". Well, this is not going to work, because the game from the ground up was not designed to be a PvP game, so the game rules (created by the designers) are just not made to catter for PvP (so if your only response is to create a "PvP only server", it is too late already).
The only thing that would happen then is having yet another poor implementation of World PvP (in which PvP players would not even have fun - I know I would not even touch it with a stick, implementation which of course would not be successful), and a lot more PvE-people having seen a pathetic attempt at world PvP in a game not built for it: "Wow, world PvP is really bad! It really needs to be put on a separate server, apart from the main crowd!".
No, World PvP is not inherently bad. The implementation suggested by the other poster (a "PvP ruleset server") would certainly be bad. I don't understand why most people think of "PvP" as just additional content (that need to be added towards the end of the game development, when 95% of the game has already been designed - yes, PvP is going to be bad if this is the case). It has mostly been additional content over the recent years, but it does not have to be the case.
Obviously you should not force PvP to somewhere where it was not designed to be. But that is the whole point, if Secret World is not designed to have world PvP, how interesting can it be? Three factions kinda lays it up for some interesting world PvP but apparently that is not the point of the three factions, so what is? So that they can do three way PvE?
Funcom already had a big dissapointment in AoC and it sounds like they are lining up for another dissapointment.
Lizardbones. Yes, yes, and yes. I think a great many people would enjoy a PvE server on Aion, and I know there are people who would enjoy PvP in LotRO. And I know that defies the lore in kind of an odd, small way, but in any world, people have the option to fight one another.
Askdaboss, I have mostly explained this in previous posts, so I won't get into it to much, but this isn't "more content," this is having more options. Of course games will have design philosophies, and should mark their standard servers, and suggest them to new players, for the "traditional" or "intended" gameplay experience, but allow the choice of other ways to play the game. It would be better for revenue, it would be better for games' population, and it would be better for players.
"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
If by open world PvP you mean fight anywhere in the world: yes the game has no open world PvP.
If by open world PvP you mean non instanced, massive and persistent PvP available 24/7 then yes the game has it on several areas, designed specifically for PvP conflict involving "hundreds" of players and that have several controlable objectives, getting them done grants your faction some bonuses or rewards, for as long as your faction can keep the region.
They are called warzones.
For as long as they have talked about PvP they indicated they wanted separated PvP and PvE regions, so people wouldn't have to partake in an activity they weren't looking forward to.
There are also minigame-like battlegrounds and FFA "fight clubs". What we won't have is a PvP everywhere kind of game.
Obviously you should not force PvP to somewhere where it was not designed to be. But that is the whole point, if Secret World is not designed to have world PvP, how interesting can it be? Three factions kinda lays it up for some interesting world PvP but apparently that is not the point of the three factions, so what is? So that they can do three way PvE?
Funcom already had a big dissapointment in AoC and it sounds like they are lining up for another dissapointment.
Yeah, I would like to see good world PvP in a game, but I (personally) don't think it would work well in the TSW with their current mindset.
About the 3 factions justification, the following will be a bit of a stretch for some people, but technically, PvP only means "Player vs Player". It does not only mean armed conflict (so involving weapons) where there should be only one man standing in the end (this is the "lowlife/grunt" form of PvP).
In fact, the PvE in TSW (as far as I understand the game, so not as much as others) is a form of PvP. It all makes sense with the setting, no armed fights are allowed in the streets (setting: our world, so they would be arrested by the police, by the army, or by the Council of Venice), but whatever action you undertake is still taken to favor your faction.
And given that the game is supposed to revolve around enigms and mysteries, having more information than the other factions is valuable, more perhaps than territory and killing other people (which would expose your organization, make your organization fall out of favor from the general public, etc).
To give you an analogy close to how I see TSW, you could imagine a PvP game that would happen in a modern company. Goal: becoming CEO, rules: no killing of other players. Still you would blackmail, lie, convince other people, etc. As someone accurately said earlier, that's "gentlemen's pvp". I really like this idea (although I don't think TSW will go as far as allowing "politics PvP").
Obviously you should not force PvP to somewhere where it was not designed to be. But that is the whole point, if Secret World is not designed to have world PvP, how interesting can it be? Three factions kinda lays it up for some interesting world PvP but apparently that is not the point of the three factions, so what is? So that they can do three way PvE?
Funcom already had a big dissapointment in AoC and it sounds like they are lining up for another dissapointment.
Yeah, I would like to see good world PvP in a game, but I (personally) don't think it would work well in the TSW with their current mindset.
About the 3 factions justification, the following will be a bit of a stretch for some people, but technically, PvP only means "Player vs Player". It does not only mean armed conflict (so involving weapons) where there should be only one man standing in the end (this is the "lowlife/grunt" form of PvP).
In fact, the PvE in TSW (as far as I understand the game, so not as much as others) is a form of PvP. It all makes sense with the setting, no armed fights are allowed in the streets (setting: our world, so they would be arrested by the police, by the army, or by the Council of Venice), but whatever action you undertake is still taken to favor your faction.
And given that the game is supposed to revolve around enigms and mysteries, having more information than the other factions is valuable, more perhaps than territory and killing other people (which would expose your organization, make your organization fall out of favor from the general public, etc).
To give you an analogy close to how I see TSW, you could imagine a PvP game that would happen in a modern company. Goal: becoming CEO, rules: no killing of other players. Still you would blackmail, lie, convince other people, etc. As someone accurately said earlier, that's "gentlemen's pvp". I really like this idea (although I don't think TSW will go as far as allowing "politics PvP").
There are elements along this lines, starting with faction standing being dependent of all regular game activities, which are tabulated into leaderboards, the sum of this leaderboards being the factor that determines the total standing of all factions. PvP, PvE, ARG puzzle solving, investigation, exploration... crafting, it all counts to determine what faction is ahead.
Then there are specific faction based missions, where thru PvE you experience the conflict between the factions. linked to this there are hints at PvE "infiltration and sabotage" missions, in which you act against the other factions.
There are faction-wide ARG events, in which the first faction to solve the ARG puzzle receives some sort of reward.
There are instanced minigames that are completely based on faction, winning there gives the participants some bonuses that are helpful on the factional conflict (see next). We have been shown Stonehenge and Ele Dorado (two different rulesets for them) and Shamballa has been mentioned as a ranked arena of sorts.
There are persistent, non instanced war zones, were the factions wage war for the control of relics or places of power that gran bonuses to all members of the faction holding them, and that hold over a hundred players concurrently. They are said to be going on 24/7, they haven't disclosed how many of such areas there will be at launch. We have been shown the "Chinese Temple" Warzone area, which seems to be big.
The conflict between the factions is said to be an important part of the story we will be discovering as we play, and also an important factor in their plans for an "evolving story" based on the in-game event's and how things are unfolded by the player base. FC plans to treat story updates as "seasons" from a series.
Originally posted by Dubhlaith Lizardbones. Yes, yes, and yes. I think a great many people would enjoy a PvE server on Aion, and I know there are people who would enjoy PvP in LotRO. And I know that defies the lore in kind of an odd, small way, but in any world, people have the option to fight one another.Askdaboss, I have mostly explained this in previous posts, so I won't get into it to much, but this isn't "more content," this is having more options. Of course games will have design philosophies, and should mark their standard servers, and suggest them to new players, for the "traditional" or "intended" gameplay experience, but allow the choice of other ways to play the game. It would be better for revenue, it would be better for games' population, and it would be better for players.
The correct answer is 'No'.
There is only one faction in LotR and it is a united faction against Sauron. Barring insanity, the character classes available would not attack each other. Unless they added an 'evil' faction, loyal to Sauron, it would not make sense at all. It doesn't make sense from a game play perspective, nevermind a lore perspective.
A Tale In The Desert doesn't have combat and you think open world PvP makes sense in that game? It is entirely based on economics. If you spun up an open world pvp server it would be exactly the same as the pve server because there is no combat.
Aion is devoted to PvP. Ditto for Darkfall and Mortal Online. Having PvE only servers for those games makes no more sense than having PvP servers in games that are specifically designed to not have PvP servers.
If you don't design a game to encompass what it is you're allowing players to do, it's a bad implementation. The Secret World is designed specifically for there to be no open world pvp. Adding open world pvp in a game specifically designed to not have it would not improve the game play experience.
Any player who needs an open world pvp option shouldn't be looking at The Secret World.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Lizardbones. Yes, yes, and yes. I think a great many people would enjoy a PvE server on Aion, and I know there are people who would enjoy PvP in LotRO. And I know that defies the lore in kind of an odd, small way, but in any world, people have the option to fight one another.
Askdaboss, I have mostly explained this in previous posts, so I won't get into it to much, but this isn't "more content," this is having more options. Of course games will have design philosophies, and should mark their standard servers, and suggest them to new players, for the "traditional" or "intended" gameplay experience, but allow the choice of other ways to play the game. It would be better for revenue, it would be better for games' population, and it would be better for players.
The correct answer is 'No'.
There is only one faction in LotR and it is a united faction against Sauron. Barring insanity, the character classes available would not attack each other. Unless they added an 'evil' faction, loyal to Sauron, it would not make sense at all. It doesn't make sense from a game play perspective, nevermind a lore perspective.
A Tale In The Desert doesn't have combat and you think open world PvP makes sense in that game? It is entirely based on economics. If you spun up an open world pvp server it would be exactly the same as the pve server because there is no combat.
Aion is devoted to PvP. Ditto for Darkfall and Mortal Online. Having PvE only servers for those games makes no more sense than having PvP servers in games that are specifically designed to not have PvP servers.
If you don't design a game to encompass what it is you're allowing players to do, it's a bad implementation. The Secret World is designed specifically for there to be no open world pvp. Adding open world pvp in a game specifically designed to not have it would not improve the game play experience.
Any player who needs an open world pvp option shouldn't be looking at The Secret World.
I would be more specific "any player who needs open world PvP everywhere option shouldn't be looking at TSW" cause the Warzones are open world areas, persistent and non instanced, with PvP enabled and PvP objectives in them.
If by open world PvP you mean fight anywhere in the world: yes the game has no open world PvP.
If by open world PvP you mean non instanced, massive and persistent PvP available 24/7 then yes the game has it on several areas, designed specifically for PvP conflict involving "hundreds" of players and that have several controlable objectives, getting them done grants your faction some bonuses or rewards, for as long as your faction can keep the region.
They are called warzones.
For as long as they have talked about PvP they indicated they wanted separated PvP and PvE regions, so people wouldn't have to partake in an activity they weren't looking forward to.
There are also minigame-like battlegrounds and FFA "fight clubs". What we won't have is a PvP everywhere kind of game.
I think the beginning of what you wrote is where all the confusion comes from. People have different definitions for open world. Typically open world means your first line, fight anywhere in the world.
DAoC was not open world even though some people are calling it that. It was somewhat open pvp as in persistant, no cap, no instance. Zones. The battlegrounds are seperate zones where as games like WoW BGs are instances.
I've always prefered the zoned, non instanced persistant pvp of daoc and it seems TSW is going to be like that. Reading through this discussion almost made me think it wasn't going to be like this at all.
I remember in warhammer, they had open world pvp servers where people could gank you anywhere (well, within your tier) and then they had the lakes which were like the frontiers/BGs of daoc which I liked. And then they had they had scenarios which were like wow BGs which I got bored of quickly. As far as the open pvp, it was few and far between and not very fun. I rather just battle it out in the lakes.
I think when most people are asking for open world pvp, they're probably not referring to the fight anywhere part, especially if they're daoc vets. mordred/andred weren't that popular and that was an open world server(s). I just don't see much open world pvp in games that do have it. They just go to the BGs. Of course I rather have open world over instanced pvp, but prefer daoc pvp over them all.
I know, that's why i made the distinction, in a similar way to what DAoC has, TSW will feature persistent, non instanced, open world areas for PvP, but not PvP everywhere in the open world.
The difference will likely be that the total amount of players for each faction on each persistent, non instanced zone will be capped.
OMG! Now I wont get ganked by players 20 levels higher than me. What is wrong with these developers? Don't they know how much we love being ganked? I'm home doing nothing all day, so being every few minutes while trying to do a simple task is no problem at all.
</sarcasm>
Good news for me. I'll probably give the game a try now.
There is only one faction in LotR and it is a united faction against Sauron. Barring insanity, the character classes available would not attack each other. Unless they added an 'evil' faction, loyal to Sauron, it would not make sense at all. It doesn't make sense from a game play perspective, nevermind a lore perspective.
A Tale In The Desert doesn't have combat and you think open world PvP makes sense in that game? It is entirely based on economics. If you spun up an open world pvp server it would be exactly the same as the pve server because there is no combat.
Aion is devoted to PvP. Ditto for Darkfall and Mortal Online. Having PvE only servers for those games makes no more sense than having PvP servers in games that are specifically designed to not have PvP servers.
If you don't design a game to encompass what it is you're allowing players to do, it's a bad implementation. The Secret World is designed specifically for there to be no open world pvp. Adding open world pvp in a game specifically designed to not have it would not improve the game play experience.
Any player who needs an open world pvp option shouldn't be looking at The Secret World.
Yes. This is exactly how I see it, but you cannot deny that some games which weren't designed for open world pvp still include it in a different server set (I mean this in a "killing the other faction serves no other value than 'fun'" kind of way...as you don't get their gear etc or experience). The reason to do this, while it lessens the effect of the game's meaning, is because it enhances revenue. LOTRO did well to stick to their guns. DF and MO could have drastically increased sells...for a while... It's easier for a PvE game to create an "understandable" PvP ruleset than it is to understand a PvP game server without PvP... TSW is sticking to their guns, while adding a PvP ruleset server would increase revenues by a lot. That's fine, too.
I'd rather the devs not try to branch out to mediocrity and stay focused.
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.
I understand the point you're trying to make, and I'm sorry if my wording (bonkers) seemed to be a little harsh.
I just look at it like this, would or would not world PVP or FFA PVP benefit a game. In many cases dual rulesets (PVE or PVP) can and do make sense, as well as can add to the experience. That doesn't go for every game though and the way in which it seems TSW is set up, I don't see how it would benefit the game itself. It may appease a segment of the gamer population, but I don't think devs should be in the business of appeasement. They should be worried about what aspects are a greater benefit to the experience they are offering.
Scope is the most important thing here, as well as overall game balance. Adding multiple server rulesets like that creates a greater degree of resource use on the development end. They can't simply add a PVP rules server and leave it at that and go off and focus on what's important, if they're going to do that they have to support it. As far as resource use goes that may not benefit the game what so ever, it may actually detract from the game and the overall experience they're trying to offer.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
There is only one faction in LotR and it is a united faction against Sauron. Barring insanity, the character classes available would not attack each other. Unless they added an 'evil' faction, loyal to Sauron, it would not make sense at all. It doesn't make sense from a game play perspective, nevermind a lore perspective.
I don't know how many times I heard this but it is so wrong. As you mention yourself there is an evil faction loyal to Sauron. The Men of the South, Orcs, Goblins, Pirates and Saruman's Urukai (spelling?) are all loyal to Sauron and could easily form this 'evil' faction.
Just because Turbine are scared of implementing PvP does not mean the LotR does not have the lore to support it, it does. So it all depends on if the designers want to design the game to support or center around world PvP or not. LotRO designers decided not to and apparently Secret World as well.
I remember when this game was announce i had a huge interest in it but now i wouldn't even do a free trial. Anyway i'd be a fool to trust funcom again.
I don't know how many times I heard this but it is so wrong. As you mention yourself there is an evil faction loyal to Sauron. The Men of the South, Orcs, Goblins, Pirates and Saruman's Urukai (spelling?) are all loyal to Sauron and could easily form this 'evil' faction.
Just because Turbine are scared of implementing PvP does not mean the LotR does not have the lore to support it, it does. So it all depends on if the designers want to design the game to support or center around world PvP or not. LotRO designers decided not to and apparently Secret World as well.
The point is, they would have had to design the game so that it included those. It didn't; therefore, adding a PvP ruleset for that game would not make sense. If they doubled the content first and created a player faction siding with that side, THEN, a PvP ruleset would make sense (unless fighting was just for the sake of fighting and didn't really do anything on the grand scheme of things). TSW already has everything set to allow a PvP ruleset, but it choose not to based on the philosophy that the factions are against each other but fighting the same enemy. This could be changed much easier, than creating another whole viewpoint of a game. There is ALWAYS the ability to create a PvP world that makes sense, but the point of the development may not be to do that (to merely increase sells...because you bet that people would love to fight as orcs, goblins, and Balroq). This is what he's saying.
Comments
I've seen a lot of requests for that in those two games, especially. It's the PvP that makes the game for some, but for sandbox fans who don't like FFA gankfest PvP, it's the one reason they won't play either of them.
Course, devs tend to have thier hands full with one game, without juggling three different variations, so its still a tough decision.
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.
You can like or dislike any game you want. I like reading about people's tastes in gaming. But I would hope by now that we realize each and every MMO is its own microcosm. Each one, no matter how similar they may be in game mechanics, attracts specifics groups of gamers. Even all the so called "WoW Clones" begin to feel different after you play them for a while. Hell you can play the same MMO and get totally different experiences just by playing on different servers. So can we please stop trying to create some sort of MMO posterchild? There is no all encompassing formula that every MMO should have.
Alot of great PvE games that offer PvP servers ultimately get ruined by the subsequent demand by the PvP base for class balance in a PvP setting. The fact that this game is PvE only (except for mini-games) is promising in that they can hopefully focus on content and encounter challenge rather than having to constantly tweak abilties to balance things ala rock/paper/scissors.
I've seen a lot more games suffer from devs who hate seeing players wtfpwning thier content, than those where they try to stop them from them wtfpwning eachother.
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.
So the reverse is also true. Darkfall and Eve should both have PvE only servers?
That is not the reverse. Children's games should have policies for children. Games like Darkfall and EVE are full featured and purported to be for an older group. Games designed for an older group should have options for an older group.
The exception here would be something like EVE, where they want all people to be on only one server. But a world in which everyone exists in the exact same place is a somewhat different design decision (And I don't really agree with it. A PvE server in EVE would be a good thing for a lot of people, I think.) If you are going to have a normal MMO, where you have multiple servers, they should have different rulesets. This isn't a complicated idea.
Of course there are exceptions. There always are. Children's games, single-server games, and perhaps some games I haven't thought of in which either PvE or PvP wouldn't make sense or function. (I really can't think of any, and I've tried.)
I don't understand why anyone would argue against this. Who would not want more options for everyone. The people who enjoy the open-world PvP will be on a different server from those who prefer only PvE in the world, and so they can both enjoy the game more. How could this be a problem? I mean, seriously, what is the problem with that?
"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?
Erm, you are misinterpreting stuff.
Game is NOT PVE-Only.
PVP part is separated - you still have persistent, always open factional PVP territories(as well as non-persistent, instanced minigames).
The concept like this has ALWAYS been there since the begining of this game's development:
"on the surface" all the factions are sort of working for common goals, yet at the same employing dirty tricks, manipulation and trickery to gain power over other factions, yet remaining blame-less.
"on the below", you have the full on war between the factions, a war that is not stopping, nor getting interrupted, nor getting instanced. A persistent war for objectives, goals, resources and technologies.
In a sense, this factional PVP itself affects heavily PVE and the overall storyline, so everyone has a drive to get into the factional warfare.
Game is not just "pve stuff". THE GAME IS BUILT AROUND factional conflict. Its just that the more manipulative part of conflict is entirely separated from the brutal direct conflict.
ITS NOT pve-only game. Its pretty much RvRvR game. It is still quite pvp-centrict, just IT IS NOT ganker-paradise.
# A GRIM, ODD, ARCANE SKY
# ANY GOD, I MARK SACRED
# A MASKED CRY ADORING
# A DREAMY, SICK DRAGON
Games should follow their design philosophies. If the game is not designed to have open world pvp, then it shouldn't have it. Adding an element to a game that it's not designed for does not make the game better.
** edit **
What about Aion? Should it have a PvE only server? How about a Tale In The Desert? It's not a child game...should it have open world PvP? How about Lord of the Rings? It hardly has PvP at all...I suppose it should have open world PvP as well.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Exactly what I was going to reply.
I am a massive PvP fan, yet I don't want to see PvP being forced into a game not designed for it. I don't understand why most people can't grasp that concept.
Yes, you can always add a server and say: "Ok, you PvP people now have a PvP server... Why don't you go and have fun over there?". Well, this is not going to work, because the game from the ground up was not designed to be a PvP game, so the game rules (created by the designers) are just not made to catter for PvP (so if your only response is to create a "PvP only server", it is too late already).
The only thing that would happen then is having yet another poor implementation of World PvP (in which PvP players would not even have fun - I know I would not even touch it with a stick, implementation which of course would not be successful), and a lot more PvE-people having seen a pathetic attempt at world PvP in a game not built for it: "Wow, world PvP is really bad! It really needs to be put on a separate server, apart from the main crowd!".
No, World PvP is not inherently bad. The implementation suggested by the other poster (a "PvP ruleset server") would certainly be bad. I don't understand why most people think of "PvP" as just additional content (that need to be added towards the end of the game development, when 95% of the game has already been designed - yes, PvP is going to be bad if this is the case). It has mostly been additional content over the recent years, but it does not have to be the case.
There was a poll, not long ago, on MMORPG.COM and it shown that only around 30% of voters did not want to engage in any kind of PvP. Is that representetive of the MMORPG population? Who knows, you would think that the biggest MMORPG site would be, but it still indicates that a large majority of voters on that poll wanted some kind of PvP in an MMORPG.
So in short, it is most likely quite popular.
My gaming blog
Obviously you should not force PvP to somewhere where it was not designed to be. But that is the whole point, if Secret World is not designed to have world PvP, how interesting can it be? Three factions kinda lays it up for some interesting world PvP but apparently that is not the point of the three factions, so what is? So that they can do three way PvE?
Funcom already had a big dissapointment in AoC and it sounds like they are lining up for another dissapointment.
My gaming blog
Lizardbones. Yes, yes, and yes. I think a great many people would enjoy a PvE server on Aion, and I know there are people who would enjoy PvP in LotRO. And I know that defies the lore in kind of an odd, small way, but in any world, people have the option to fight one another.
Askdaboss, I have mostly explained this in previous posts, so I won't get into it to much, but this isn't "more content," this is having more options. Of course games will have design philosophies, and should mark their standard servers, and suggest them to new players, for the "traditional" or "intended" gameplay experience, but allow the choice of other ways to play the game. It would be better for revenue, it would be better for games' population, and it would be better for players.
"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?
If by open world PvP you mean fight anywhere in the world: yes the game has no open world PvP.
If by open world PvP you mean non instanced, massive and persistent PvP available 24/7 then yes the game has it on several areas, designed specifically for PvP conflict involving "hundreds" of players and that have several controlable objectives, getting them done grants your faction some bonuses or rewards, for as long as your faction can keep the region.
They are called warzones.
For as long as they have talked about PvP they indicated they wanted separated PvP and PvE regions, so people wouldn't have to partake in an activity they weren't looking forward to.
There are also minigame-like battlegrounds and FFA "fight clubs". What we won't have is a PvP everywhere kind of game.
Yeah, I would like to see good world PvP in a game, but I (personally) don't think it would work well in the TSW with their current mindset.
About the 3 factions justification, the following will be a bit of a stretch for some people, but technically, PvP only means "Player vs Player". It does not only mean armed conflict (so involving weapons) where there should be only one man standing in the end (this is the "lowlife/grunt" form of PvP).
In fact, the PvE in TSW (as far as I understand the game, so not as much as others) is a form of PvP. It all makes sense with the setting, no armed fights are allowed in the streets (setting: our world, so they would be arrested by the police, by the army, or by the Council of Venice), but whatever action you undertake is still taken to favor your faction.
And given that the game is supposed to revolve around enigms and mysteries, having more information than the other factions is valuable, more perhaps than territory and killing other people (which would expose your organization, make your organization fall out of favor from the general public, etc).
To give you an analogy close to how I see TSW, you could imagine a PvP game that would happen in a modern company. Goal: becoming CEO, rules: no killing of other players. Still you would blackmail, lie, convince other people, etc. As someone accurately said earlier, that's "gentlemen's pvp". I really like this idea (although I don't think TSW will go as far as allowing "politics PvP").
There are elements along this lines, starting with faction standing being dependent of all regular game activities, which are tabulated into leaderboards, the sum of this leaderboards being the factor that determines the total standing of all factions. PvP, PvE, ARG puzzle solving, investigation, exploration... crafting, it all counts to determine what faction is ahead.
Then there are specific faction based missions, where thru PvE you experience the conflict between the factions. linked to this there are hints at PvE "infiltration and sabotage" missions, in which you act against the other factions.
There are faction-wide ARG events, in which the first faction to solve the ARG puzzle receives some sort of reward.
There are instanced minigames that are completely based on faction, winning there gives the participants some bonuses that are helpful on the factional conflict (see next). We have been shown Stonehenge and Ele Dorado (two different rulesets for them) and Shamballa has been mentioned as a ranked arena of sorts.
There are persistent, non instanced war zones, were the factions wage war for the control of relics or places of power that gran bonuses to all members of the faction holding them, and that hold over a hundred players concurrently. They are said to be going on 24/7, they haven't disclosed how many of such areas there will be at launch. We have been shown the "Chinese Temple" Warzone area, which seems to be big.
The conflict between the factions is said to be an important part of the story we will be discovering as we play, and also an important factor in their plans for an "evolving story" based on the in-game event's and how things are unfolded by the player base. FC plans to treat story updates as "seasons" from a series.
The correct answer is 'No'.
There is only one faction in LotR and it is a united faction against Sauron. Barring insanity, the character classes available would not attack each other. Unless they added an 'evil' faction, loyal to Sauron, it would not make sense at all. It doesn't make sense from a game play perspective, nevermind a lore perspective.
A Tale In The Desert doesn't have combat and you think open world PvP makes sense in that game? It is entirely based on economics. If you spun up an open world pvp server it would be exactly the same as the pve server because there is no combat.
Aion is devoted to PvP. Ditto for Darkfall and Mortal Online. Having PvE only servers for those games makes no more sense than having PvP servers in games that are specifically designed to not have PvP servers.
If you don't design a game to encompass what it is you're allowing players to do, it's a bad implementation. The Secret World is designed specifically for there to be no open world pvp. Adding open world pvp in a game specifically designed to not have it would not improve the game play experience.
Any player who needs an open world pvp option shouldn't be looking at The Secret World.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I would be more specific "any player who needs open world PvP everywhere option shouldn't be looking at TSW" cause the Warzones are open world areas, persistent and non instanced, with PvP enabled and PvP objectives in them.
I think the beginning of what you wrote is where all the confusion comes from. People have different definitions for open world. Typically open world means your first line, fight anywhere in the world.
DAoC was not open world even though some people are calling it that. It was somewhat open pvp as in persistant, no cap, no instance. Zones. The battlegrounds are seperate zones where as games like WoW BGs are instances.
I've always prefered the zoned, non instanced persistant pvp of daoc and it seems TSW is going to be like that. Reading through this discussion almost made me think it wasn't going to be like this at all.
I remember in warhammer, they had open world pvp servers where people could gank you anywhere (well, within your tier) and then they had the lakes which were like the frontiers/BGs of daoc which I liked. And then they had they had scenarios which were like wow BGs which I got bored of quickly. As far as the open pvp, it was few and far between and not very fun. I rather just battle it out in the lakes.
I think when most people are asking for open world pvp, they're probably not referring to the fight anywhere part, especially if they're daoc vets. mordred/andred weren't that popular and that was an open world server(s). I just don't see much open world pvp in games that do have it. They just go to the BGs. Of course I rather have open world over instanced pvp, but prefer daoc pvp over them all.
I know, that's why i made the distinction, in a similar way to what DAoC has, TSW will feature persistent, non instanced, open world areas for PvP, but not PvP everywhere in the open world.
The difference will likely be that the total amount of players for each faction on each persistent, non instanced zone will be capped.
Look lets look at it this way this is a nitch game is is not ment for pvp people.
<sarcasm>
OMG! Now I wont get ganked by players 20 levels higher than me. What is wrong with these developers? Don't they know how much we love being ganked? I'm home doing nothing all day, so being every few minutes while trying to do a simple task is no problem at all.
</sarcasm>
Good news for me. I'll probably give the game a try now.
Yes. This is exactly how I see it, but you cannot deny that some games which weren't designed for open world pvp still include it in a different server set (I mean this in a "killing the other faction serves no other value than 'fun'" kind of way...as you don't get their gear etc or experience). The reason to do this, while it lessens the effect of the game's meaning, is because it enhances revenue. LOTRO did well to stick to their guns. DF and MO could have drastically increased sells...for a while... It's easier for a PvE game to create an "understandable" PvP ruleset than it is to understand a PvP game server without PvP... TSW is sticking to their guns, while adding a PvP ruleset server would increase revenues by a lot. That's fine, too.
I'd rather the devs not try to branch out to mediocrity and stay focused.
I understand the point you're trying to make, and I'm sorry if my wording (bonkers) seemed to be a little harsh.
I just look at it like this, would or would not world PVP or FFA PVP benefit a game. In many cases dual rulesets (PVE or PVP) can and do make sense, as well as can add to the experience. That doesn't go for every game though and the way in which it seems TSW is set up, I don't see how it would benefit the game itself. It may appease a segment of the gamer population, but I don't think devs should be in the business of appeasement. They should be worried about what aspects are a greater benefit to the experience they are offering.
Scope is the most important thing here, as well as overall game balance. Adding multiple server rulesets like that creates a greater degree of resource use on the development end. They can't simply add a PVP rules server and leave it at that and go off and focus on what's important, if they're going to do that they have to support it. As far as resource use goes that may not benefit the game what so ever, it may actually detract from the game and the overall experience they're trying to offer.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't know how many times I heard this but it is so wrong. As you mention yourself there is an evil faction loyal to Sauron. The Men of the South, Orcs, Goblins, Pirates and Saruman's Urukai (spelling?) are all loyal to Sauron and could easily form this 'evil' faction.
Just because Turbine are scared of implementing PvP does not mean the LotR does not have the lore to support it, it does. So it all depends on if the designers want to design the game to support or center around world PvP or not. LotRO designers decided not to and apparently Secret World as well.
My gaming blog
I remember when this game was announce i had a huge interest in it but now i wouldn't even do a free trial. Anyway i'd be a fool to trust funcom again.
The point is, they would have had to design the game so that it included those. It didn't; therefore, adding a PvP ruleset for that game would not make sense. If they doubled the content first and created a player faction siding with that side, THEN, a PvP ruleset would make sense (unless fighting was just for the sake of fighting and didn't really do anything on the grand scheme of things). TSW already has everything set to allow a PvP ruleset, but it choose not to based on the philosophy that the factions are against each other but fighting the same enemy. This could be changed much easier, than creating another whole viewpoint of a game. There is ALWAYS the ability to create a PvP world that makes sense, but the point of the development may not be to do that (to merely increase sells...because you bet that people would love to fight as orcs, goblins, and Balroq). This is what he's saying.