I would actually enjoy a permadeath game (I know there is Salem coming, not sure if I'll like the genre though).
That would actually make folks think twice before mindless PKing. Currently most FFA games have no real danger to it. If folks had to worry that their characters would actually DIE, they might be more well behaved instead of acting like roaming bands of psychotic killers.
Frr the record I do realize that such a game would not be a commercial success... but it is one I would enjoy trying.
Could you imagine the raging and tears if a game like Darkfall or Mortal Online had perma-death? Reading that on the game forums would probably be as much fun as playing the actual games.
Thats what makes perma-death so great. If you ever play roguellike games, that is the essencce of them. and yes, on the forums for those games there is always a forum for YASD = "Yet Another Stupid Death" where players lament how they did something careless or stupid and killed off a promising character. Perma-death makes games way more intense and fun, especially games where progression is relatively quick and perma-death won't equal rage quit.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
I went back to Darkwind after a lengthy hiatus and entered my now level 50 driving leader into a deathrace. Let's just say my skills weren't as sharp, and a little bump in the corner that I probably could have avoided sent poor Calvin Kline into the Wall at 110 MPH. Luckily for him he was killed instantly when his head severed from his body. I tend to take that turn a little slower these days.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Man, you're right and wrong at the same time, cause the truth is that without proper reason for pvp it becomes boring way to quickly(wow the best example of that). And the best reason for PvP is resources war!
"Gameplay integrity" are you kidding me? So integrity is demanding the mechanics from one genre be applied to a small section of another genre which is wholly unsuited for it now is it? Don't make me fucking laugh. You are in fact, just crying.
It would be pretty shallow if something like EVE happened to be a lobby game in which you clicked "FIGHT" and subsequently loaded into a contained instance with 5 times as many players as some poor sod who has also just clicked "FIGHT". Seeing how that though clearly isn't the case, at all, it is far from "shallow".
Tell you what, it is "unfair" when my dumbass team mates get lost or killed leaving me to carry the fight in the FPS and MOBA games I play. For that reason any pvp that is not purely 1v1 all the time is a pile of uncompetitive, unskilled shite. Ergo, there is no integrity in team pvp games and I demand that all team games revert to 1v1 pvp in the name of competition.
Actually EVE's combat might be pretty damn fun as a lobby game!
I've always imagined that it would make for an interesting PVP game if it was set up vaguely like tabletop Warhammer where two guilds of 200v200 face off, each with a fixed amount of ISK to purchase ships and then fight a no-respawn battle over a large map sprawling multiple sectors.
Or give it wider appeal by adding respawn and tracking ISK on a player-by-player basis, which ticks up slowly based on your team holding objectives. Lose an expensive ship recklessly and you'll be stuck respawning in a lousy cheap ship. But if you control objectives with teamwork and wisely save your money, you'll be able to field the most powerful ships in the game by the end of the match. Sort of a different take on a Natural Selection style game, which offloads the strategic decisionmaking onto each individual player rather than relying on team consensus (which doesn't really work in public play.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"Gameplay integrity" are you kidding me? So integrity is demanding the mechanics from one genre be applied to a small section of another genre which is wholly unsuited for it now is it? Don't make me fucking laugh. You are in fact, just crying.
It would be pretty shallow if something like EVE happened to be a lobby game in which you clicked "FIGHT" and subsequently loaded into a contained instance with 5 times as many players as some poor sod who has also just clicked "FIGHT". Seeing how that though clearly isn't the case, at all, it is far from "shallow".
Tell you what, it is "unfair" when my dumbass team mates get lost or killed leaving me to carry the fight in the FPS and MOBA games I play. For that reason any pvp that is not purely 1v1 all the time is a pile of uncompetitive, unskilled shite. Ergo, there is no integrity in team pvp games and I demand that all team games revert to 1v1 pvp in the name of competition.
Actually EVE's combat might be pretty damn fun as a lobby game!
I've always imagined that it would make for an interesting PVP game if it was set up vaguely like tabletop Warhammer where two guilds of 200v200 face off, each with a fixed amount of ISK to purchase ships and then fight a no-respawn battle over a large map sprawling multiple sectors.
Or give it wider appeal by adding respawn and tracking ISK on a player-by-player basis, which ticks up slowly based on your team holding objectives. Lose an expensive ship recklessly and you'll be stuck respawning in a lousy cheap ship. But if you control objectives with teamwork and wisely save your money, you'll be able to field the most powerful ships in the game by the end of the match. Sort of a different take on a Natural Selection style game, which offloads the strategic decisionmaking onto each individual player rather than relying on team consensus (which doesn't really work in public play.)
This would totally take away from the politics of territorial conquest in the game. Where alliance A gets efame for steamrolling previously crowned "top coalition" of the game. Or where Alliance X and Alliance Y are fighting and alliance Z shows up like a BOSS and goes 'United States' on Alliance X and Y by dropping Supercarriers on top of em both. In short the human drives and actions that make the open world unique.
This would totally take away from the politics of territorial conquest in the game. Where alliance A gets efame for steamrolling previously crowned "top coalition" of the game. Or where Alliance X and Alliance Y are fighting and alliance Z shows up like a BOSS and goes 'United States' on Alliance X and Y by dropping Supercarriers on top of em both. In short the human drives and actions that make the open world unique.
Yes, it would.
Removal of political decisions made infrequently by few players is a fair price to pay for the addition of tactical decisions that every player experiences on every login.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There needs to be significant penalites for PK's. Maybe add a karma system so if a player PK's too many times within a certain time frame they will have permadeath or only a few lives.
Of course, in Ultima online PK player could lose all his equipment which could be so much work....
Yes, but much of that isn't actually his equipement to begin with, it's his equipment he stole....
And his victims lose just as much, so not really a PK penalty when it applies to the victims as well.
This^
FFA PvP games don't work for the majority because the systems coddle the PK's too much.
When it's a LOT more difficult to play a non-PK who doesn't just randomly kill people for no reason, you're doing it wrong devs.
The veteran always has the advantage, and so very few people have the patience (or maybe it's something else?) to fight on tooth and nail to become veterans themselves.
The #1 thing would be to give the players a choice in PVP. Yea, FFA pvp can be fun, but only if there's a system in place like the origional SWG overt/covert system. Let the players decide when they want to step into PVP and when they just want to observe. I really think a xp loss wouldn't be a bad idea, for those that want to live on the edge and pvp the majority of their game time.
This would totally take away from the politics of territorial conquest in the game. Where alliance A gets efame for steamrolling previously crowned "top coalition" of the game. Or where Alliance X and Alliance Y are fighting and alliance Z shows up like a BOSS and goes 'United States' on Alliance X and Y by dropping Supercarriers on top of em both. In short the human drives and actions that make the open world unique.
Yes, it would.
Removal of political decisions made infrequently by few players is a fair price to pay for the addition of tactical decisions that every player experiences on every login.
FYI: I don't think you were seriously proposing this because if you were then you probably have a limited knowledge of the EVE Community. Suffice to say this would be suicide for CCP hence it will never happen.
Why every single one of "you" says bs like: "veteran will have a huge advantage over you". For God's sake, show me game in which it isn't so!!! Even in the most carebear game like WoW, a vet who knows alot about game would own you in any way possible!!! Thats a given fact that veteran is better in EVERYTHING on the planet called Earth!!!!!
I am all for a game with open PVP. But it needs some structuring. Especailly in a Sandbox game where you also have people specializing in gathering or crafting. They are not combat oriented.
What would people do if a market specialist had the ability to do a "PVP" attack to another player's shops? You know, a sort of "hostile take over of assets where success is based on business skills?"
Sure you got his gear, but he cleaned out your bank....Now, I am not saying I want to see that exact mechanic implemented, It was just an off the cuff example I just thought up, but open PVP has to have checks and balances.
there is already one, Darkfall, and nobody is playing it.
that pretty much answers your question.
The niche pvp crowd will end up with Archeage in a year or two, which makes me sad, because that game has a lot of features I would have enjoyed very much. But if it keeps the open world pvp crowd amused, so be it, at least I won't have to put up with them in the games I play.
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.
there is already one, Darkfall, and nobody is playing it.
that pretty much answers your question.
The niche pvp crowd will end up with Archeage in a year or two, which makes me sad, because that game has a lot of features I would have enjoyed very much. But if it keeps the open world pvp crowd amused, so be it, at least I won't have to put up with them in the games I play.
Doesn't DF have a ton of other issues? I don't recall exactly wha they were, but I remember looking at this one and MO and after reading much of what people had to say, I figured I'd just pass on by.
there is already one, Darkfall, and nobody is playing it.
that pretty much answers your question.
The niche pvp crowd will end up with Archeage in a year or two, which makes me sad, because that game has a lot of features I would have enjoyed very much. But if it keeps the open world pvp crowd amused, so be it, at least I won't have to put up with them in the games I play.
Doesn't DF have a ton of other issues? I don't recall exactly wha they were, but I remember looking at this one and MO and after reading much of what people had to say, I figured I'd just pass on by.
Honestly, I don't think anyone really knows what the potential population of a new and well done open world pvp centric game is. MO and Darkfall do supposedly have issues, and Eve is a little long in the tooth, plus it has a niche setting.
I expect Archeage to do very well, maybe Planetside, too. I think the number of pvpers in general might be growing. But Archeage, at least, would do probably 3x better if it offered pve and pvp servers. However, if that's not what the developers want, I can respect that, as long as they realize what they're going to be getting is not nearly the numbers they could have had.
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.
FYI: I don't think you were seriously proposing this because if you were then you probably have a limited knowledge of the EVE Community. Suffice to say this would be suicide for CCP hence it will never happen.
Who said anything about replacing EVE?
I just think there'd be a ton of players interested in taking EVE's combat system and making a solid PVP game out of it. Instead of making the majority of actual EVE gameplay as devoid of excitement as possible which is the main reason the game deflects so many players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
FYI: I don't think you were seriously proposing this because if you were then you probably have a limited knowledge of the EVE Community. Suffice to say this would be suicide for CCP hence it will never happen.
Who said anything about replacing EVE?
I just think there'd be a ton of players interested in taking EVE's combat system and making a solid PVP game out of it. Instead of making the majority of actual EVE gameplay as devoid of excitement as possible which is the main reason the game deflects so many players.
I had signed up to do the trial recently, but never got past the initial training missions. Not really due to the game, but other things,
The thing that kills full loot hardcore pvp games is the fact that they do not have any true ingame system to help police the players.
I think the secret to having a game of this nature that works is to balence the PVP with the PVE, have it so that in game mechanics can be used to police the system. I'm not talking about the stupid YELL GUARDS and some god toon kills you in one hit. But how about a faction system for players.
Simple, pve player gains faction with game city... faction is high enough that when a pvp player murders pve player or what ever, near or in said city said murderous player loses city faction . Ingame system will release a hunting party that tracks and hunts murderus player. The lower your faction becomes with said city the more dangerous the hunting party is. (the murderous player gains no skill/xp from killing hunting party) there for there is not farming of hunting parties. The Lower your city faction goes the farther away the hunting parties will track you.
So if you and your friends want to hunt players around city safe areas, you pay for it, and it's not just some stupid i only have to pay for it while i'm in the city type of thing.
What it comes down to is overhead, how much extra system power do i want to use to have said systems running. I think a hardcore full loot PVP game can be made that will attract players. The thing is you have to have enough of both worlds PVE and PVP within the game to atract both types of players. You also have a system that does not allow run and gun, kill and logout players to rule the game. Yes you can kill me, yes you can take my stuff, And yes you have to pay for your actions.
Also bring back a good death penalty, make it stack, the more you die the harder it is. Have it so that your stats skills and xp can be up for grabs. The more you camp that area in a region the more the ingame system tries to hunt your ass down. If you want Hardcore PVP you have to put up with the hardcore anti-pvp system.
Players policing other players does not work in a MMO environment. Every game i have seen left to that system has not worked out. Yes, they will have there followers, but it is not anything to write home about.
Truely devs have to grow balls and tell the players to "Fuck Off" ban them for cheating kick them for bashing your game. Bash them in the head if they wanna be a dick. Do not let your players run your game. It is your world, your game, if they want to play good, if they don't like it. Fuck Em... they can go play WOW.
Comments
Thats what makes perma-death so great. If you ever play roguellike games, that is the essencce of them. and yes, on the forums for those games there is always a forum for YASD = "Yet Another Stupid Death" where players lament how they did something careless or stupid and killed off a promising character. Perma-death makes games way more intense and fun, especially games where progression is relatively quick and perma-death won't equal rage quit.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
Not really an MMO, but the last hardcore FFA PVP game I played was Dark Souls for the PS3. There was PVP action every 5-10 minutes.
I went back to Darkwind after a lengthy hiatus and entered my now level 50 driving leader into a deathrace. Let's just say my skills weren't as sharp, and a little bump in the corner that I probably could have avoided sent poor Calvin Kline into the Wall at 110 MPH. Luckily for him he was killed instantly when his head severed from his body. I tend to take that turn a little slower these days.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Man, you're right and wrong at the same time, cause the truth is that without proper reason for pvp it becomes boring way to quickly(wow the best example of that). And the best reason for PvP is resources war!
Actually EVE's combat might be pretty damn fun as a lobby game!
I've always imagined that it would make for an interesting PVP game if it was set up vaguely like tabletop Warhammer where two guilds of 200v200 face off, each with a fixed amount of ISK to purchase ships and then fight a no-respawn battle over a large map sprawling multiple sectors.
Or give it wider appeal by adding respawn and tracking ISK on a player-by-player basis, which ticks up slowly based on your team holding objectives. Lose an expensive ship recklessly and you'll be stuck respawning in a lousy cheap ship. But if you control objectives with teamwork and wisely save your money, you'll be able to field the most powerful ships in the game by the end of the match. Sort of a different take on a Natural Selection style game, which offloads the strategic decisionmaking onto each individual player rather than relying on team consensus (which doesn't really work in public play.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No. open PvP? harsh death penalty from open pvp?
Not interested.
This would totally take away from the politics of territorial conquest in the game. Where alliance A gets efame for steamrolling previously crowned "top coalition" of the game. Or where Alliance X and Alliance Y are fighting and alliance Z shows up like a BOSS and goes 'United States' on Alliance X and Y by dropping Supercarriers on top of em both. In short the human drives and actions that make the open world unique.
Yes, it would.
Removal of political decisions made infrequently by few players is a fair price to pay for the addition of tactical decisions that every player experiences on every login.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This^
FFA PvP games don't work for the majority because the systems coddle the PK's too much.
When it's a LOT more difficult to play a non-PK who doesn't just randomly kill people for no reason, you're doing it wrong devs.
The veteran always has the advantage, and so very few people have the patience (or maybe it's something else?) to fight on tooth and nail to become veterans themselves.
The #1 thing would be to give the players a choice in PVP. Yea, FFA pvp can be fun, but only if there's a system in place like the origional SWG overt/covert system. Let the players decide when they want to step into PVP and when they just want to observe. I really think a xp loss wouldn't be a bad idea, for those that want to live on the edge and pvp the majority of their game time.
Vanilla EQ had a FFA Full Loot PvP server. Yes I played on it.
DF would have been good except it allows for Naked zergs to have no risk. Not really a good PvP system outside of sieges.
I just want another hard core MMO period with depth.
DF 2.0 I hope is good!
So basically destroy EVE as the unique open PvP world CCP intended and kow-tow to the themepark mainstream while simultaneously destroying its loyal long term player base and making EVE History (aka alliance/territorial history/content) completely meaningless. I see how this would make much sense to devs who were recently rocked by the uproar in its playerbase about even the slightest shift toward more mainstream MMO features (microtransactions).
FYI: I don't think you were seriously proposing this because if you were then you probably have a limited knowledge of the EVE Community. Suffice to say this would be suicide for CCP hence it will never happen.
Why every single one of "you" says bs like: "veteran will have a huge advantage over you". For God's sake, show me game in which it isn't so!!! Even in the most carebear game like WoW, a vet who knows alot about game would own you in any way possible!!! Thats a given fact that veteran is better in EVERYTHING on the planet called Earth!!!!!
I am all for a game with open PVP. But it needs some structuring. Especailly in a Sandbox game where you also have people specializing in gathering or crafting. They are not combat oriented.
What would people do if a market specialist had the ability to do a "PVP" attack to another player's shops? You know, a sort of "hostile take over of assets where success is based on business skills?"
Sure you got his gear, but he cleaned out your bank....Now, I am not saying I want to see that exact mechanic implemented, It was just an off the cuff example I just thought up, but open PVP has to have checks and balances.
Nope.
Show me an OWPvP game where levels/gear are removed, that doesn't coddle the griefers and gankers most of all, and I'll be among the first in line.
And that's why I play on PvE servers. If I want real PvP, an MMO is the last place I look.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
You signature reminds me of something someone once said.
MMO= The game you HAVE to play in order to get to the game you WANT to play
The niche pvp crowd will end up with Archeage in a year or two, which makes me sad, because that game has a lot of features I would have enjoyed very much. But if it keeps the open world pvp crowd amused, so be it, at least I won't have to put up with them in the games I play.
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
Doesn't DF have a ton of other issues? I don't recall exactly wha they were, but I remember looking at this one and MO and after reading much of what people had to say, I figured I'd just pass on by.
Honestly, I don't think anyone really knows what the potential population of a new and well done open world pvp centric game is. MO and Darkfall do supposedly have issues, and Eve is a little long in the tooth, plus it has a niche setting.
I expect Archeage to do very well, maybe Planetside, too. I think the number of pvpers in general might be growing. But Archeage, at least, would do probably 3x better if it offered pve and pvp servers. However, if that's not what the developers want, I can respect that, as long as they realize what they're going to be getting is not nearly the numbers they could have had.
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
Any one who wanted a rich PvP experience missed the boat by 8 years...name of the game is Asheron's Call FFA server Darktide.
Og4Life
Who said anything about replacing EVE?
I just think there'd be a ton of players interested in taking EVE's combat system and making a solid PVP game out of it. Instead of making the majority of actual EVE gameplay as devoid of excitement as possible which is the main reason the game deflects so many players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I had signed up to do the trial recently, but never got past the initial training missions. Not really due to the game, but other things,
But that video..........That was mining right?
Yeah
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not really since these games kinda always fall flat on their asses.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
The thing that kills full loot hardcore pvp games is the fact that they do not have any true ingame system to help police the players.
I think the secret to having a game of this nature that works is to balence the PVP with the PVE, have it so that in game mechanics can be used to police the system. I'm not talking about the stupid YELL GUARDS and some god toon kills you in one hit. But how about a faction system for players.
Simple, pve player gains faction with game city... faction is high enough that when a pvp player murders pve player or what ever, near or in said city said murderous player loses city faction . Ingame system will release a hunting party that tracks and hunts murderus player. The lower your faction becomes with said city the more dangerous the hunting party is. (the murderous player gains no skill/xp from killing hunting party) there for there is not farming of hunting parties. The Lower your city faction goes the farther away the hunting parties will track you.
So if you and your friends want to hunt players around city safe areas, you pay for it, and it's not just some stupid i only have to pay for it while i'm in the city type of thing.
What it comes down to is overhead, how much extra system power do i want to use to have said systems running. I think a hardcore full loot PVP game can be made that will attract players. The thing is you have to have enough of both worlds PVE and PVP within the game to atract both types of players. You also have a system that does not allow run and gun, kill and logout players to rule the game. Yes you can kill me, yes you can take my stuff, And yes you have to pay for your actions.
Also bring back a good death penalty, make it stack, the more you die the harder it is. Have it so that your stats skills and xp can be up for grabs. The more you camp that area in a region the more the ingame system tries to hunt your ass down. If you want Hardcore PVP you have to put up with the hardcore anti-pvp system.
Players policing other players does not work in a MMO environment. Every game i have seen left to that system has not worked out. Yes, they will have there followers, but it is not anything to write home about.
Truely devs have to grow balls and tell the players to "Fuck Off" ban them for cheating kick them for bashing your game. Bash them in the head if they wanna be a dick. Do not let your players run your game. It is your world, your game, if they want to play good, if they don't like it. Fuck Em... they can go play WOW.