GW2 and TSW for PvE are no different than a game like Darkfall is for PvP. The choice is made when you look at the game and decide to play or not play. Developers aren't removing the players' ability to choose, players are just being stupid by not making that choice before they start playing.
I do agree that giving players choice through out the game's lifetime is a far better solution, but games can't be all things to all people and the developers have to choose what to focus on to make the best game they can. If they choose 100% PvP or 100% PvE, then that's the choice they made. Players should take the choice they can make, rather than complain about the choices they can't make.
Yeah everyone should look into a game before they play it. And they shouldn't complain about it having OWPVP or not after they know what they go into.
I kinda disagree that a game has to focus on either PvP or PvE tho. It just seems to be the trend to create PvE and PvP seperated to please as many customers as possible. Which is fine in itself. But it leaves out a portion of the player base, the players that like OWPvP. You can easily design a game where both PvP and PvE servers can coexist, and nobdy looses. It may not be the easiest or the best way to make money tho.
Edit: And to clarify, im not necessarily talking about free for all & full looting when talking about OWPVP.
I think there does need to be some focus, if a game has OWPvP then that needs to be designed into the game from the ground up. Otherwise you get what most people experience when they try a PvP server on their favourite themepark where a level 80 with all the stats to deal with the level 80 PvE fodder is in a world with Level 10's who he can slaughter without risk or retribution. This is what creates the mindless gankfests which people hate. This is far less common in a game with balance and a decent risk/reward ratio built in from the start.
Simply, if you make a game with OWPvP, then make an effort to design it to work, rather than just removing the inability to attack player characters.
I don't hate OWPvP, I hate how most games that have it seem to think it should be in all areas of their game. I'd love to play a game that mixes them well. Eve seemed to do a good job, so something along those lines would be fine. Make it impossible or painfully expensive to kill someone in some areas, make it cheap and easy in others.
And then don't force those who aren't willing to pvp into pvp areas by dangling essential goods, housing, xp, or whatever. Just dangle optional things, like faster currency gain, or ever so slightly better loot, or maybe just a slightly higher droprate on rare loot.
Actually, most games nowadays don't have it in all areas of their game, keep in mind their 1 percent open world area out of the whole game. not to bring up a discussion about swtor, just an example, swtor is 99 percent instanced 1 percent open world. So no not most games.
Looking at: The Repopulation Preordering: None Playing: Random Games
GW2 and TSW for PvE are no different than a game like Darkfall is for PvP. The choice is made when you look at the game and decide to play or not play. Developers aren't removing the players' ability to choose, players are just being stupid by not making that choice before they start playing.
I do agree that giving players choice through out the game's lifetime is a far better solution, but games can't be all things to all people and the developers have to choose what to focus on to make the best game they can. If they choose 100% PvP or 100% PvE, then that's the choice they made. Players should take the choice they can make, rather than complain about the choices they can't make.
Yeah everyone should look into a game before they play it. And they shouldn't complain about it having OWPVP or not after they know what they go into.
I kinda disagree that a game has to focus on either PvP or PvE tho. It just seems to be the trend to create PvE and PvP seperated to please as many customers as possible. Which is fine in itself. But it leaves out a portion of the player base, the players that like OWPvP. You can easily design a game where both PvP and PvE servers can coexist, and nobdy looses. It may not be the easiest or the best way to make money tho.
Edit: And to clarify, im not necessarily talking about free for all & full looting when talking about OWPVP.
Don't many games already have PvE and PvP servers?
The question is "why do people hate owpvp?". If someone posts a reason, it's safe to say they do not like open world pvp and for them, the solution is going to be not playing a game where it exists, or not playing on a server where that rule set is enabled.
The ultimate solution is that players should try lots of different types of games, and then play the kinds of games that they like. The ultimate solution is not 'try and convince players that they need to play a game or a type of game that they do not like'.
If someone lists an explict reason (such as a power disparity reason) then clearly it is not out of reason to suggest that an owpvp system with zero/reduced power disparities might be a better option then simpy suggesting "turn teh pvp off".
I am well aware of different strokes for different folks.
And of course a system with no disparities defeat the purpose of a progression RPG. HOwever, if you can find such a person that does not care about progression, and want zero disparaty, you may was well have him play a MMOFPS.
And of course a system with no disparities defeat the purpose of a progression RPG. HOwever, if you can find such a person that does not care about progression, and want zero disparaty, you may was well have him play a MMOFPS.
Why have a RPG with no progression?
You can have a massive amount of progression in a game that has little to no actual character combat/item stat progression.
You can have economic progression metrics.
You can have social/award progression metrics.
You can have skin/vanity progression metrics.
You can have guild/clan progression metrics.
You can have personal story/title progression metrics.
You can have crafting progression metrics.
You can have territory/RvR/warfare control progression metrics.
You can have rank/ladder/arena progression metrics.
You can have the fact that you actually get better at (you know progress) the skills required to be good at combat.
You could give everyone the same amount of skill points and let them pick and choose. If they choose non combat stuff that's their choice.
In short you can have a major amount of "progression" and a major amount or RP in a game which limits or gets rid of combat stat/item stat progression.
You may as well play an mmofps if it offers a persistent world replete with crafting, player housing and cities and all the other trappings associated with an mmorpg.
Now I am not saying that everyone should like it, regardless of what is changed, nor am I saying that ffa should be changed to sub grab more potential players. But it is clear you can remove the problem of "level 80 smacking level 10" without suddenly shattering the whole point of RPG. Although that takes a little more thought than just naysaying the entire thing.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
1) It always, and I mean ALWAYS, ends up with lvl 50+ ganking people under lvl 10
2) Risk-free PvP is bland, pointless and simply not worth the effort. If I can't loot you, what use is this carebear-heavy PvP to me? I don't want crappy points or epeen league table - I want your stuff, otherwise why even bother?
Eve Online is the only game where PvP means something. I don't even class PvP in games like WoW, etc., as actual PvP. It's like fighting in Tom and Jerry - people pop back from death, seconds later, with no fuss and no muss. What a joke.
I see so many people arguing with "there is so many people level 50 ganking lowbies"
but what about a system like they had it in Lineage II?
OWPVP, you can attack anyone anywhere at any time. If you do you become purple (flagged) if you kill your victim without him hitting you back (which -if he did- would turn him purple too) you become red (PK).
Depending on your level difference you get Karma. If you level difference is high (such as level 50 killing lvl 10) you will gain a ton of karma.
And on top of that you cant reduce your karma by killing monsters that are NOT in your level range. And I think this is important. Because lowbies you will obviously find in lowbie areas with lowbie monsters. If you go to that area to gank lowbies you will not be able to kill of your karma. Or well, it will be very hard to do and way too much of a hassle.
This wont guarantee that no one will gank lowbies ofc. Why should it, isn't that sense of danger at all time fascinating to you? but it will discourage ganking of uber-lowbies hy higher level players....
Seriously that game imo had the ABSOLUTE BEST PVP/PK system ever.
I see so many people arguing with "there is so many people level 50 ganking lowbies"
but what about a system like they had it in Lineage II?
OWPVP, you can attack anyone anywhere at any time. If you do you become purple (flagged) if you kill your victim without him hitting you back (which -if he did- would turn him purple too) you become red (PK).
Depending on your level difference you get Karma. If you level difference is high (such as level 50 killing lvl 10) you will gain a ton of karma.
And on top of that you cant reduce your karma by killing monsters that are NOT in your level range. And I think this is important. Because lowbies you will obviously find in lowbie areas with lowbie monsters. If you go to that area to gank lowbies you will not be able to kill of your karma. Or well, it will be very hard to do and way too much of a hassle.
This wont guarantee that no one will gank lowbies ofc. Why should it, isn't that sense of danger at all time fascinating to you? but it will discourage ganking of uber-lowbies hy higher level players....
Seriously that game imo had the ABSOLUTE BEST PVP/PK system ever.
IDK if it was the best or not, but at least it was designed with PVP in mind. The problems usually crop up in PVE games when the devs just add some sort of lazy-ass tacked on PVP. Those typically have zero lowbee ganking consequences.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I just don't like being zerged/ganked by 50 players at once, or by someone impossibly higher than me. I like PVP, I suck at it, but I still like it, under certain conditions. i.e. a fight more appropriate to my level or the best is when we both see each other, we both hesitate then we both go at it. Win or lose, those are fun.
But when I'm crafting and doing my own thing, no thanks.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
And of course a system with no disparities defeat the purpose of a progression RPG. HOwever, if you can find such a person that does not care about progression, and want zero disparaty, you may was well have him play a MMOFPS.
Why have a RPG with no progression?
You can have a massive amount of progression in a game that has little to no actual character combat/item stat progression.
You can have economic progression metrics.
You can have social/award progression metrics.
You can have skin/vanity progression metrics.
You can have guild/clan progression metrics.
You can have personal story/title progression metrics.
You can have crafting progression metrics.
You can have territory/RvR/warfare control progression metrics.
You can have rank/ladder/arena progression metrics.
You can have the fact that you actually get better at (you know progress) the skills required to be good at combat.
You could give everyone the same amount of skill points and let them pick and choose. If they choose non combat stuff that's their choice.
In short you can have a major amount of "progression" and a major amount or RP in a game which limits or gets rid of combat stat/item stat progression.
You may as well play an mmofps if it offers a persistent world replete with crafting, player housing and cities and all the other trappings associated with an mmorpg.
Now I am not saying that everyone should like it, regardless of what is changed, nor am I saying that ffa should be changed to sub grab more potential players. But it is clear you can remove the problem of "level 80 smacking level 10" without suddenly shattering the whole point of RPG. Although that takes a little more thought than just naysaying the entire thing.
Yes you can. And in fact, many F2P FPS have a lot of those mechanics. But you should also know that in many RPGs, combat power progression is a focus because people like it. And you are going to lose that.
And of course a system with no disparities defeat the purpose of a progression RPG. HOwever, if you can find such a person that does not care about progression, and want zero disparaty, you may was well have him play a MMOFPS.
Why have a RPG with no progression?
You can have a massive amount of progression in a game that has little to no actual character combat/item stat progression.
You can have economic progression metrics.
You can have social/award progression metrics.
You can have skin/vanity progression metrics.
You can have guild/clan progression metrics.
You can have personal story/title progression metrics.
You can have crafting progression metrics.
You can have territory/RvR/warfare control progression metrics.
You can have rank/ladder/arena progression metrics.
You can have the fact that you actually get better at (you know progress) the skills required to be good at combat.
You could give everyone the same amount of skill points and let them pick and choose. If they choose non combat stuff that's their choice.
In short you can have a major amount of "progression" and a major amount or RP in a game which limits or gets rid of combat stat/item stat progression.
You may as well play an mmofps if it offers a persistent world replete with crafting, player housing and cities and all the other trappings associated with an mmorpg.
Now I am not saying that everyone should like it, regardless of what is changed, nor am I saying that ffa should be changed to sub grab more potential players. But it is clear you can remove the problem of "level 80 smacking level 10" without suddenly shattering the whole point of RPG. Although that takes a little more thought than just naysaying the entire thing.
Yes you can. And in fact, many F2P FPS have a lot of those mechanics. But you should also know that in many RPGs, combat power progression is a focus because people like it. And you are going to lose that.
Well, at a certain point the lines between MMORPG and MMOFPS start to blurr. I personaly like FPS and MMOFPS games quite a bit. However if we are being litteral here...
MMOFPS implies...
First Person perspective... some people may not be interested in that
Shooter...... some people may not be interested in a modern or sci-fi genre, which shooter pretty much implies.
MMORPG implies...
Role-Playing Game.... some people actualy like Role-Playing, in addition to PvP.
Those are 3 reasons off the top of my head where someone may be interested in MMORPG and not MMOFPS.
Comments
I think there does need to be some focus, if a game has OWPvP then that needs to be designed into the game from the ground up. Otherwise you get what most people experience when they try a PvP server on their favourite themepark where a level 80 with all the stats to deal with the level 80 PvE fodder is in a world with Level 10's who he can slaughter without risk or retribution. This is what creates the mindless gankfests which people hate. This is far less common in a game with balance and a decent risk/reward ratio built in from the start.
Simply, if you make a game with OWPvP, then make an effort to design it to work, rather than just removing the inability to attack player characters.
Actually, most games nowadays don't have it in all areas of their game, keep in mind their 1 percent open world area out of the whole game. not to bring up a discussion about swtor, just an example, swtor is 99 percent instanced 1 percent open world. So no not most games.
Looking at: The Repopulation
Preordering: None
Playing: Random Games
Don't many games already have PvE and PvP servers?
And of course a system with no disparities defeat the purpose of a progression RPG. HOwever, if you can find such a person that does not care about progression, and want zero disparaty, you may was well have him play a MMOFPS.
Why have a RPG with no progression?
You can have a massive amount of progression in a game that has little to no actual character combat/item stat progression.
You can have economic progression metrics.
You can have social/award progression metrics.
You can have skin/vanity progression metrics.
You can have guild/clan progression metrics.
You can have personal story/title progression metrics.
You can have crafting progression metrics.
You can have territory/RvR/warfare control progression metrics.
You can have rank/ladder/arena progression metrics.
You can have the fact that you actually get better at (you know progress) the skills required to be good at combat.
You could give everyone the same amount of skill points and let them pick and choose. If they choose non combat stuff that's their choice.
In short you can have a major amount of "progression" and a major amount or RP in a game which limits or gets rid of combat stat/item stat progression.
You may as well play an mmofps if it offers a persistent world replete with crafting, player housing and cities and all the other trappings associated with an mmorpg.
Now I am not saying that everyone should like it, regardless of what is changed, nor am I saying that ffa should be changed to sub grab more potential players. But it is clear you can remove the problem of "level 80 smacking level 10" without suddenly shattering the whole point of RPG. Although that takes a little more thought than just naysaying the entire thing.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It sounds great in principle but...
1) It always, and I mean ALWAYS, ends up with lvl 50+ ganking people under lvl 10
2) Risk-free PvP is bland, pointless and simply not worth the effort. If I can't loot you, what use is this carebear-heavy PvP to me? I don't want crappy points or epeen league table - I want your stuff, otherwise why even bother?
Eve Online is the only game where PvP means something. I don't even class PvP in games like WoW, etc., as actual PvP. It's like fighting in Tom and Jerry - people pop back from death, seconds later, with no fuss and no muss. What a joke.
I see so many people arguing with "there is so many people level 50 ganking lowbies"
but what about a system like they had it in Lineage II?
OWPVP, you can attack anyone anywhere at any time. If you do you become purple (flagged) if you kill your victim without him hitting you back (which -if he did- would turn him purple too) you become red (PK).
Depending on your level difference you get Karma. If you level difference is high (such as level 50 killing lvl 10) you will gain a ton of karma.
And on top of that you cant reduce your karma by killing monsters that are NOT in your level range. And I think this is important. Because lowbies you will obviously find in lowbie areas with lowbie monsters. If you go to that area to gank lowbies you will not be able to kill of your karma. Or well, it will be very hard to do and way too much of a hassle.
This wont guarantee that no one will gank lowbies ofc. Why should it, isn't that sense of danger at all time fascinating to you? but it will discourage ganking of uber-lowbies hy higher level players....
Seriously that game imo had the ABSOLUTE BEST PVP/PK system ever.
Web & Graphic Design - www.xdrac.com
IDK if it was the best or not, but at least it was designed with PVP in mind. The problems usually crop up in PVE games when the devs just add some sort of lazy-ass tacked on PVP. Those typically have zero lowbee ganking consequences.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I just don't like being zerged/ganked by 50 players at once, or by someone impossibly higher than me. I like PVP, I suck at it, but I still like it, under certain conditions. i.e. a fight more appropriate to my level or the best is when we both see each other, we both hesitate then we both go at it. Win or lose, those are fun.
But when I'm crafting and doing my own thing, no thanks.
Yes you can. And in fact, many F2P FPS have a lot of those mechanics. But you should also know that in many RPGs, combat power progression is a focus because people like it. And you are going to lose that.
Well, at a certain point the lines between MMORPG and MMOFPS start to blurr. I personaly like FPS and MMOFPS games quite a bit. However if we are being litteral here...
MMOFPS implies...
First Person perspective... some people may not be interested in that
Shooter...... some people may not be interested in a modern or sci-fi genre, which shooter pretty much implies.
MMORPG implies...
Role-Playing Game.... some people actualy like Role-Playing, in addition to PvP.
Those are 3 reasons off the top of my head where someone may be interested in MMORPG and not MMOFPS.