If a design allows ganking/griefing, its a non starter.
I've always found this curious - in the sense, well - obviously this is personal experience/opinion - that I've experienced far more griefing in PvE than in PvP. Hell, it's almost impossible to grief in PvP...outside of experiencing a small part of the potential PvE griefing. Hrmmm, I blacked out ganking - because it's kind of funny, how it actually points to the problem.
It's not about ganking/griefing - it's about epeen. Certain players want to run around and stroke their epeens from smacking around mindless mobs that they've farmed. It's too hard of a hit to the ego for somebody to come along and whack that player as easily as that player whacked a critter...
Players want to feel powerful... the PvP being talked about in this thread won't go mainstream, because too many players would feel powerless. It's not fun for them - it's not what they want - they want to farm mobs and be the hero.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Originally posted by Ausare I would say a game that allows ganking is dumbing down.
LOL- Again not the point.
I think PVP is neither "dumbed down" nor "hardcore" on its own merits. Its the game mechanics which use the PVP which determines this.
Personally, again I would agree with you AS THINGS ARE. Most FFA games attract players who only want to grief and kill indiscrimentory- Those who want to destroy and never create. This is why most "sandbox" titles inevidably become Deathmatch Arena games.
Again, not the point though- Your RIGHT. But only based on present game mechanics.
When a high level kills some that is low and can not fight back that an example of ganking. When someone does it continuously so the other can not play that is griefing.
Originally posted by Ausare When a high level kills some that is low and can not fight back that an example of ganking. When someone does it continuously so the other can not play that is griefing.
Originally posted by Ausare When a high level kills some that is low and can not fight back that an example of ganking. When someone does it continuously so the other can not play that is griefing.
So when a high level kills low level mobs that cannot fight back, that is ganking?
So when they do that continuously, farming, then that is griefing?
In PvP, if you're the enemy - you're the mob. If you don't want to risk being the mob, then do not PvP. If you go into PvP, play on a PvP server, flag yourself on a PvE server, etc, etc, etc - if you choose to put yourself in the situation of potentially being the mob; you cannot complain about it. You chose to be there...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Originally posted by Ausare Saint i suggest if you want the pve players perpective in your brainstorming you not insult their preferred play style by calling it dumbed down.
Again, I think PVP (or lack of PVP) has NOTHING to do with "dumbed down or not"-
hould have used better wording since as said the mainstream will never view ow pvp ffa pvp as mainstream or good. All you can do is try to make it more accepted and also inviting to the player to play in. THough making it more inviting for players to be able to partake in is going to have the ame effect on pvp like this as it did with making pve content more inviting an accessable for the maintream players. You really would be alienating one group of players to attract another group the more maintream like the game gets, each feature would take away alot of what the hardcore/ow pvpers wanted in there pvp game to gain mroe acceptence in the maintream population.
Most FFA games attract players who only want to grief and kill indiscrimentory- Those who want to destroy and never create.
Hrmmm... which is why we need more games like EVE and Shadowbane.
Not sure about shadowbane (I will have to check it out) but EVE I juist cannot get into. On Paper I love the features and love the depth but its the whole "be a spaceship" I cannot take (I know...I know...)
But I agree- A game like EVE in a "world" setting with "people" (creatures?) as avatars- Would be great.
Originally posted by Ausare You are the one that wrote that current games are dumbed down.
I did-
Current games ARE dumbed down. And they will continue to dumb down.
Look, even Newspapers (yes, those things) have been dumbed down and are written at a 6th grade level (in the States) to be inclusive to the widest audience... Same with games. As the budgets climb the risks lower to be as inclusive as possible and thus garner the highest sales. This dumbs things down.
That being said , I never said "PVP" or lack of "PVP" dumbs things down. PVP is just a "feature" which is no more complex as the game mechanics allow.
Most FFA games attract players who only want to grief and kill indiscrimentory- Those who want to destroy and never create.
Hrmmm... which is why we need more games like EVE and Shadowbane.
Not sure about shadowbane (I will have to check it out) but EVE I juist cannot get into. On Paper I love the features and love the depth but its the whole "be a spaceship" I cannot take (I know...I know...)
But I agree- A game like EVE in a "world" setting with "people" (creatures?) as avatars- Would be great.
Shadowbane died.
In a strange sense, one could say that EVE is an expanded version of Shadowbane in space.
The starting safe area, moving out into the world where folks build their cities - nations - alliances. The maps were always too small in my opinion. It was too easy for it to end up with two alliances fighting each other for domination of the world and one taking over. Up until that point though, working hard to build up the cities - forming the nations - forging the alliances... yep, you were building something - then trying to keep it up while trying to keep your enemies down. There was something worth fighting for...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
You won't get participation in ow pvp or ffa pvp from the "masses". The masses, by and large, do not want that kind of pvp. There is more than one reason why, but you could boil it down to choice. In most current ow/ffa pvp games, players cannot choose to avoid the pvp while still doing most of the game's activities.
If you allow the players choice, then they will play. For instance, many player activities can contribute to a faction or guild to build up the faction or guild's power levels. The only way for the faction to gain land or space is through ow/ffa pvp combat. Non-combat players can do a lot of the non-combat activities and contribute to their faction or guild's overall power, allowing the combat players to engage in PvP to take land.
I said "faction or guild" because the next level of choice involves the solo player versus the group player. A lot of people are attached to a game, but not really attached to the people in the game. By allowing players to join factions, it gives them the opportunity to get invested in the game without having to actually get along with a bunch of people that they may or may not like. All players would start in a faction, but could then strike out on their own in guilds kind of thing.
Anyway, the key point is choice. Allow the people who don't want ow/ffa pvp to avoid it. Allow the people who want to be independent to be independent.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You won't get participation in ow pvp or ffa pvp from the "masses". The masses, by and large, do not want that kind of pvp. There is more than one reason why, but you could boil it down to choice. In most current ow/ffa pvp games, players cannot choose to avoid the pvp while still doing most of the game's activities.
If you allow the players choice, then they will play. For instance, many player activities can contribute to a faction or guild to build up the faction or guild's power levels. The only way for the faction to gain land or space is through ow/ffa pvp combat. Non-combat players can do a lot of the non-combat activities and contribute to their faction or guild's overall power, allowing the combat players to engage in PvP to take land.
I said "faction or guild" because the next level of choice involves the solo player versus the group player. A lot of people are attached to a game, but not really attached to the people in the game. By allowing players to join factions, it gives them the opportunity to get invested in the game without having to actually get along with a bunch of people that they may or may not like. All players would start in a faction, but could then strike out on their own in guilds kind of thing.
Anyway, the key point is choice. Allow the people who don't want ow/ffa pvp to avoid it. Allow the people who want to be independent to be independent.
Single overall faction. Non-warring sub-factions of that faction. Large content area provided for those sub-factions. Additional areas provided under the control of that overall faction that are provided to various player factions. An even larger content area where those player factions are able to fight for dominance. The dominance that they fight for determines how the player faction area of the non-warfare area is diviied up.
PvE folks could just roam around the large content area - either as individuals, members of those sub-factions, or as members of non-landed player factions. For the PvE folks that join a PvE/PvP player faction, even if they did not want to participate in the PvP aspect - they would be able to work the player faction's lands.
The PvP folks could either just run around the large PvP area alone, could form non-landed merc guilds or pirate guilds, could partake in the PvP (or PvE if they choose) aspects of landed guilds.
That world PvP would actually be about conquering land, dominion, including the resources. There would also be the opportunity for small team arenas - as the different factions/player factions could challenge each other. There could also be larger battleground type fights for those groups to fight.
This oozes PvE for those that want PvE - oozes PvP for those that want PvP - oozes PvE and PvP for those that want PvE and PvP.
...and it will never happen, because it would cost too much to make in this age of F2P.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
You won't get participation in ow pvp or ffa pvp from the "masses". The masses, by and large, do not want that kind of pvp. There is more than one reason why, but you could boil it down to choice. In most current ow/ffa pvp games, players cannot choose to avoid the pvp while still doing most of the game's activities.
If you allow the players choice, then they will play. For instance, many player activities can contribute to a faction or guild to build up the faction or guild's power levels. The only way for the faction to gain land or space is through ow/ffa pvp combat. Non-combat players can do a lot of the non-combat activities and contribute to their faction or guild's overall power, allowing the combat players to engage in PvP to take land.
I said "faction or guild" because the next level of choice involves the solo player versus the group player. A lot of people are attached to a game, but not really attached to the people in the game. By allowing players to join factions, it gives them the opportunity to get invested in the game without having to actually get along with a bunch of people that they may or may not like. All players would start in a faction, but could then strike out on their own in guilds kind of thing.
Anyway, the key point is choice. Allow the people who don't want ow/ffa pvp to avoid it. Allow the people who want to be independent to be independent.
Single overall faction. Non-warring sub-factions of that faction. Large content area provided for those sub-factions. Additional areas provided under the control of that overall faction that are provided to various player factions. An even larger content area where those player factions are able to fight for dominance. The dominance that they fight for determines how the player faction area of the non-warfare area is diviied up.
PvE folks could just roam around the large content area - either as individuals, members of those sub-factions, or as members of non-landed player factions. For the PvE folks that join a PvE/PvP player faction, even if they did not want to participate in the PvP aspect - they would be able to work the player faction's lands.
The PvP folks could either just run around the large PvP area alone, could form non-landed merc guilds or pirate guilds, could partake in the PvP (or PvE if they choose) aspects of landed guilds.
That world PvP would actually be about conquering land, dominion, including the resources. There would also be the opportunity for small team arenas - as the different factions/player factions could challenge each other. There could also be larger battleground type fights for those groups to fight.
This oozes PvE for those that want PvE - oozes PvP for those that want PvP - oozes PvE and PvP for those that want PvE and PvP.
...and it will never happen, because it would cost too much to make in this age of F2P.
Hmmmmm- I like it....
Also allow non combat crafters to be able to "donate " to the War Chest and contribue to the War effort.
You won't get participation in ow pvp or ffa pvp from the "masses". The masses, by and large, do not want that kind of pvp. There is more than one reason why, but you could boil it down to choice. In most current ow/ffa pvp games, players cannot choose to avoid the pvp while still doing most of the game's activities.
If you allow the players choice, then they will play. For instance, many player activities can contribute to a faction or guild to build up the faction or guild's power levels. The only way for the faction to gain land or space is through ow/ffa pvp combat. Non-combat players can do a lot of the non-combat activities and contribute to their faction or guild's overall power, allowing the combat players to engage in PvP to take land.
I said "faction or guild" because the next level of choice involves the solo player versus the group player. A lot of people are attached to a game, but not really attached to the people in the game. By allowing players to join factions, it gives them the opportunity to get invested in the game without having to actually get along with a bunch of people that they may or may not like. All players would start in a faction, but could then strike out on their own in guilds kind of thing.
Anyway, the key point is choice. Allow the people who don't want ow/ffa pvp to avoid it. Allow the people who want to be independent to be independent.
Single overall faction. Non-warring sub-factions of that faction. Large content area provided for those sub-factions. Additional areas provided under the control of that overall faction that are provided to various player factions. An even larger content area where those player factions are able to fight for dominance. The dominance that they fight for determines how the player faction area of the non-warfare area is diviied up.
PvE folks could just roam around the large content area - either as individuals, members of those sub-factions, or as members of non-landed player factions. For the PvE folks that join a PvE/PvP player faction, even if they did not want to participate in the PvP aspect - they would be able to work the player faction's lands.
The PvP folks could either just run around the large PvP area alone, could form non-landed merc guilds or pirate guilds, could partake in the PvP (or PvE if they choose) aspects of landed guilds.
That world PvP would actually be about conquering land, dominion, including the resources. There would also be the opportunity for small team arenas - as the different factions/player factions could challenge each other. There could also be larger battleground type fights for those groups to fight.
This oozes PvE for those that want PvE - oozes PvP for those that want PvP - oozes PvE and PvP for those that want PvE and PvP.
...and it will never happen, because it would cost too much to make in this age of F2P.
Hmmmmm- I like it....
Also allow non combat crafters to be able to "donate " to the War Chest and contribue to the War effort.
Oh yeah, definitely - that's the point of those additional lands and stuff for the resources. I'm watching the game, so I'm only half paying attention to what I'm typing. It would allow PvE folks to contribute to the war without having to go to war themselves if they wanted to belong to a PvE/PvP guild.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Most FFA games attract players who only want to grief and kill indiscrimentory- Those who want to destroy and never create.
Hrmmm... which is why we need more games like EVE and Shadowbane.
You do remember what happened to shadowbane?... It remains to be seen what Changyou will do with that IP. I suspect that the Asian markets will be much more reception to such a game.
First you need to be clearly defining the rules of the game.
Is it going to be a true FFA, where nobody knows anyone, and it is really every man for himself, or will factions/groups exist?
You have to be clear on that point above all. If you force a FFA world that makes fights 1v1, or every man for himself, it makes it balanced and interesting, like a FFA FPS round, because everyone has an incentive to kill everyone else, and grouping doesn't exist by design. If you allow grouping and factions, but still allow FFA, you end up with groups of people kiling individuals, and that is not at all fun. However, if you allow group openworld PvP, but have clearly defined groups, then you have a lot of fun, and it builds camraderie and team spirit, as people really hate the other team, and love their own faction.
But you can't go half way. You either have a true FFA element, or clear groups or factions (be it player or faction). Others it will just be 10v1 and the 1 will eventually get bored and quit, and then the 10 will follow suit when nobody is left to kill.
I personally favour NPC factions, as it encourages a real team spirit, and people will be more likely not to quit if they are dying in team battles, then in FFA battles.
Although I personally favour a true FFA PvP hardcore environment, I think a team hardcore PvP game would be more mainstream-able, as people will respawn if they feel they truly belong to a group.
Next you need to determine what the rewards are for this true PvP anywhere game.
Do you make it for no rewards, only for the sheer fun of it? Or do you make it so you can take from players items/money? Or do you make it so you simply get NPC money/items for killing players, but the players that die lose nothing?
I think that last one is most effective. That way there is an incentive to participate in this brutal world, but also, people that die don't feel too beaten down. If you don't lose anything but time, it doesn't make you want ot quit for dying, but it also rewards winners, so you have an incentive to participate.
Finally you have to ask yourself what the death penalty in this game is? Does dying mean simply time lost? Does it mean you lose all your items and money? Your character is deleted?
I favour a mild death penalty. Death should be no joke, but on the other hand, if you make death too drastic in this type of game, you are only going to have people quit it, when they lose all their progress by some sadistic ganker, even the sadists will leave when they themselves get killed.
This kind of game can either be really fun, or cause it to be one-sided. Personally, to create such a game, dying has to be no big deal if you want it mainstream, and all players have to be roughly the same power. If people all have a 1-1 KDR on average, people will have an incentive to play.
Once you lopside the gear/skill too much, people won't play. Sorting it by skill, or preventing gear differences from being too large, is essential.
It is a hard topic, basically, a true FFA PvP game won't ever be mainstream, because there is alwaysw going to be the people losing it all and getting ganked, for every ganker (at least).
Ok since this thread is still going... How to make Open world PvP Mainstream.
You couldn't do a level based game.
You need to devide it into 2 main factions.
The Sheep - The sheep are protected by towns, towers, Guards and have plenty of safe places to hide from the wolves. Sheep can only attack wolves. Sheep can only get partially looted or are allowed to have item insurance so that the wolves get gold instead of thier equipment. None equipment is still fair game. Sheep can own cities, but those cities may only be seiged durring prime time on the weekends.
The Wolves - This you could consider a bit like monster play from LotRO. You play the more brutal races. You can attack any player in the game you want sheep or wolf. You can loot any player you you kill or find dead sheep or wolf. You are only protected in your main cities. Your player cities are vulnerable to siege 24/7. Anyone that kills you may loot everything you have on you.
Playing a sheep costs a monthly fee.
Playing a wolf is free, but you may buy bigger and badder races from the item mall. The better the race your playing the longer it takes before it can respawn. This is to keep an army of Ogres from continously steam rolling the sheep.
Not saying the above is fully fleshed out or the exact way it needs to be but, the main goal is to give sheep the advantage but make them pay for it. Keep wolves at a disadvantage but let them play for free, give them some cool options on an item mall type setup but limit how much said items can impact the sheep.
Thats about the only way I see "Hardcore Open World PvP" going mainstream. Just keep in mind your wolves will still complain and so will your sheep claiming things are to harsh for thier side and will demand things be made easier. If you appease the sheep you will lose your wolves, if you appease your wolves you will lose your sheep. If you don't appease anyone you lose them all save a few lol.
Ok since this thread is still going... How to make Open world PvP Mainstream.
You couldn't do a level based game.
You need to devide it into 2 main factions.
The Sheep - The sheep are protected by towns, towers, Guards and have plenty of safe places to hide from the wolves. Sheep can only attack wolves. Sheep can only get partially looted or are allowed to have item insurance so that the wolves get gold instead of thier equipment. None equipment is still fair game. Sheep can own cities, but those cities may only be seiged durring prime time on the weekends.
The Wolves - This you could consider a bit like monster play from LotRO. You play the more brutal races. You can attack any player in the game you want sheep or wolf. You can loot any player you you kill or find dead sheep or wolf. You are only protected in your main cities. Your player cities are vulnerable to siege 24/7. Anyone that kills you may loot everything you have on you.
Playing a sheep costs a monthly fee.
Playing a wolf is free, but you may buy bigger and badder races from the item mall. The better the race your playing the longer it takes before it can respawn. This is to keep an army of Ogres from continously steam rolling the sheep.
Not saying the above is fully fleshed out or the exact way it needs to be but, the main goal is to give sheep the advantage but make them pay for it. Keep wolves at a disadvantage but let them play for free, give them some cool options on an item mall type setup but limit how much said items can impact the sheep.
Thats about the only way I see "Hardcore Open World PvP" going mainstream. Just keep in mind your wolves will still complain and so will your sheep claiming things are to harsh for thier side and will demand things be made easier. If you appease the sheep you will lose your wolves, if you appease your wolves you will lose your sheep. If you don't appease anyone you lose them all save a few lol.
I wouldn't like thie model at all. You should never pay to buy some in-game advantage. Unless the bigger and scarier monsters/wolves have relative stats, and are just cosmetically different, you'll have way too many complaints about people buying their way to win the game.
I'd rather just pay a monthly fee or flat rate and have no microtransactions, and I'm sure a lot of games would agree. I like your idea aside from that.
I especially like your idea because it reminds me of a real life version of good VS evil. When you enter a good society, you can guarantee you will be treated with goodness if you are good yourself, or even if you are neutral, but you cannot do evil acitons, or you will be imprisoned.
Whereas the evil society, you can do any actions you please, but you have no safeguards from evil happening to you.
This is a reason I never really liked Everquest's good VS evil dynamic, they felt identical, and really, a lot of MMOs the good and evil side feels the same, aside from story differences.
In my opinion, they should play differently, and your idea brilliantly illustrates that. Playing the good side should feel like you are a lot safer, but much more limited in how you can perform.
I'd go further in your analogy, give the sheep huge protection from a strong NPC guard presence in their major cities and towns, but also restrict what they can do. Force them to sell items at cheap prices to other players, make them have to perform charity quests that give no rewards, but keep their reputation as good, and make them actually have to play good, by being unable to kill fellow sheep, even forcing them to help sheep that are attacked.
The evil side should have no protection, not even in cities. You should be able to not only kill other evil members or good members outside their protected towns/cities, you should be able to steal items/money from other wolves or sheep whenever you meet them. Make the evil wolf side's market have no regulation, make all items player-driven, or cost ridiculous prices from NPCs, allow you to intimidate or just rob from NPCs, as well.
Have players on the evil side always looking over their shoulder, but also able to enjoy true freedom. I'd go further even, and make the wolves able to say anything they wanted, swear if they wanted, scam other players if they want, but on the sheep or good side, swearing is prohibited, same with scamming.
It would be a very interesting game to have a true good VS evil faction, not just in terms of story, but in terms of players as well. An interesting social experiment anyway.
Do you go good for the added security and happiness, but lose your freedom? Or do you go evil and have maximum personal freedom, but lose security and happiness?
Ok since this thread is still going... How to make Open world PvP Mainstream.
You couldn't do a level based game.
You need to devide it into 2 main factions.
The Sheep - The sheep are protected by towns, towers, Guards and have plenty of safe places to hide from the wolves. Sheep can only attack wolves. Sheep can only get partially looted or are allowed to have item insurance so that the wolves get gold instead of thier equipment. None equipment is still fair game. Sheep can own cities, but those cities may only be seiged durring prime time on the weekends.
The Wolves - This you could consider a bit like monster play from LotRO. You play the more brutal races. You can attack any player in the game you want sheep or wolf. You can loot any player you you kill or find dead sheep or wolf. You are only protected in your main cities. Your player cities are vulnerable to siege 24/7. Anyone that kills you may loot everything you have on you.
Playing a sheep costs a monthly fee.
Playing a wolf is free, but you may buy bigger and badder races from the item mall. The better the race your playing the longer it takes before it can respawn. This is to keep an army of Ogres from continously steam rolling the sheep.
Not saying the above is fully fleshed out or the exact way it needs to be but, the main goal is to give sheep the advantage but make them pay for it. Keep wolves at a disadvantage but let them play for free, give them some cool options on an item mall type setup but limit how much said items can impact the sheep.
Thats about the only way I see "Hardcore Open World PvP" going mainstream. Just keep in mind your wolves will still complain and so will your sheep claiming things are to harsh for thier side and will demand things be made easier. If you appease the sheep you will lose your wolves, if you appease your wolves you will lose your sheep. If you don't appease anyone you lose them all save a few lol.
Reverse your payment system and I'd say you have something decent there.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The problem with all mmos who feature world pvp is that they fail to properly challenge hardcore pvpers and properly protect pveers. This model fixes that issue...in my opinion.
For a pve player, 'proper protection' is not being in a world with open-pvp. If you don't like open-world-pvp then no amount of "protection" is adequate... a pve-only player don't want to "just" die twice a week due to owpvp... especially when game X already provides that with a better pve experience...
For a pvp player 'properly challenging open world pvp' is an oxymoron. Open world pvp is all about stacking the odds in your own favour (via more levels, more players or better equipment), challenging PvP is "skill-based" (no eq/levels) with balanced numbers (instanced battlefields/dueling etc).
The problem with all mmos who feature world pvp is that they fail to properly challenge hardcore pvpers and properly protect pveers. This model fixes that issue...in my opinion.
For a pve player, 'proper protection' is not being in a world with open-pvp. If you don't like open-world-pvp then no amount of "protection" is adequate... a pve-only player don't want to "just" die twice a week due to owpvp... especially when game X already provides that with a better pve experience...
For a pvp player 'properly challenging open world pvp' is an oxymoron. Open world pvp is all about stacking the odds in your own favour (via more levels, more players or better equipment), challenging PvP is "skill-based" (no eq/levels) with balanced numbers (instanced battlefields/dueling etc).
Exactly. PvE players (the majority of the "mainstream") will simply not take part. It doesn't matter how you design it. If there is forced PvP, its a non starter (if you want a non niche western game). The PvP types on the other hand will howl if there are limits on who they can gank, and where they can do it.
Also, past experience tells us, that they (PvP types) by and large aren't interested in "challenge" but WILL stack the odds in their favor (levels/gear/numbers). Its literally a no win situation. Couple that with the HUGE expense to create one of these games, and its just not going to happen.
Comments
I'd have players view their toons more like a toy and less like an extension of their own identity.
That's all.
I've always found this curious - in the sense, well - obviously this is personal experience/opinion - that I've experienced far more griefing in PvE than in PvP. Hell, it's almost impossible to grief in PvP...outside of experiencing a small part of the potential PvE griefing. Hrmmm, I blacked out ganking - because it's kind of funny, how it actually points to the problem.
It's not about ganking/griefing - it's about epeen. Certain players want to run around and stroke their epeens from smacking around mindless mobs that they've farmed. It's too hard of a hit to the ego for somebody to come along and whack that player as easily as that player whacked a critter...
Players want to feel powerful... the PvP being talked about in this thread won't go mainstream, because too many players would feel powerless. It's not fun for them - it's not what they want - they want to farm mobs and be the hero.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
LOL- Again not the point.
I think PVP is neither "dumbed down" nor "hardcore" on its own merits. Its the game mechanics which use the PVP which determines this.
Personally, again I would agree with you AS THINGS ARE. Most FFA games attract players who only want to grief and kill indiscrimentory- Those who want to destroy and never create. This is why most "sandbox" titles inevidably become Deathmatch Arena games.
Again, not the point though- Your RIGHT. But only based on present game mechanics.
This is the ideal behind brainstorming this.
Yes?
So when a high level kills low level mobs that cannot fight back, that is ganking?
So when they do that continuously, farming, then that is griefing?
In PvP, if you're the enemy - you're the mob. If you don't want to risk being the mob, then do not PvP. If you go into PvP, play on a PvP server, flag yourself on a PvE server, etc, etc, etc - if you choose to put yourself in the situation of potentially being the mob; you cannot complain about it. You chose to be there...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Again, I think PVP (or lack of PVP) has NOTHING to do with "dumbed down or not"-
Jesus Christ man your dense.
Hrmmm... which is why we need more games like EVE and Shadowbane.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Not sure about shadowbane (I will have to check it out) but EVE I juist cannot get into. On Paper I love the features and love the depth but its the whole "be a spaceship" I cannot take (I know...I know...)
But I agree- A game like EVE in a "world" setting with "people" (creatures?) as avatars- Would be great.
I did-
Current games ARE dumbed down. And they will continue to dumb down.
Look, even Newspapers (yes, those things) have been dumbed down and are written at a 6th grade level (in the States) to be inclusive to the widest audience... Same with games. As the budgets climb the risks lower to be as inclusive as possible and thus garner the highest sales. This dumbs things down.
That being said , I never said "PVP" or lack of "PVP" dumbs things down. PVP is just a "feature" which is no more complex as the game mechanics allow.
Shadowbane died.
In a strange sense, one could say that EVE is an expanded version of Shadowbane in space.
The starting safe area, moving out into the world where folks build their cities - nations - alliances. The maps were always too small in my opinion. It was too easy for it to end up with two alliances fighting each other for domination of the world and one taking over. Up until that point though, working hard to build up the cities - forming the nations - forging the alliances... yep, you were building something - then trying to keep it up while trying to keep your enemies down. There was something worth fighting for...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
You won't get participation in ow pvp or ffa pvp from the "masses". The masses, by and large, do not want that kind of pvp. There is more than one reason why, but you could boil it down to choice. In most current ow/ffa pvp games, players cannot choose to avoid the pvp while still doing most of the game's activities.
If you allow the players choice, then they will play. For instance, many player activities can contribute to a faction or guild to build up the faction or guild's power levels. The only way for the faction to gain land or space is through ow/ffa pvp combat. Non-combat players can do a lot of the non-combat activities and contribute to their faction or guild's overall power, allowing the combat players to engage in PvP to take land.
I said "faction or guild" because the next level of choice involves the solo player versus the group player. A lot of people are attached to a game, but not really attached to the people in the game. By allowing players to join factions, it gives them the opportunity to get invested in the game without having to actually get along with a bunch of people that they may or may not like. All players would start in a faction, but could then strike out on their own in guilds kind of thing.
Anyway, the key point is choice. Allow the people who don't want ow/ffa pvp to avoid it. Allow the people who want to be independent to be independent.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Single overall faction. Non-warring sub-factions of that faction. Large content area provided for those sub-factions. Additional areas provided under the control of that overall faction that are provided to various player factions. An even larger content area where those player factions are able to fight for dominance. The dominance that they fight for determines how the player faction area of the non-warfare area is diviied up.
PvE folks could just roam around the large content area - either as individuals, members of those sub-factions, or as members of non-landed player factions. For the PvE folks that join a PvE/PvP player faction, even if they did not want to participate in the PvP aspect - they would be able to work the player faction's lands.
The PvP folks could either just run around the large PvP area alone, could form non-landed merc guilds or pirate guilds, could partake in the PvP (or PvE if they choose) aspects of landed guilds.
That world PvP would actually be about conquering land, dominion, including the resources. There would also be the opportunity for small team arenas - as the different factions/player factions could challenge each other. There could also be larger battleground type fights for those groups to fight.
This oozes PvE for those that want PvE - oozes PvP for those that want PvP - oozes PvE and PvP for those that want PvE and PvP.
...and it will never happen, because it would cost too much to make in this age of F2P.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Hmmmmm- I like it....
Also allow non combat crafters to be able to "donate " to the War Chest and contribue to the War effort.
Oh yeah, definitely - that's the point of those additional lands and stuff for the resources. I'm watching the game, so I'm only half paying attention to what I'm typing. It would allow PvE folks to contribute to the war without having to go to war themselves if they wanted to belong to a PvE/PvP guild.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
You do remember what happened to shadowbane?... It remains to be seen what Changyou will do with that IP. I suspect that the Asian markets will be much more reception to such a game.
First you need to be clearly defining the rules of the game.
Is it going to be a true FFA, where nobody knows anyone, and it is really every man for himself, or will factions/groups exist?
You have to be clear on that point above all. If you force a FFA world that makes fights 1v1, or every man for himself, it makes it balanced and interesting, like a FFA FPS round, because everyone has an incentive to kill everyone else, and grouping doesn't exist by design. If you allow grouping and factions, but still allow FFA, you end up with groups of people kiling individuals, and that is not at all fun. However, if you allow group openworld PvP, but have clearly defined groups, then you have a lot of fun, and it builds camraderie and team spirit, as people really hate the other team, and love their own faction.
But you can't go half way. You either have a true FFA element, or clear groups or factions (be it player or faction). Others it will just be 10v1 and the 1 will eventually get bored and quit, and then the 10 will follow suit when nobody is left to kill.
I personally favour NPC factions, as it encourages a real team spirit, and people will be more likely not to quit if they are dying in team battles, then in FFA battles.
Although I personally favour a true FFA PvP hardcore environment, I think a team hardcore PvP game would be more mainstream-able, as people will respawn if they feel they truly belong to a group.
Next you need to determine what the rewards are for this true PvP anywhere game.
Do you make it for no rewards, only for the sheer fun of it? Or do you make it so you can take from players items/money? Or do you make it so you simply get NPC money/items for killing players, but the players that die lose nothing?
I think that last one is most effective. That way there is an incentive to participate in this brutal world, but also, people that die don't feel too beaten down. If you don't lose anything but time, it doesn't make you want ot quit for dying, but it also rewards winners, so you have an incentive to participate.
Finally you have to ask yourself what the death penalty in this game is? Does dying mean simply time lost? Does it mean you lose all your items and money? Your character is deleted?
I favour a mild death penalty. Death should be no joke, but on the other hand, if you make death too drastic in this type of game, you are only going to have people quit it, when they lose all their progress by some sadistic ganker, even the sadists will leave when they themselves get killed.
This kind of game can either be really fun, or cause it to be one-sided. Personally, to create such a game, dying has to be no big deal if you want it mainstream, and all players have to be roughly the same power. If people all have a 1-1 KDR on average, people will have an incentive to play.
Once you lopside the gear/skill too much, people won't play. Sorting it by skill, or preventing gear differences from being too large, is essential.
It is a hard topic, basically, a true FFA PvP game won't ever be mainstream, because there is alwaysw going to be the people losing it all and getting ganked, for every ganker (at least).
Ok since this thread is still going... How to make Open world PvP Mainstream.
You couldn't do a level based game.
You need to devide it into 2 main factions.
The Sheep - The sheep are protected by towns, towers, Guards and have plenty of safe places to hide from the wolves. Sheep can only attack wolves. Sheep can only get partially looted or are allowed to have item insurance so that the wolves get gold instead of thier equipment. None equipment is still fair game. Sheep can own cities, but those cities may only be seiged durring prime time on the weekends.
The Wolves - This you could consider a bit like monster play from LotRO. You play the more brutal races. You can attack any player in the game you want sheep or wolf. You can loot any player you you kill or find dead sheep or wolf. You are only protected in your main cities. Your player cities are vulnerable to siege 24/7. Anyone that kills you may loot everything you have on you.
Playing a sheep costs a monthly fee.
Playing a wolf is free, but you may buy bigger and badder races from the item mall. The better the race your playing the longer it takes before it can respawn. This is to keep an army of Ogres from continously steam rolling the sheep.
Not saying the above is fully fleshed out or the exact way it needs to be but, the main goal is to give sheep the advantage but make them pay for it. Keep wolves at a disadvantage but let them play for free, give them some cool options on an item mall type setup but limit how much said items can impact the sheep.
Thats about the only way I see "Hardcore Open World PvP" going mainstream. Just keep in mind your wolves will still complain and so will your sheep claiming things are to harsh for thier side and will demand things be made easier. If you appease the sheep you will lose your wolves, if you appease your wolves you will lose your sheep. If you don't appease anyone you lose them all save a few lol.
I wouldn't like thie model at all. You should never pay to buy some in-game advantage. Unless the bigger and scarier monsters/wolves have relative stats, and are just cosmetically different, you'll have way too many complaints about people buying their way to win the game.
I'd rather just pay a monthly fee or flat rate and have no microtransactions, and I'm sure a lot of games would agree. I like your idea aside from that.
I especially like your idea because it reminds me of a real life version of good VS evil. When you enter a good society, you can guarantee you will be treated with goodness if you are good yourself, or even if you are neutral, but you cannot do evil acitons, or you will be imprisoned.
Whereas the evil society, you can do any actions you please, but you have no safeguards from evil happening to you.
This is a reason I never really liked Everquest's good VS evil dynamic, they felt identical, and really, a lot of MMOs the good and evil side feels the same, aside from story differences.
In my opinion, they should play differently, and your idea brilliantly illustrates that. Playing the good side should feel like you are a lot safer, but much more limited in how you can perform.
I'd go further in your analogy, give the sheep huge protection from a strong NPC guard presence in their major cities and towns, but also restrict what they can do. Force them to sell items at cheap prices to other players, make them have to perform charity quests that give no rewards, but keep their reputation as good, and make them actually have to play good, by being unable to kill fellow sheep, even forcing them to help sheep that are attacked.
The evil side should have no protection, not even in cities. You should be able to not only kill other evil members or good members outside their protected towns/cities, you should be able to steal items/money from other wolves or sheep whenever you meet them. Make the evil wolf side's market have no regulation, make all items player-driven, or cost ridiculous prices from NPCs, allow you to intimidate or just rob from NPCs, as well.
Have players on the evil side always looking over their shoulder, but also able to enjoy true freedom. I'd go further even, and make the wolves able to say anything they wanted, swear if they wanted, scam other players if they want, but on the sheep or good side, swearing is prohibited, same with scamming.
It would be a very interesting game to have a true good VS evil faction, not just in terms of story, but in terms of players as well. An interesting social experiment anyway.
Do you go good for the added security and happiness, but lose your freedom? Or do you go evil and have maximum personal freedom, but lose security and happiness?
Truly fascinating.
Reverse your payment system and I'd say you have something decent there.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
For a pve player, 'proper protection' is not being in a world with open-pvp. If you don't like open-world-pvp then no amount of "protection" is adequate... a pve-only player don't want to "just" die twice a week due to owpvp... especially when game X already provides that with a better pve experience...
For a pvp player 'properly challenging open world pvp' is an oxymoron. Open world pvp is all about stacking the odds in your own favour (via more levels, more players or better equipment), challenging PvP is "skill-based" (no eq/levels) with balanced numbers (instanced battlefields/dueling etc).
Exactly. PvE players (the majority of the "mainstream") will simply not take part. It doesn't matter how you design it. If there is forced PvP, its a non starter (if you want a non niche western game). The PvP types on the other hand will howl if there are limits on who they can gank, and where they can do it.
Also, past experience tells us, that they (PvP types) by and large aren't interested in "challenge" but WILL stack the odds in their favor (levels/gear/numbers). Its literally a no win situation. Couple that with the HUGE expense to create one of these games, and its just not going to happen.