it would be fun, just as long as there is a very robust - and I mean VERY - alignment system that ensures PvP has a rationale behind it when it happens.
If it's Darkfall-like PvP, then it will fail fast. Mind you, I think Darkfall is a very decent effort for a mmorpg but it gets boring fast. So PvP should be in EQNext, it should be non-consensual meaning it can happen anywhere at any time, but there must be systems in place that restrict the fps crowd from going trigger happy and give PvP a reason to occur.
I think a well designed economic system would be better than an alignment system. If there is encouragement for guilds to build cities and protect their citizens and merchants, the entire player base will regulate itself without any artificial rules.
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
they are too busy making cookie cutter themepark money making clones?
Yes because making a mmorpg is about making money.
Instead of non-consensual, how about player made cities that can declare war on other cities. Players in the war can pvp anywhere they find themselves. Players from neutral Cities cannot pvp or be pvp'd upon - unless their city joins a side - then they can pvp against the side they did not join. Call it player faction warfare. No predetermined sides. It would allow Cities to be made that specialize in being mercenaries, not unlike what happens in EVE. Is that a better idea than total non-consensual PVP?
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
they are too busy making cookie cutter themepark money making clones?
Yes because making a mmorpg is about making money.
Not some charity to entertain you.
clones seem to be making less and less money - hence free to play cash shops.
edit - not looking for chairty - just a game that I would spend money on, like to play and not feel like I have played that same game in different forms for the last decade or so.
It's always the small minority of the PvP crowd that make the rest of us look so ... militant. I'd wager there are more pvper's who are fine with keeping the water unmuddied than those who wish to force pvp down pve player's throats.
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
SB failed due to bad programming period. People that played that game loved it.
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
they are too busy making cookie cutter themepark money making clones?
And sadly you are right. It comes down to profit. Devs need to pay bills. If a game has the potential to make $XXX vs $XX, they will go with the higher income. PvP MMOs have been smaller undertakings basically because the market has shown that while there is a desire for PvP based MMOs, its not a big enough market income wise. You need to appeal to a wider spectrum of player and forcing something on the playerbase leads to a lot of that base walking away.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
they are too busy making cookie cutter themepark money making clones?
Yes because making a mmorpg is about making money.
Not some charity to entertain you.
clones seem to be making less and less money - hence free to play cash shops.
Actually those cash shops make more money than a sub based game. Kinda why theyve switched over. Games that dont make money get shut down period.
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
SB failed due to bad programming period. People that played that game loved it.
But why would that stop another developer from building a game that was like SB? Why would the programming errors of SB stop someone like Blizzard or SOE from making a new game based on the principals of SB?
These are the questions that need to be asked. Was it because there wasn't a large enough demand for that sort of gameplay? Was it because the potential player base was too small? Was it because they felt it didnt have as much of a chance at making a profit compared to a game more like the PvE centric games being made?
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
MMOs that are strictly PvP are not very popular (exception below). When I say not popular I don't mean it doesn't reach WoW numbers, it doesn't reach typical MMO numbers.
EvE may be a high quality and popular PvP MMO. Its also a title where the vast majority (90%?) play in the portion of the game with the least PvP.
That MMO's NOT strictly PvP have at best half the servers as PvE.
I'm not hating on PvP, I love PvP... when I feel like it. If SoE was coming out with a new IP I could totally see them going open, non-consensual PvP with it, maybe someday they will. Doing it to their flagship IP? That's crazy. PvPers are very dedicated and I think that's great. The best thing SoE can do is make PvP for EQN mean something and allow it to exist with PvEers around to maybe they will jump on too if they feel like it.
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
they are too busy making cookie cutter themepark money making clones?
Yes because making a mmorpg is about making money.
Not some charity to entertain you.
clones seem to be making less and less money - hence free to play cash shops.
Actually those cash shops make more money than a sub based game. Kinda why theyve switched over. Games that dont make money get shut down period.
and those knockoffs are why I play single player games. There are no mmo's worth playing anymore. That's my opinion, and I feel I am not alone. another opinion of mine is that there are far too many games out there. It is a bad thing not a good one.
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
they are too busy making cookie cutter themepark money making clones?
Yes because making a mmorpg is about making money.
Not some charity to entertain you.
clones seem to be making less and less money - hence free to play cash shops.
edit - not looking for chairty - just a game that I would spend money on, like to play and not feel like I have played that same game in different forms for the last decade or so.
agree.....100%, to many games that are the same just with a different skin....whats the point, sorry I am not that simple minded as it would appear alot of people are.
Instead of non-consensual, how about player made cities that can declare war on other cities. Players in the war can pvp anywhere they find themselves. Players from neutral Cities cannot pvp or be pvp'd upon - unless their city joins a side - then they can pvp against the side they did not join. Call it player faction warfare. No predetermined sides. It would allow Cities to be made that specialize in being mercenaries, not unlike what happens in EVE. Is that a better idea than total non-consensual PVP?
Your definition is Consensual though and that's what many of us don't mind. There are a few consensual PvP systems that will work and the crux of this argument and this post is that the PvP must contain consensual encounters. Whether it be through a flagging system, an alignment system, segregated PvP zones, or any number of other consensual PvP ideals. What we don't want is Darkfall or UO pre-trammel.
A dedicated sandbox PvE experience with a consensual PvP mechanic is fine. The beauty of our arguments is that we PvE players are willing to meet In the middle when it comes to PvP but the ugly truth is the PvP crowd wants to force their playstyle on us. That is inherently a damning proposition and further proves to me the whole argument that the PvP crowd makes for a horrible community.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
SB failed due to bad programming period. People that played that game loved it.
But why would that stop another developer from building a game that was like SB? Why would the programming errors of SB stop someone like Blizzard or SOE from making a new game based on the principals of SB?
They have no clue to what they are doing, look at what happens when a company jumps into something they dont have a clue how to make it work....SWotor. If you ever played SB you would understand how much balancing it took and really understanding how everything would play out, investors and producers wont risk not knowing, that is huge risk you are asking if they get it wrong then no one will play. Best case is those that made SB find someone to back them and make SB2 but from what I understand those that made SB pretty much hate each other.
Instead of non-consensual, how about player made cities that can declare war on other cities. Players in the war can pvp anywhere they find themselves. Players from neutral Cities cannot pvp or be pvp'd upon - unless their city joins a side - then they can pvp against the side they did not join. Call it player faction warfare. No predetermined sides. It would allow Cities to be made that specialize in being mercenaries, not unlike what happens in EVE. Is that a better idea than total non-consensual PVP?
Your definition is Consensual though and that's what many of us don't mind. There are a few consensual PvP systems that will work and the crux of this argument and this post is that the PvP must contain consensual encounters. Whether it be through a flagging system, an alignment system, segregated PvP zones, or any number of other consensual PvP ideals. What we don't want is Darkfall or UO pre-trammel.
A dedicated sandbox PvE experience with a consensual PvP mechanic is fine. The beauty of our arguments is that we PvE players are willing to meet In the middle when it comes to PvP but the ugly truth is the PvP crowd wants to force their playstyle on us. That is inherently a damning proposition and further proves to me the whole argument that the PvP crowd makes for a horrible community.
Agreed.
PvP is fun in small doses and when you can choose when and where you want to participate.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
they are too busy making cookie cutter themepark money making clones?
Yes because making a mmorpg is about making money.
Not some charity to entertain you.
clones seem to be making less and less money - hence free to play cash shops.
Actually those cash shops make more money than a sub based game. Kinda why theyve switched over. Games that dont make money get shut down period.
and those knockoffs are why I play single player games. There are no mmo's worth playing anymore. That's my opinion, and I feel I am not alone. another opinion of mine is that there are far too many games out there. It is a bad thing not a good one.
Then why not play one of the many PvP focused games on the market? Your argument holds no weight IMO because of some pedantic holier then though attitude toward current niche PvP games.
It would be like me saying that I don't play any MMO's because they do not offer what I want out of an MMO, and that statement is true to me, but I still support and play PvE focused MMO's because I still find some of the elements of those games entertaining and worthy of my time even if it doesn't contain the best case scenario for my play style. If you enjoy PvP then play a game that offers PvP even if it doesn't have exactly what you want out of it.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Instead of non-consensual, how about player made cities that can declare war on other cities. Players in the war can pvp anywhere they find themselves. Players from neutral Cities cannot pvp or be pvp'd upon - unless their city joins a side - then they can pvp against the side they did not join. Call it player faction warfare. No predetermined sides. It would allow Cities to be made that specialize in being mercenaries, not unlike what happens in EVE. Is that a better idea than total non-consensual PVP?
Your definition is Consensual though and that's what many of us don't mind. There are a few consensual PvP systems that will work and the crux of this argument and this post is that the PvP must contain consensual encounters. Whether it be through a flagging system, an alignment system, segregated PvP zones, or any number of other consensual PvP ideals. What we don't want is Darkfall or UO pre-trammel.
A dedicated sandbox PvE experience with a consensual PvP mechanic is fine. The beauty of our arguments is that we PvE players are willing to meet In the middle when it comes to PvP but the ugly truth is the PvP crowd wants to force their playstyle on us. That is inherently a damning proposition and further proves to me the whole argument that the PvP crowd makes for a horrible community.
ok, I don't think that one of your statements is 100% true. I like full pvp. However, given what I stated above - player made cities that can war or not, and there should be a mechanic in place that allows a city to have a neutral flag... however that should have penalties - like not be able to farm mobs in a non-neutrals territory without paying a price to that city. If you want peace - pay for it. I don't want to force anything down anyone's throat - compromise works for me. However the games being made with anything but arena pvp, which I loathe, seem to me to be getting fewer and fewer. Well there a lot of pve games. Make one with the things I said - PvP between player cities, a status for cities that do not want to war, but with the penalty that they have to make arrangements to farm mobs for loot in an "aggressive" Cities territory. If I ran an aggressive city I would appreciate some extra income coming in to maintain my ability to fight the wars i am in. Don't know about anyone else but I would play that style.
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
they are too busy making cookie cutter themepark money making clones?
Yes because making a mmorpg is about making money.
Not some charity to entertain you.
clones seem to be making less and less money - hence free to play cash shops.
Actually those cash shops make more money than a sub based game. Kinda why theyve switched over. Games that dont make money get shut down period.
and those knockoffs are why I play single player games. There are no mmo's worth playing anymore. That's my opinion, and I feel I am not alone. another opinion of mine is that there are far too many games out there. It is a bad thing not a good one.
Then why not play one of the many PvP focused games on the market? Your argument holds no weight IMO because of some pedantic holier then though attitude toward current niche PvP games.
It would be like me saying that I don't play any MMO's because they do not offer what I want out of an MMO, and that statement is true to me, but I still support and play PvE focused MMO's because I still find some of the elements of those games entertaining and worthy of my time even if it doesn't contain the best case scenario for my play style. If you enjoy PvP then play a game that offers PvP even if it doesn't have exactly what you want out of it.
Why ask me to settle when you won't?
edit - and I already did state a type I would settle for. Closest to it is EVE and the former Shadowbane. Perhaps Darkfall but I won't pay money for an unholy mess. I would rather see the game I decribed get worked on. What is wrong with that?
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
SB failed due to bad programming period. People that played that game loved it.
But why would that stop another developer from building a game that was like SB? Why would the programming errors of SB stop someone like Blizzard or SOE from making a new game based on the principals of SB?
They have no clue to what they are doing, look at what happens when a company jumps into something they dont have a clue how to make it work....SWotor. If you ever played SB you would understand how much balancing it took and really understanding how everything would play out, investors and producers wont risk not knowing, that is huge risk you are asking if they get it wrong then no one will play. Best case is those that made SB find someone to back them and make SB2 but from what I understand those that made SB pretty much hate each other.
Yeah, I hear you on that.
And thats the main problem with PvP centric games - There is too much risk and a bigger potential for loss as almost every game that was built with PvP as a main part of the game either failed out right, limped along for a few years with a small dedicated player base or switched up completely due to community request (UO as an example) and then saw an influx of players.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
they are too busy making cookie cutter themepark money making clones?
Yes because making a mmorpg is about making money.
Not some charity to entertain you.
clones seem to be making less and less money - hence free to play cash shops.
Actually those cash shops make more money than a sub based game. Kinda why theyve switched over. Games that dont make money get shut down period.
and those knockoffs are why I play single player games. There are no mmo's worth playing anymore. That's my opinion, and I feel I am not alone. another opinion of mine is that there are far too many games out there. It is a bad thing not a good one.
Then why not play one of the many PvP focused games on the market? Your argument holds no weight IMO because of some pedantic holier then though attitude toward current niche PvP games.
It would be like me saying that I don't play any MMO's because they do not offer what I want out of an MMO, and that statement is true to me, but I still support and play PvE focused MMO's because I still find some of the elements of those games entertaining and worthy of my time even if it doesn't contain the best case scenario for my play style. If you enjoy PvP then play a game that offers PvP even if it doesn't have exactly what you want out of it.
Yep it really is about the game that has the most of what you want.
You wont get your ideal game that has everything you want the way you want it. At least its pretty unlikely.
Shit I know my ideal game aint ever coming around. Probably a good thing too cause I can at least admit it certainly wouldnt end up being some 15mill subsribers game either.
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
SB failed due to bad programming period. People that played that game loved it.
But why would that stop another developer from building a game that was like SB? Why would the programming errors of SB stop someone like Blizzard or SOE from making a new game based on the principals of SB?
These are the questions that need to be asked. Was it because there wasn't a large enough demand for that sort of gameplay? Was it because the potential player base was too small? Was it because they felt it didnt have as much of a chance at making a profit compared to a game more like the PvE centric games being made?
The same reason why other types of MMORPGs generally aren't made. World of Warcraft is the most popular MMORPG on the block and every developer and publisher for the last eight years has been dreaming about getting part of that pie. When a game takes half a decade to develop, it takes awhile before developers and publishers can turn course despite the knowledge the WoW clones don't pay off. This is why we are still seeing WoW clones getting released.
If anything, SOE is smart, they were willing to take the economic hit to cut development of their WoW clone midstream.
I keep reading that there is no market for FFA PVP. But, that's not true. The market is full to the brim with people that LOVE PvP shoved all the way down their throats. Its just not the MMO genre folks, its shooters and RTS and fighting games. Now, I know what reaction some of you will have to this, that is to say, "These aren't MMO's, we're saying FFA PvP in an MMO isn't a large market". You're WRONG.
Games are just mechanics bound in characterization. There statement should not be, "FFA PvP does not work in an MMO", but should be replaced with the question, "What makes it work in other genres?" followed with, "How can we move those elements into an MMO?"
In shooters, the action is fast and getting back into the action after death is faster still. Your death DOES impact your team, but you can saddle up and try again near instantly. There's no time to sit and dwell, or feel defeated. Then, after a win or loss, the game resets and the playing field is even again.
In an RTS the whole game is slow, making small encounters and their losses not as important as the big picture (your resources and building advancement). Losing an engagement doesn't usually put you out of the game immediately, and there is time to change directions and switch course. Where in shooters they want you to learn by failing and getting back into the saddle quickly....RTS games want you to learn and get better by never leaving the saddle to begin with. Maybe you get knocked around...but until the bitter end (which...can be a drag out affair I'll admit, but there is a pretty definite point of "End" you are in the saddle and can regroup and learn in the moment.
Fighting games also have fast action, with the same "back into the saddle" speed of a shooter. You lose, you try again pretty fast. But it blends that with the "learning in the saddle" system of an RTS. Getting stomped in round 1 doesn't mean game over. You can learn from what your opponent does and recoup and still win. No one is mad (as often) about getting dealt with hard in those games because there is zero time for reentry.
Now lets compare that to MMO games. Loss usually means giant time sinks to get back into the fray. Loss means you lose equipment, which means getting back into the saddle leaves you at a disadvantage. The learning curve has less to do with skill and more to do with statistical edge. Most of all, there is never a point where the field is leveled. If one side stomps your side (In FFA PvP full loot, I should clarify) they now have all the edge and you will never bring it round.
So, STEEP learning curve with a loss penalty that makes it STEEPER. No quick retry. No fluid in combat skillsets that offset any of that. Lastly, NO SYSTEM TO PREVENT ABUSE. In mario kart, that system was a blue shell. In COD it was care packages and EMP. In starcraft...I don't feel like typing the 4 page essay it would require to detail all the things you can do when getting abused by a clear winner. None of these things make you win, but they DO stop you from feeling powerless and without hope.
Maybe learn something from the many types of game that are PURE PVP and see why they succeed.
Instead of non-consensual, how about player made cities that can declare war on other cities. Players in the war can pvp anywhere they find themselves. Players from neutral Cities cannot pvp or be pvp'd upon - unless their city joins a side - then they can pvp against the side they did not join. Call it player faction warfare. No predetermined sides. It would allow Cities to be made that specialize in being mercenaries, not unlike what happens in EVE. Is that a better idea than total non-consensual PVP?
Your definition is Consensual though and that's what many of us don't mind. There are a few consensual PvP systems that will work and the crux of this argument and this post is that the PvP must contain consensual encounters. Whether it be through a flagging system, an alignment system, segregated PvP zones, or any number of other consensual PvP ideals. What we don't want is Darkfall or UO pre-trammel.
A dedicated sandbox PvE experience with a consensual PvP mechanic is fine. The beauty of our arguments is that we PvE players are willing to meet In the middle when it comes to PvP but the ugly truth is the PvP crowd wants to force their playstyle on us. That is inherently a damning proposition and further proves to me the whole argument that the PvP crowd makes for a horrible community.
ok, I don't think that one of your statements is 100% true. I like full pvp. However, given what I stated above - player made cities that can war or not, and there should be a mechanic in place that allows a city to have a neutral flag... however that should have penalties - like not be able to farm mobs in a non-neutrals territory without paying a price to that city. If you want peace - pay for it. I don't want to force anything down anyone's throat - compromise works for me. However the games being made with anything but arena pvp, which I loathe, seem to me to be getting fewer and fewer. Well there a lot of pve games. Make one with the things I said - PvP between player cities, a status for cities that do not want to war, but with the penalty that they have to make arrangements to farm mobs for loot in an "aggressive" Cities territory. If I ran an aggressive city I would appreciate some extra income coming in to maintain my ability to fight the wars i am in. Don't know about anyone else but I would play that style.
why should there be penalties for not wanting to PVP? if you put ANY penalties for being neutral or for not wanting to PVP you ARE forcing it down peoples throat.
Originally posted by sonicbrew Spent enough years in full loot PvP and I have no desire to go back to it. If they choose this route solely this game will be vapor in no time.
wrong, their are plenty of players that want a pvp game like SB.
And to this day no developer has made a new MMO like SB. Wonder why that is?
they are too busy making cookie cutter themepark money making clones?
Yes because making a mmorpg is about making money.
Not some charity to entertain you.
clones seem to be making less and less money - hence free to play cash shops.
Actually those cash shops make more money than a sub based game. Kinda why theyve switched over. Games that dont make money get shut down period.
and those knockoffs are why I play single player games. There are no mmo's worth playing anymore. That's my opinion, and I feel I am not alone. another opinion of mine is that there are far too many games out there. It is a bad thing not a good one.
Then why not play one of the many PvP focused games on the market? Your argument holds no weight IMO because of some pedantic holier then though attitude toward current niche PvP games.
It would be like me saying that I don't play any MMO's because they do not offer what I want out of an MMO, and that statement is true to me, but I still support and play PvE focused MMO's because I still find some of the elements of those games entertaining and worthy of my time even if it doesn't contain the best case scenario for my play style. If you enjoy PvP then play a game that offers PvP even if it doesn't have exactly what you want out of it.
Comments
I think a well designed economic system would be better than an alignment system. If there is encouragement for guilds to build cities and protect their citizens and merchants, the entire player base will regulate itself without any artificial rules.
Yes because making a mmorpg is about making money.
Not some charity to entertain you.
Instead of non-consensual, how about player made cities that can declare war on other cities. Players in the war can pvp anywhere they find themselves. Players from neutral Cities cannot pvp or be pvp'd upon - unless their city joins a side - then they can pvp against the side they did not join. Call it player faction warfare. No predetermined sides. It would allow Cities to be made that specialize in being mercenaries, not unlike what happens in EVE. Is that a better idea than total non-consensual PVP?
Currently bored with MMO's.
clones seem to be making less and less money - hence free to play cash shops.
edit - not looking for chairty - just a game that I would spend money on, like to play and not feel like I have played that same game in different forms for the last decade or so.
Currently bored with MMO's.
SB failed due to bad programming period. People that played that game loved it.
And sadly you are right. It comes down to profit. Devs need to pay bills. If a game has the potential to make $XXX vs $XX, they will go with the higher income. PvP MMOs have been smaller undertakings basically because the market has shown that while there is a desire for PvP based MMOs, its not a big enough market income wise. You need to appeal to a wider spectrum of player and forcing something on the playerbase leads to a lot of that base walking away.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Actually those cash shops make more money than a sub based game. Kinda why theyve switched over. Games that dont make money get shut down period.
But why would that stop another developer from building a game that was like SB? Why would the programming errors of SB stop someone like Blizzard or SOE from making a new game based on the principals of SB?
These are the questions that need to be asked. Was it because there wasn't a large enough demand for that sort of gameplay? Was it because the potential player base was too small? Was it because they felt it didnt have as much of a chance at making a profit compared to a game more like the PvE centric games being made?
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
MMOs that are strictly PvP are not very popular (exception below). When I say not popular I don't mean it doesn't reach WoW numbers, it doesn't reach typical MMO numbers.
EvE may be a high quality and popular PvP MMO. Its also a title where the vast majority (90%?) play in the portion of the game with the least PvP.
That MMO's NOT strictly PvP have at best half the servers as PvE.
I'm not hating on PvP, I love PvP... when I feel like it. If SoE was coming out with a new IP I could totally see them going open, non-consensual PvP with it, maybe someday they will. Doing it to their flagship IP? That's crazy. PvPers are very dedicated and I think that's great. The best thing SoE can do is make PvP for EQN mean something and allow it to exist with PvEers around to maybe they will jump on too if they feel like it.
and those knockoffs are why I play single player games. There are no mmo's worth playing anymore. That's my opinion, and I feel I am not alone. another opinion of mine is that there are far too many games out there. It is a bad thing not a good one.
Currently bored with MMO's.
agree.....100%, to many games that are the same just with a different skin....whats the point, sorry I am not that simple minded as it would appear alot of people are.
Your definition is Consensual though and that's what many of us don't mind. There are a few consensual PvP systems that will work and the crux of this argument and this post is that the PvP must contain consensual encounters. Whether it be through a flagging system, an alignment system, segregated PvP zones, or any number of other consensual PvP ideals. What we don't want is Darkfall or UO pre-trammel.
A dedicated sandbox PvE experience with a consensual PvP mechanic is fine. The beauty of our arguments is that we PvE players are willing to meet In the middle when it comes to PvP but the ugly truth is the PvP crowd wants to force their playstyle on us. That is inherently a damning proposition and further proves to me the whole argument that the PvP crowd makes for a horrible community.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
They have no clue to what they are doing, look at what happens when a company jumps into something they dont have a clue how to make it work....SWotor. If you ever played SB you would understand how much balancing it took and really understanding how everything would play out, investors and producers wont risk not knowing, that is huge risk you are asking if they get it wrong then no one will play. Best case is those that made SB find someone to back them and make SB2 but from what I understand those that made SB pretty much hate each other.
Agreed.
PvP is fun in small doses and when you can choose when and where you want to participate.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Then why not play one of the many PvP focused games on the market? Your argument holds no weight IMO because of some pedantic holier then though attitude toward current niche PvP games.
It would be like me saying that I don't play any MMO's because they do not offer what I want out of an MMO, and that statement is true to me, but I still support and play PvE focused MMO's because I still find some of the elements of those games entertaining and worthy of my time even if it doesn't contain the best case scenario for my play style. If you enjoy PvP then play a game that offers PvP even if it doesn't have exactly what you want out of it.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
ok, I don't think that one of your statements is 100% true. I like full pvp. However, given what I stated above - player made cities that can war or not, and there should be a mechanic in place that allows a city to have a neutral flag... however that should have penalties - like not be able to farm mobs in a non-neutrals territory without paying a price to that city. If you want peace - pay for it. I don't want to force anything down anyone's throat - compromise works for me. However the games being made with anything but arena pvp, which I loathe, seem to me to be getting fewer and fewer. Well there a lot of pve games. Make one with the things I said - PvP between player cities, a status for cities that do not want to war, but with the penalty that they have to make arrangements to farm mobs for loot in an "aggressive" Cities territory. If I ran an aggressive city I would appreciate some extra income coming in to maintain my ability to fight the wars i am in. Don't know about anyone else but I would play that style.
Currently bored with MMO's.
Why ask me to settle when you won't?
edit - and I already did state a type I would settle for. Closest to it is EVE and the former Shadowbane. Perhaps Darkfall but I won't pay money for an unholy mess. I would rather see the game I decribed get worked on. What is wrong with that?
Currently bored with MMO's.
Yeah, I hear you on that.
And thats the main problem with PvP centric games - There is too much risk and a bigger potential for loss as almost every game that was built with PvP as a main part of the game either failed out right, limped along for a few years with a small dedicated player base or switched up completely due to community request (UO as an example) and then saw an influx of players.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Yep it really is about the game that has the most of what you want.
You wont get your ideal game that has everything you want the way you want it. At least its pretty unlikely.
Shit I know my ideal game aint ever coming around. Probably a good thing too cause I can at least admit it certainly wouldnt end up being some 15mill subsribers game either.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The same reason why other types of MMORPGs generally aren't made. World of Warcraft is the most popular MMORPG on the block and every developer and publisher for the last eight years has been dreaming about getting part of that pie. When a game takes half a decade to develop, it takes awhile before developers and publishers can turn course despite the knowledge the WoW clones don't pay off. This is why we are still seeing WoW clones getting released.
If anything, SOE is smart, they were willing to take the economic hit to cut development of their WoW clone midstream.
I keep reading that there is no market for FFA PVP. But, that's not true. The market is full to the brim with people that LOVE PvP shoved all the way down their throats. Its just not the MMO genre folks, its shooters and RTS and fighting games. Now, I know what reaction some of you will have to this, that is to say, "These aren't MMO's, we're saying FFA PvP in an MMO isn't a large market". You're WRONG.
Games are just mechanics bound in characterization. There statement should not be, "FFA PvP does not work in an MMO", but should be replaced with the question, "What makes it work in other genres?" followed with, "How can we move those elements into an MMO?"
In shooters, the action is fast and getting back into the action after death is faster still. Your death DOES impact your team, but you can saddle up and try again near instantly. There's no time to sit and dwell, or feel defeated. Then, after a win or loss, the game resets and the playing field is even again.
In an RTS the whole game is slow, making small encounters and their losses not as important as the big picture (your resources and building advancement). Losing an engagement doesn't usually put you out of the game immediately, and there is time to change directions and switch course. Where in shooters they want you to learn by failing and getting back into the saddle quickly....RTS games want you to learn and get better by never leaving the saddle to begin with. Maybe you get knocked around...but until the bitter end (which...can be a drag out affair I'll admit, but there is a pretty definite point of "End" you are in the saddle and can regroup and learn in the moment.
Fighting games also have fast action, with the same "back into the saddle" speed of a shooter. You lose, you try again pretty fast. But it blends that with the "learning in the saddle" system of an RTS. Getting stomped in round 1 doesn't mean game over. You can learn from what your opponent does and recoup and still win. No one is mad (as often) about getting dealt with hard in those games because there is zero time for reentry.
Now lets compare that to MMO games. Loss usually means giant time sinks to get back into the fray. Loss means you lose equipment, which means getting back into the saddle leaves you at a disadvantage. The learning curve has less to do with skill and more to do with statistical edge. Most of all, there is never a point where the field is leveled. If one side stomps your side (In FFA PvP full loot, I should clarify) they now have all the edge and you will never bring it round.
So, STEEP learning curve with a loss penalty that makes it STEEPER. No quick retry. No fluid in combat skillsets that offset any of that. Lastly, NO SYSTEM TO PREVENT ABUSE. In mario kart, that system was a blue shell. In COD it was care packages and EMP. In starcraft...I don't feel like typing the 4 page essay it would require to detail all the things you can do when getting abused by a clear winner. None of these things make you win, but they DO stop you from feeling powerless and without hope.
Maybe learn something from the many types of game that are PURE PVP and see why they succeed.
why should there be penalties for not wanting to PVP? if you put ANY penalties for being neutral or for not wanting to PVP you ARE forcing it down peoples throat.
name me a PVE sandbox that i can play?