Originally posted by chakalaka Nice post OP. Ignore most of the naysayers, I completely agree with what's being said on a positive note. Smedley seems like a very smart individual and also seems to have a great idea on what people want and what seems different from the current trend in the genre. I have to say that as a person in favor of PVP in general, I don't give a f*$% whether is consensual or not, it's fun for me. Also, we all know the PVE experience is going to be completely polished and beautiful. I just think they've got the perfect idea of a game that will hold interest, at least mine. Cheeeers!!
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.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing <a consensual contract>
2: involving or based on mutual consent <consensual acts>
— con·sen·su·al·lyadverb
You state: 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.
That is by definition consensual!
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!!!
I still don't think mandatory pvp will drive the players away if it is truly a fantasy sandbox. It is the possibility of full loot pvp that may.
Then again, if he wants to make eve in a fantasy environment I am all for it.
History proves otherwise.
Not that I care 1 way or the other, if its a FFA game, I wont play. If it isn't I will. Pretty simple.
I think if the only pull the game has is that it is ffa pvp then yeah it will drive people away. But if this game has everything a gamer has ever been looking for but I have to put up with being ganked every once and a while (without losing my stuff) then I would be okay with it and I am sure many others would be as well
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.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing consensual contract>
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.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing consensual contract>
Or just have a flagged PvP option. Problem solved. PvP and PvE now Co- Exist. Let the player base choose which will thrive.
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?!"
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.
Very interesting ideas. Thanks for sharing. I hope we get a "fun" non-consensual PVP system that fits in with a bunch of other fun systems, including PVE.
Originally posted by SneakyTurtle I'm sorry if I sound like a noob but what does "non-consensual" PVP mean?
I see you in game, I walk up, Stab you in the neck, you die, I walk 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?!"
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
And when it comes time to balance some skills do you just maintain two entirely different systems?
Cause balanced for pve and balanced for pvp arent really the same thing. And neither side likes nerfs cause random spell was too good in the side of the game they dont really care about.
well if you're looking at the pvp as a full world sandbox system the game doesnt need to be balanced for one on one pvp; however if you want arenas etc then it does. it needs to be balanced for group pvp and possibly sieges.
i dont see the problem with balancing skills differently for pve and pvp though. it actually seems like a good idea; though of course it would be Ugly (with a capital U) til they get it adjusted right at first. ex: Spell tool tip "fireball" Casting time 1s; does A damage to target NPC or B damage to target player. Range X yards vs NPC, Y yards vs PC
it might be a lazy way out but it is a way out.
1 on 1 pvp balancing is bad for a game. Diversity is what makes it more fun. In EQ, the classes were really imbalanced, but it changed based on the situation. A melee had the advantage in close quarters, while the casters using levitate and teleport (shadowstep) type spells had advantages outdoors. Likewise, clerics had surviveability and could almost not be killed if they played smart, but they were not an offensive threat.
Some things will always need to be tweaked different in pvp, but not much. Everyone shouldn't be a viable offensive threat, or a power healer, or a tank etc. Diversity is the key in an MMO with group and raid pvp.
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.
Also you cant go back and change your statement to reflect your bias: In your original post you stated:
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?
Then change your argument to reflect your opinion. Your 2nd post shows a vastly different style of gameplay then the original yet it still remains consensual because by definition giving players an option is consensual even if your newest post about that ideal would be the worst game play ever and remove any sense of freedom.
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.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing consensual contract>
Or just have a flagged PvP option. Problem solved. PvP and PvE now Co- Exist. Let the player base choose which will thrive.
yeah, but I get the idea that a lot of Pve'rs want to shove non-pvp gameplay down pvp'rs throats and consider even the most bland pvp to be horrifying.
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.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing consensual contract>
Or just have a flagged PvP option. Problem solved. PvP and PvE now Co- Exist. Let the player base choose which will thrive.
yeah, but I get the idea that a lot of Pve'rs want to shove non-pvp gameplay down pvp'rs throats and consider even the most bland pvp to be horrifying.
Actually all the thread today have been myopic,only one kind of MMORPG is good PvPers wanting to force nonconsensual FFA open world PvP on everyone and basing their arguments on vague Smedley statements whilst demanding proof that PvE is popular while not providing any proof that their idea of PvP is popular.
I tihnk I've successfully summed up today's major threads.
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.
Very interesting ideas. Thanks for sharing. I hope we get a "fun" non-consensual PVP system that fits in with a bunch of other fun systems, including PVE.
Actually comparing FPS's and MOBA's id different then MMO's. Because of those last 3 letters in the acronym RPG. There is little market for forced PvP in an mmoRPG, because the majority of people who enjoy PvP are already stuck playing FPS's and MOBA's whereby they get to skip all things that do not appeal to them, things like PvE, progression and gear acquisition.
Now that doesn't mean there are "some" who prefer all those things, but there isn't a broad market to make a game with RPG elements and forced PvP elements. Hope that makes sense but it is the truth as we have history to look back and see this to be true.
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.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing consensual contract>
Or just have a flagged PvP option. Problem solved. PvP and PvE now Co- Exist. Let the player base choose which will thrive.
yeah, but I get the idea that a lot of Pve'rs want to shove non-pvp gameplay down pvp'rs throats and consider even the most bland pvp to be horrifying.
But its pretty much the same with PvP'ers trying to shove PvP gameplay down PvE'ers throats. They don't want consensual PvP because they know a majority of players will choose to not PvP, leaving them very few PvP opertunities. They try to claim its needed for world economies, but fail to prove how and so on.
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?!"
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
This would work if we could get a developer to afford opportune amounts to the PVP portion instead of just throwing shit out against a wall.
An open PVP server with no criminal flags, looting rules, etc is not real PVP. It's an AFTERTHOUGHT. Thus, the purpose of this very thread.
This is why PVP servers on a lot of games are so anemic. PVP wasn't implemented as a design pillar, but an afterthought. It's not integrated with the other game systems and doesn't work.
As someone who loves non-consensual open world PVP, I don't JUST like the PVP. I like the PVE too. I like when I'm PVEing and get attacked by strong player enemies, and have to decide to fight or run. Escaping a bad situation can be such a rush!!
It's sad that because the masses of "change is scary" players will come in and whine about a real living world like EQN having the possibility of a hostile environment like EVE because they want the ease and comfort of face rolling through quest hubs and they will change it in fear of not being profitable.
Then a month or two in, all the theme parkers will whine about there not being enough theme parky content for them to blindly rick roll through and then we will just keep repeating the paradigm of these same people jumping from game to game when in reality if they would just "TRY" to allow a company to break their precious model of quest to quest grinding while being brain dead because the only thing they really use the mmo for is an online 3d facebook we might actually see something beautiful come out of it, but instead any innovation or ideas get stifled before release by these hordes of scoundrels who come whining with their pitchforks and pre-conceived notions.
Yay for stagnant development in an already stagnant genre, AMIRITE GUISE!
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off , why should I. Light up the darkness Bob Marley
I'm not worried. I'm certain there will be some open world PvP servers with few restrictions. I used to hate PvP servers, but now it's the only type I play on. I love the unpredictable nature of them. It's worth putting up with some high lvl douchers who like to gank newbs.
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.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing consensual contract>
Or just have a flagged PvP option. Problem solved. PvP and PvE now Co- Exist. Let the player base choose which will thrive.
yeah, but I get the idea that a lot of Pve'rs want to shove non-pvp gameplay down pvp'rs throats and consider even the most bland pvp to be horrifying.
But its pretty much the same with PvP'ers trying to shove PvP gameplay down PvE'ers throats. They don't want consensual PvP because they know a majority of players will choose to not PvP, leaving them very few PvP opertunities. They try to claim its needed for world economies, but fail to prove how and so on.
same thing hear - not all pvpp'rs want to be lumped in to a category that says they won't accept onsensual pvp. It's just a pve rallying cry with no basis in fact. Just like I would not say all, in fact said alot not all, pve'rs want no pvp shoved down pvp'rs throats. You pve'r totalitarians can bicker all you want with what I proposed but you don't like it because you want all games to be one way - your way. fine. I have no problem not playing the crap pve only games now flooding the markets.
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.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing consensual contract>
Or just have a flagged PvP option. Problem solved. PvP and PvE now Co- Exist. Let the player base choose which will thrive.
yeah, but I get the idea that a lot of Pve'rs want to shove non-pvp gameplay down pvp'rs throats and consider even the most bland pvp to be horrifying.
Your right I consider all PvP horrifying and bland but I still do not mind mechanics or systems in a game to give consensual styles. Let me PvE and I'll let you PvP. No one is forcing you to PvE, unless you consider the leveling up portion and other RPG elements part of the PvE (which it is) but those elements are required in an mmoRPG, if you do not like the RPG elements (PvE) then why not play a FPS or a MOBA.
Then again it's the Developers who are forcing the PvE down your through because by definition you need those elements in an mmoRPG or it becomes a different genre altogether.
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 Bidwood Originally posted by HidonOriginally posted by VorthanionOriginally posted by HidonFor those arguing that the market is too small and that PvPers are nonexistent I suggest you take a moment and think about something. What game is the most popular PC game at the moment? And no, it's not World of WarCraft. It's an entirely PvP driven experience. Then I'd also like for you all to take into consideration the immense success of titles like DayZ which brought the whole conflict driven sandbox experience to the masses. Guess what? People loved it.So can we please put the silly notion of gamers not liking PvP behind us? The proof is in the pudding and the vast majority of gamers absolutely love player conflict. The trick is doing it right. Most of the failed sandbox MMOs cited here were awful games at just about every level. They didn't fail because they focused on PvP, they failed because they were shoddily designed.
Yet the format for the majority of pvp only gaming is not in the form of MMOs and there is a very good reason for that. Pvp is stressful and most people only want it in small doses, hence the plethora of single player and non-time consuming multiplayer pvp games. MMOs are another beast because they require a lot more effort, a lot more time investment and usually cannot be played in small chunks of time. Add pvp as the mainstay of an MMO and you have a recipe that turns off most gamers. The inability to turn off pvp when you're not in the mood. Having to deal with enough jerks who waste your time and steal your hard earned loot and or XP (something you do not ever suffer in regular multiplayer games). Pvpers can and have blocked other players from progressing by locking off content areas and or quest objectives. The point is that pvp has a severe and sometimes very negative effect on an MMO that can't be found in other genres.What about PlanetSide 2 which also happens to be SOE's biggest cash cow?Let's face it, the money argument doesn't hold up here. The last successful PvE based MMO SOE created was EverQuest and that was at the very dawn of the genre. Things have changed and people aren't going to be satisfied whacking away at automatons. World of WarCraft did all that could be done in regards to themeparks. If EverQuest Next wants to succeed it cannot afford pandering to the dying PvE audience. Even Blizzard's titan is slowly withering away. It needs to embrace PvX and work on making it one organism.Good point about PlanetSide 2. It's time for PVP to go back into MMOs where it belongs.
Er, no it's not. Planetside 2 doesn't have PvE content. It's not an MMORPG. It's barely a step up from Team Fortress 2 or LoL in terms of having a world.
Yes, PvP is popular. PvP is very popular. But not in a game that offers PvE content. If you're going to applaud good examples, at least find some examples that apply to the subject at hand.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
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.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing consensual contract>
Or just have a flagged PvP option. Problem solved. PvP and PvE now Co- Exist. Let the player base choose which will thrive.
yeah, but I get the idea that a lot of Pve'rs want to shove non-pvp gameplay down pvp'rs throats and consider even the most bland pvp to be horrifying.
But its pretty much the same with PvP'ers trying to shove PvP gameplay down PvE'ers throats. They don't want consensual PvP because they know a majority of players will choose to not PvP, leaving them very few PvP opertunities. They try to claim its needed for world economies, but fail to prove how and so on.
same thing hear - not all pvpp'rs want to be lumped in to a category that says they won't accept onsensual pvp. It's just a pve rallying cry with no basis in fact. Just like I would not say all, in fact said alot not all, pve'rs want no pvp shoved down pvp'rs throats. You pve'r totalitarians can bicker all you want with what I proposed but you don't like it because you want all games to be one way - your way. fine. I have no problem not playing the crap pve only games now flooding the markets.
Oh, I am not disagreeing with you and I can see what you are getting at. I like to PvP and loved PvPing in AO with Notum Wars. Thing is I knew I didn't have to participate if I didnt want to and only certain areas would need to be avoided in that situation. But those areas had no impact on my PvE play. It was basically a choice. I had the choice to PvP or not with no real threat or consequences of being ganked by someone if I chose to not PvP.
And thats why I don't get why a lot of PvPers feel that it has to be full on PvP and the thought of choice makes them mad. And why when PvEers say "Sure have open world PvP all you want so long as we can opt out when we want" These same people throw a fit and say PvE'ers are 'cramming PvE down our throats'.
Just doesn't make sense...
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?!"
If the PvP is Non-consensual, no they will not stay.
Most MMO gamers dont like PvP that is on someone elses terms.
As long as there is no major penalty for being ganked like gear loss then I certainly have no problem with non-consensual pvp. If anything it spices mmos up abit I feel.
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.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing consensual contract>
Or just have a flagged PvP option. Problem solved. PvP and PvE now Co- Exist. Let the player base choose which will thrive.
yeah, but I get the idea that a lot of Pve'rs want to shove non-pvp gameplay down pvp'rs throats and consider even the most bland pvp to be horrifying.
But its pretty much the same with PvP'ers trying to shove PvP gameplay down PvE'ers throats. They don't want consensual PvP because they know a majority of players will choose to not PvP, leaving them very few PvP opertunities. They try to claim its needed for world economies, but fail to prove how and so on.
same thing hear - not all pvpp'rs want to be lumped in to a category that says they won't accept onsensual pvp. It's just a pve rallying cry with no basis in fact. Just like I would not say all, in fact said alot not all, pve'rs want no pvp shoved down pvp'rs throats. You pve'r totalitarians can bicker all you want with what I proposed but you don't like it because you want all games to be one way - your way. fine. I have no problem not playing the crap pve only games now flooding the markets.
Is this the 2nd proposal or the original proposal. Your first proposal is something I would personally play because there's no detriments to playing a certain way. Your 2nd proposal forces PvE to pay a hefty price to remain safe from PvP, something I would never play even if there is consensual PvP attached to it.
I look at it as the same argument people use in a F2P MMO debate in that the person who refuses to pay real life money is stuck behind a developmental hurdle that artificially limits their ability to compete and see the same content as someone who pays real life money. Your 2nd proposal would force me to PvP to remove any limitations in my gameplay.
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!!!
Comments
I still don't think mandatory pvp will drive the players away if it is truly a fantasy sandbox. It is the possibility of full loot pvp that may.
Then again, if he wants to make eve in a fantasy environment I am all for it.
Cheers!!!
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing <a consensual contract>
2: involving or based on mutual consent <consensual acts>
— con·sen·su·al·ly adverb
You state: 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.
That is by definition consensual!
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!!!
History proves otherwise.
Not that I care 1 way or the other, if its a FFA game, I wont play. If it isn't I will. Pretty simple.
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!!!
I think if the only pull the game has is that it is ffa pvp then yeah it will drive people away. But if this game has everything a gamer has ever been looking for but I have to put up with being ganked every once and a while (without losing my stuff) then I would be okay with it and I am sure many others would be as well
wasn't arguing that. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was saying not all pvp'rs want to force non-consensual pvp down anyone's thraot. I like full pvp - non-consensual. I don't want anyone to play that if they do not want to. So I offered up my player city faction idea, which Yes is consensual. But it is not a pvp'r forcing non-consensual, or pvp at all, down anyones throat. It is a way to have pve and pvp co-exist in a game. Everyone is arguing pve only or pvp only - at least I was arguing for both, shyte what do you want? Blood?
Currently bored with MMO's.
- SneakyTurtle
Or just have a flagged PvP option. Problem solved. PvP and PvE now Co- Exist. Let the player base choose which will thrive.
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?!"
Very interesting ideas. Thanks for sharing. I hope we get a "fun" non-consensual PVP system that fits in with a bunch of other fun systems, including PVE.
I see you in game, I walk up, Stab you in the neck, you die, I walk 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?!"
1 on 1 pvp balancing is bad for a game. Diversity is what makes it more fun. In EQ, the classes were really imbalanced, but it changed based on the situation. A melee had the advantage in close quarters, while the casters using levitate and teleport (shadowstep) type spells had advantages outdoors. Likewise, clerics had surviveability and could almost not be killed if they played smart, but they were not an offensive threat.
Some things will always need to be tweaked different in pvp, but not much. Everyone shouldn't be a viable offensive threat, or a power healer, or a tank etc. Diversity is the key in an MMO with group and raid pvp.
Also you cant go back and change your statement to reflect your bias: In your original post you stated:
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?
Then change your argument to reflect your opinion. Your 2nd post shows a vastly different style of gameplay then the original yet it still remains consensual because by definition giving players an option is consensual even if your newest post about that ideal would be the worst game play ever and remove any sense of freedom.
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!!!
yeah, but I get the idea that a lot of Pve'rs want to shove non-pvp gameplay down pvp'rs throats and consider even the most bland pvp to be horrifying.
Currently bored with MMO's.
Actually all the thread today have been myopic,only one kind of MMORPG is good PvPers wanting to force nonconsensual FFA open world PvP on everyone and basing their arguments on vague Smedley statements whilst demanding proof that PvE is popular while not providing any proof that their idea of PvP is popular.
I tihnk I've successfully summed up today's major threads.
Actually comparing FPS's and MOBA's id different then MMO's. Because of those last 3 letters in the acronym RPG. There is little market for forced PvP in an mmoRPG, because the majority of people who enjoy PvP are already stuck playing FPS's and MOBA's whereby they get to skip all things that do not appeal to them, things like PvE, progression and gear acquisition.
Now that doesn't mean there are "some" who prefer all those things, but there isn't a broad market to make a game with RPG elements and forced PvP elements. Hope that makes sense but it is the truth as we have history to look back and see this to be true.
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!!!
But its pretty much the same with PvP'ers trying to shove PvP gameplay down PvE'ers throats. They don't want consensual PvP because they know a majority of players will choose to not PvP, leaving them very few PvP opertunities. They try to claim its needed for world economies, but fail to prove how and so on.
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?!"
This is why PVP servers on a lot of games are so anemic. PVP wasn't implemented as a design pillar, but an afterthought. It's not integrated with the other game systems and doesn't work.
As someone who loves non-consensual open world PVP, I don't JUST like the PVP. I like the PVE too. I like when I'm PVEing and get attacked by strong player enemies, and have to decide to fight or run. Escaping a bad situation can be such a rush!!
It's sad that because the masses of "change is scary" players will come in and whine about a real living world like EQN having the possibility of a hostile environment like EVE because they want the ease and comfort of face rolling through quest hubs and they will change it in fear of not being profitable.
Then a month or two in, all the theme parkers will whine about there not being enough theme parky content for them to blindly rick roll through and then we will just keep repeating the paradigm of these same people jumping from game to game when in reality if they would just "TRY" to allow a company to break their precious model of quest to quest grinding while being brain dead because the only thing they really use the mmo for is an online 3d facebook we might actually see something beautiful come out of it, but instead any innovation or ideas get stifled before release by these hordes of scoundrels who come whining with their pitchforks and pre-conceived notions.
Yay for stagnant development in an already stagnant genre, AMIRITE GUISE!
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off , why should I. Light up the darkness Bob Marley
same thing hear - not all pvpp'rs want to be lumped in to a category that says they won't accept onsensual pvp. It's just a pve rallying cry with no basis in fact. Just like I would not say all, in fact said alot not all, pve'rs want no pvp shoved down pvp'rs throats. You pve'r totalitarians can bicker all you want with what I proposed but you don't like it because you want all games to be one way - your way. fine. I have no problem not playing the crap pve only games now flooding the markets.
Currently bored with MMO's.
Your right I consider all PvP horrifying and bland but I still do not mind mechanics or systems in a game to give consensual styles. Let me PvE and I'll let you PvP. No one is forcing you to PvE, unless you consider the leveling up portion and other RPG elements part of the PvE (which it is) but those elements are required in an mmoRPG, if you do not like the RPG elements (PvE) then why not play a FPS or a MOBA.
Then again it's the Developers who are forcing the PvE down your through because by definition you need those elements in an mmoRPG or it becomes a different genre altogether.
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!!!
What about PlanetSide 2 which also happens to be SOE's biggest cash cow? Let's face it, the money argument doesn't hold up here. The last successful PvE based MMO SOE created was EverQuest and that was at the very dawn of the genre. Things have changed and people aren't going to be satisfied whacking away at automatons. World of WarCraft did all that could be done in regards to themeparks. If EverQuest Next wants to succeed it cannot afford pandering to the dying PvE audience. Even Blizzard's titan is slowly withering away. It needs to embrace PvX and work on making it one organism.
Good point about PlanetSide 2. It's time for PVP to go back into MMOs where it belongs.
Er, no it's not. Planetside 2 doesn't have PvE content. It's not an MMORPG. It's barely a step up from Team Fortress 2 or LoL in terms of having a world.
Yes, PvP is popular. PvP is very popular. But not in a game that offers PvE content. If you're going to applaud good examples, at least find some examples that apply to the subject at hand.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Oh, I am not disagreeing with you and I can see what you are getting at. I like to PvP and loved PvPing in AO with Notum Wars. Thing is I knew I didn't have to participate if I didnt want to and only certain areas would need to be avoided in that situation. But those areas had no impact on my PvE play. It was basically a choice. I had the choice to PvP or not with no real threat or consequences of being ganked by someone if I chose to not PvP.
And thats why I don't get why a lot of PvPers feel that it has to be full on PvP and the thought of choice makes them mad. And why when PvEers say "Sure have open world PvP all you want so long as we can opt out when we want" These same people throw a fit and say PvE'ers are 'cramming PvE down our throats'.
Just doesn't make sense...
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?!"
As long as there is no major penalty for being ganked like gear loss then I certainly have no problem with non-consensual pvp. If anything it spices mmos up abit I feel.
Is this the 2nd proposal or the original proposal. Your first proposal is something I would personally play because there's no detriments to playing a certain way. Your 2nd proposal forces PvE to pay a hefty price to remain safe from PvP, something I would never play even if there is consensual PvP attached to it.
I look at it as the same argument people use in a F2P MMO debate in that the person who refuses to pay real life money is stuck behind a developmental hurdle that artificially limits their ability to compete and see the same content as someone who pays real life money. Your 2nd proposal would force me to PvP to remove any limitations in my gameplay.
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!!!