Originally posted by Iselin Originally posted by lizardbonesSo, what are your thoughts on this? Why must FFA or Always On PvP be universal or all encompassing?
Who says it has to be? One or 2 opinionated trolls here? Take a look around and see how many MMOs adopt the FFA in the whole world PvP model. Then look at how many don't. Which do you think is more popular?
You hang around here too long and you start to get a warped sense of what features MMO gamers really want. The short answer is that what is desired most around here is what doesn't exist and what's popular is what hasn't been released...even better if the pre-release is kept secret.
Well, the idea behind my OP is that there are people on these forums that feel that way. I wanted to know why they felt that way. Is it just the way they feel, or is there some chain of logic behind that thinking, especially as it applies to games that haven't released yet?
I'm not trying to argue the merits of PvP or FFA PvP, unless those merits apply directly to how people feel on FFA PvP being universal within a game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
There's plenty of scope for games to support each and every style and still maintain a healthy player base. These arguments are beyond rediculous and just sound like kids in the playground screaming me me me. If a game doesn't include a feature you insist on, then don't play it. It's really that simple.
I doubt that. Some style is so niche that you will never see any AAA development on it. FFA PvP is one of those.
I don't disagree with that at all, most FFA games are indie developed it's true. But they do exist and they do well enough if done right.
Unfortunately we populate a forum where a very loud minority constantly post about how evey game absolutely has to be FFA PvP or the genre is doomed to fail. So we get threads like this.
Every game can't cater to every player, or you just end up with a pile of shit, and it's unreasonable to expect every new game to be the kind you want regardless of other's preferences. Not you personally, I'm talking in general.
There is scope for each different style, and those games are out there. They may not be developed by the big boys but they're still around. I agree that AAA devs probably won't produce a FFA PvP game becasue they know the market isn't big enough for that kind of game to justify the expense, regardless of what certain posters say on these forums.
There's plenty of scope for games to support each and every style and still maintain a healthy player base. These arguments are beyond rediculous and just sound like kids in the playground screaming me me me. If a game doesn't include a feature you insist on, then don't play it. It's really that simple.
I doubt that. Some style is so niche that you will never see any AAA development on it. FFA PvP is one of those.
Funny enough, my experience from SWG was completely different. PVP and the factions did not really exist for me and my guild. We never flagged so for us the outcome of PvP never mattered. We moved around freely and were enjoying the PvE content. It's just a shame all of it was half-assed and broken.
Well... I suppose it would require further investigation. To be fair... SWG had 2 completely different game paradigms. There was pre NGE and post NGE.
NGE was all about giving players this Themepark experience. PvP worked a little bit differently in this time. You had to make yourself Overt, which meant you were OW PvP flagged.
I'm talking about way back from the beginning before NGE was ever a thought in someone's mind. Back then... we didn't really have PvE content. I mean, sure there were quests here and there, but nothing like what the NGE offered, and certainly nothing like what we experience in MMO's today. There were a few Themeparks, but again, they were nothing like what we see today. They were very short, and relatively easy depending on your character's build. They mostly focussed around specific Iconic characters, Han Solo, Luke, the Emporer, 3P0. They were not intended to carry you through levels from beginning to end.
Anyway, during this time, flagging happened a bit differently. You couldn't really avoid being flagged for PvP unless you completely avoided everything that had anything to do with a faction. And back then, there were factions for everything, and their level of interest and hate was tracked in your datapad.
Basically, if you attacked an Imperial Trooper or a Revel Trooper of any kind... you were flagged for OW PvP. It was pretty much that simple. Anyone of the opposing faction could attack you when you were flagged. They did not have to be flagged. And you could not attack them until they became flagged. Which meant either they had to go find an opposing NPC and attack it, or they had to attack you. Basically, that meant they got the first blow no matter what.
Because there was this overwhelming sense of a lack of PvE content (of course there were always missions for randomly generated mobs), PvP was the more dominant feature. Add to this the Holocron craze (before the Aurillian Village) - only the highest lvl Imperial Troopers and Rebel Troopers dropped them... you could see how OW PvP was a huge part of the game.
But the fact still remains, as we both have said... it's a shame all of it was half-assed and broken lol.
Not even close
I never played the NGE SWG. I left the game shortly before the Combat upgrade so the NGE was still about a year away. I started playing shortly after bikes were introduced.
I did try out Jabba's Palace themepark but it was too buggy and the NPC interactions were a mess. They tried for some early instancing-like system and failed.
My guild was technically Rebel faction but it never seemed to be relevant. We did not bother with faction bases. City building, crafting and mission running was faction neutral. The group content like Geocian Caves was also faction neutral AFAIK. There just did not seem to be any reason to flag overt or even to attack faction NPCs.
PvP in pre-NGE SWG seemed just like something extra to do like decorating a house. I am sure people did it but it was trivial to avoid and the people I played with rarely bothered. The capital city on Tatooine supposedly was a major PvP battleground but It was not really noticable to people just passing through.
None of us bothered with the Hologrind so the Jedi vs BH PvP did not affect us. Toward the end of my time in SWG I tried the Jedi village missions whihc supposedly flagged you for PvP but I was never attacked by another player so it seemed like a moot point.
Maybe PvP was a major part of your playstyle in SWG but for my play group it was a trivial feature we did not bother with.
So let me get this straight....
When you say in so many words, "I didn't participate in anything substantial the game offered." How exactly do you expect me or anyone else to believe you have any credibility in anything you say regarding the game?
"I didn't participate in the PvP." Okay... next subject.
"I didn't participate in the NGE." Okay... next subject.
"I didn't participate in the holo-grind." Okay... next subject.
PvP was a major feature in the game. Player bases and how they worked were redesigned several times. It has nothing to do with playstyle. The game was heavily influenced by the proponent of PvP - period. The devs constantly updated the BH and Jedi classes, specifically for this very reason. They went months (almost years) ignoring every other class. The Combat Upgrade was specifically created to balance PvP. Why? Because Master Teras Kasi Artists, Riflemen, and Combat Medics were single handedly wiping out entire platoons of enemy faction players. Doctors crafted and sold non-stop buffs to players. Some even figured out how to do this completely through automated macros. Why? Because people wanted to PvP. You didn't need the best buffs in the game to hunt Rancors or Nightwitches.
Your refusal to participate or accept this is irrelevant to the facts. I never said the game didn't offer other things. I just said that PvP was a major part of the game.
There do exist people who try new games every day, without a full understanding of what they are getting into. That's why you get people who try Darkfall, and then ask about PvE servers. Darkfall might be their first MMO, or their first FFA PvP MMO, and they find that the sandbox aspects of the game are phenomenal, if only other players didn't stab them in the back while they were working on the mob with the cool AI.
Indeed. I always liked many aspects of EVE, such as manufacturing and exploration, but the constant threat of PvP kinda ruins everything.
Open world pvp is soo much better. There does not need to be FFA PVP. SWG had the best system IMO. They had factions and you could toggle yourself open to PVP or not open for PVP. Thers no need for different servers for PVP. PVP can happen anywhere(if your PVP toggled). If you dont want to PVP you dont have to, you can just watch, I found it got people who didnt usually PVP- into PVP.
This is better than zones and PVP servers IMO. People who want tp PVP can in open world-People who dont want to pvp , dont have to. Its best for all concerned.
Screw that... you think PvPers will just be content with a toggle?? FFA PVP with full loot adds a whole layer of depth to gameplay that pve games will never have.... I want to be sneak past any gankers to get that ore, so theres some risk involved... Adding a toggle is NOT the best for all concerned, only for PvErs that want to grind grind grind at peace
Make 2 servers, one OW FFA PVP and other for the carebears so they can farm and grind all they want... BUT dont try to please everyone with 1 server "for all"
This is something I've wondered about, but not really understood the logic of. It has definitely gotten a lot more attention recently with the pending release of EQN information.
I understand that PvP is more exciting, can add something akin to a political element to a game, and can even make items in the economy more valuable, but I've never understood the insistence that if there is FFA PvP in a game everyone must participate.
For example, if there are safe areas and unsafe areas, the unsafe areas must contain more valuable items. Why? To me this seems like a mechanic that arbitrarily limits the people who would want to play a game. It seems like the people who would want to PvP would hang out in the unsafe areas and the people who don't like PvP would hang out in the safe areas.
I've also gotten the impression, possibly wrongly, that people who like FFA, Always On PvP are against the idea of having two different server types, one with the PvP rule set and one with the PvP rule set. Why? It seems like a good idea for people who like PvP to be on one server and people who don't want PvP on all the time on another server.
So, what are your thoughts on this? Why must FFA or Always On PvP be universal or all encompassing?
I've wondered this too and have never gotten a strait answer. My guess is that if you love PvP it's always supposed to be part of the game, no matter where you go. Since there is the added excitement of being killed at any time not having that aspect in portions of the game for some people makes the game boring. I can understand this in a way because I don't like playing SP games because there is no one else around and it feels like an empty world and not exciting. Also, we talk a lot about how easy MMOs are and how that also makes them boring but PvP can add a level of diffculty that would otherwise not be there.
This doesn't explain however why it's not okay for there to be seperate servers or equal areas of OWPvP and no PvP. I think it's because the vast majority do not want 100% OWPvP at all times in a progressive fantasy MMO. Do most like to PvP sometimes when they choose to? I'd imagine a large majority do but that choice aspect can lessen the amount of "content" for the hardcore PvPers. It's like if certain areas of mobs were to suddenly be unattackable, that would seem very strange indeed.
I think the biggest fear of PvPers, especially in a pending MMO like EQN, is that if PvP isn't given a focus then it will be tacked on and not very fun. The honest truth is that far less people want PvP as a focus and many simply don't care about it. In the case of EQN Smed has said he would make sure it is given it's due but it's been heralded as meaning it's a main focus. My hope is that they make the PvP fun and it won't matter if it's optional because people will choose to opt for it. We'll see of course on the 2nd.
Originally posted by DavisFlight Originally posted by lizardbonesFor example, if there are safe areas and unsafe areas, the unsafe areas must contain more valuable items. Why?
Risk vs reward, the very core basic and most important building block in ALL game design.
/Thread.
PvP isn't required to implement a "Risk vs Reward" mechanic in games. So while your statement is true, "Risk vs Reward" is a basic mechanic of most games, it's not an answer to my question.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Risk vs reward, the very core basic and most important building block in ALL game design.
/Thread.
Err, what? Most game design out there doesn't concern this issue at all. It's a valid way to design things in some cases, but it has little to do with reality and most games don't have it.
Originally posted by maccarthur2004 Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by jmcdermottuk There's plenty of scope for games to support each and every style and still maintain a healthy player base. These arguments are beyond rediculous and just sound like kids in the playground screaming me me me. If a game doesn't include a feature you insist on, then don't play it. It's really that simple.
I doubt that. Some style is so niche that you will never see any AAA development on it. FFA PvP is one of those.So Archeage isn't AAA or isn't FFA PVP?
Unless I'm mistaken, ArcheAge is FFA PvP, but the PvP is not allowed everywhere. The division is by continents.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbonesFor example, if there are safe areas and unsafe areas, the unsafe areas must contain more valuable items. Why?
Risk vs reward, the very core basic and most important building block in ALL game design.
/Thread.
PvP isn't required to implement a "Risk vs Reward" mechanic in games. So while your statement is true, "Risk vs Reward" is a basic mechanic of most games, it's not an answer to my question.
Actually, it's the exact answer to your question.
Why do developers make the more dangerous areas more profitable? Because you take a risk to get the better stuff.
Originally posted by DavisFlight Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by DavisFlightOriginally posted by lizardbonesFor example, if there are safe areas and unsafe areas, the unsafe areas must contain more valuable items. Why?
Risk vs reward, the very core basic and most important building block in ALL game design./Thread.PvP isn't required to implement a "Risk vs Reward" mechanic in games. So while your statement is true, "Risk vs Reward" is a basic mechanic of most games, it's not an answer to my question. Actually, it's the exact answer to your question.
Why do developers make the more dangerous areas more profitable? Because you take a risk to get the better stuff.
Risk vs reward. It's very VERY simple.
The answer to why developers do it that way is a little different than the answer to why some people who are into OW PvP seem to want it always on, everywhere in a game, even going to far as to be opposed to the idea of separate servers.
So, no, it's not an answer to my question, because my question was not, "why do developers do this?"
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbonesFor example, if there are safe areas and unsafe areas, the unsafe areas must contain more valuable items. Why?
Risk vs reward, the very core basic and most important building block in ALL game design./Thread.
PvP isn't required to implement a "Risk vs Reward" mechanic in games. So while your statement is true, "Risk vs Reward" is a basic mechanic of most games, it's not an answer to my question.
Actually, it's the exact answer to your question.
Why do developers make the more dangerous areas more profitable? Because you take a risk to get the better stuff.
Risk vs reward. It's very VERY simple.
The answer to why developers do it that way is a little different than the answer to why some people who are into OW PvP seem to want it always on, everywhere in a game, even going to far as to be opposed to the idea of separate servers.
So, no, it's not an answer to my question, because my question was not, "why do developers do this?"
By making FFA PVP a toggle, it is no longer FFA PvP, and the PvP aspect becomes trivial.
What's the point of taking and defending a castle if people can turn their toggle off and just walk in and use it for their own?
Some games need FFA PVP and don't work with it turned off. Not all, but some.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by jmcdermottuk There's plenty of scope for games to support each and every style and still maintain a healthy player base. These arguments are beyond rediculous and just sound like kids in the playground screaming me me me. If a game doesn't include a feature you insist on, then don't play it. It's really that simple.
I doubt that. Some style is so niche that you will never see any AAA development on it. FFA PvP is one of those.
So Archeage isn't AAA or isn't FFA PVP?
Unless I'm mistaken, ArcheAge is FFA PvP, but the PvP is not allowed everywhere. The division is by continents.
Originally posted by jmcdermottuk There's plenty of scope for games to support each and every style and still maintain a healthy player base. These arguments are beyond rediculous and just sound like kids in the playground screaming me me me. If a game doesn't include a feature you insist on, then don't play it. It's really that simple.
I doubt that. Some style is so niche that you will never see any AAA development on it. FFA PvP is one of those.
So Archeage isn't AAA or isn't FFA PVP?
Unless I'm mistaken, ArcheAge is FFA PvP, but the PvP is not allowed everywhere. The division is by continents.
Unless they have changed, in Archeage anyone can attack anyone outside the safe zones. There are penaltys to attacks to people from same faction (the criminal system works here). In the third continent, there aren't any penalty.
I've also gotten the impression, possibly wrongly, that people who like FFA, Always On PvP are against the idea of having two different server typest. Why? It seems like a good idea for people who like PvP to be on one server and people who don't want PvP on all the time on another server.
That's easy.
PVP servers tend to die out in PVE-PVP games, if they're combined, they have less chance of dying out and PVP will get more support.
Some PVP players have realised this, but don't disclose it.
Originally posted by jmcdermottuk There's plenty of scope for games to support each and every style and still maintain a healthy player base. These arguments are beyond rediculous and just sound like kids in the playground screaming me me me. If a game doesn't include a feature you insist on, then don't play it. It's really that simple.
I doubt that. Some style is so niche that you will never see any AAA development on it. FFA PvP is one of those.
So Archeage isn't AAA or isn't FFA PVP?
Unless I'm mistaken, ArcheAge is FFA PvP, but the PvP is not allowed everywhere. The division is by continents.
So it is not a complete FFA PvP game.
He is wrong (i already answered). Archeage is a complete AAA mmo with FFA PVP. Thus your statemente is false.
Originally posted by maccarthur2004 Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by maccarthur2004Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by jmcdermottuk There's plenty of scope for games to support each and every style and still maintain a healthy player base. These arguments are beyond rediculous and just sound like kids in the playground screaming me me me. If a game doesn't include a feature you insist on, then don't play it. It's really that simple.
I doubt that. Some style is so niche that you will never see any AAA development on it. FFA PvP is one of those.So Archeage isn't AAA or isn't FFA PVP?Unless I'm mistaken, ArcheAge is FFA PvP, but the PvP is not allowed everywhere. The division is by continents.So it is not a complete FFA PvP game.He is wrong (i already answered). Archeage is a complete AAA mmo with FFA PVP. Thus your statemente is false.
It is Faction Based, FFA, OW PvP with a court system. I actually had to go look it up. It's also possible to tear up player's belongings in the world, like crops and houses. If you attack players of your own faction, eventually you'll rack up enough blood points to go to trial where the player may or may not go to jail.
No penalties at all on the third continent, same faction or no, and no penalties for attacking players of the opposite faction, or tearing up their stuff regardless of where the PvP happens. That about describe it?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I've also gotten the impression, possibly wrongly, that people who like FFA, Always On PvP are against the idea of having two different server typest. Why? It seems like a good idea for people who like PvP to be on one server and people who don't want PvP on all the time on another server.
That's easy.
PVP servers tend to die out in PVE-PVP games, if they're combined, they have less chance of dying out and PVP will get more support.
Some PVP players have realised this, but don't disclose it.
Either way .. it won't work. If they combine the servers and everyone is forced to pvp, playres can leave.
Originally posted by DavisFlight By making FFA PVP a toggle, it is no longer FFA PvP, and the PvP aspect becomes trivial.What's the point of taking and defending a castle if people can turn their toggle off and just walk in and use it for their own?Some games need FFA PVP and don't work with it turned off. Not all, but some.
Yes, agreed. But I'm looking at something a little more specific. Keep in mind this has come up specifically around EQN. It's something I've noticed before, but didn't think it was worth mentioning. Perhaps because it is the type of thing that only comes up before a game releases and the mechanics are actually set.
However, I've noticed that there is a preference among people who support PvP in EQN that there not be any sort of compromise. There should only be a PvP server, not a PvE and PvP server. There should only be OW PvP in the game, there should not be two continents, one with OW PvP and one with PvP flags or just PvE content.
Why is there the attitude that things must be all or nothing with the PvP? Answers like "Risk vs Reward" do not really answer the question. Yes, the people who enjoy PvP like the Risk vs Reward offered by PvP, buy why must it apply to everyone else in the game?
I have seen several answers given, but it doesn't seem like those answers are from the people who are supports of the "always on everywhere" PvP mindset.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You PvP'ers keep saying you want it realistic but that isn't so. Look at a wild life video. What do you see? Animals fighting? No. One predator chasing many prey. Realistic PvP would give me a chance to run. I don't see that happening in PvP.
Comments
You hang around here too long and you start to get a warped sense of what features MMO gamers really want. The short answer is that what is desired most around here is what doesn't exist and what's popular is what hasn't been released...even better if the pre-release is kept secret.
Well, the idea behind my OP is that there are people on these forums that feel that way. I wanted to know why they felt that way. Is it just the way they feel, or is there some chain of logic behind that thinking, especially as it applies to games that haven't released yet?
I'm not trying to argue the merits of PvP or FFA PvP, unless those merits apply directly to how people feel on FFA PvP being universal within a game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't disagree with that at all, most FFA games are indie developed it's true. But they do exist and they do well enough if done right.
Unfortunately we populate a forum where a very loud minority constantly post about how evey game absolutely has to be FFA PvP or the genre is doomed to fail. So we get threads like this.
Every game can't cater to every player, or you just end up with a pile of shit, and it's unreasonable to expect every new game to be the kind you want regardless of other's preferences. Not you personally, I'm talking in general.
There is scope for each different style, and those games are out there. They may not be developed by the big boys but they're still around. I agree that AAA devs probably won't produce a FFA PvP game becasue they know the market isn't big enough for that kind of game to justify the expense, regardless of what certain posters say on these forums.
So Archeage isn't AAA or isn't FFA PVP?
Aaargh. Another brain f@rt. Ignore this post.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So let me get this straight....
When you say in so many words, "I didn't participate in anything substantial the game offered." How exactly do you expect me or anyone else to believe you have any credibility in anything you say regarding the game?
"I didn't participate in the PvP." Okay... next subject.
"I didn't participate in the NGE." Okay... next subject.
"I didn't participate in the holo-grind." Okay... next subject.
PvP was a major feature in the game. Player bases and how they worked were redesigned several times. It has nothing to do with playstyle. The game was heavily influenced by the proponent of PvP - period. The devs constantly updated the BH and Jedi classes, specifically for this very reason. They went months (almost years) ignoring every other class. The Combat Upgrade was specifically created to balance PvP. Why? Because Master Teras Kasi Artists, Riflemen, and Combat Medics were single handedly wiping out entire platoons of enemy faction players. Doctors crafted and sold non-stop buffs to players. Some even figured out how to do this completely through automated macros. Why? Because people wanted to PvP. You didn't need the best buffs in the game to hunt Rancors or Nightwitches.
Your refusal to participate or accept this is irrelevant to the facts. I never said the game didn't offer other things. I just said that PvP was a major part of the game.
Indeed. I always liked many aspects of EVE, such as manufacturing and exploration, but the constant threat of PvP kinda ruins everything.
Risk vs reward, the very core basic and most important building block in ALL game design.
/Thread.
Screw that... you think PvPers will just be content with a toggle?? FFA PVP with full loot adds a whole layer of depth to gameplay that pve games will never have.... I want to be sneak past any gankers to get that ore, so theres some risk involved... Adding a toggle is NOT the best for all concerned, only for PvErs that want to grind grind grind at peace
Make 2 servers, one OW FFA PVP and other for the carebears so they can farm and grind all they want... BUT dont try to please everyone with 1 server "for all"
I've wondered this too and have never gotten a strait answer. My guess is that if you love PvP it's always supposed to be part of the game, no matter where you go. Since there is the added excitement of being killed at any time not having that aspect in portions of the game for some people makes the game boring. I can understand this in a way because I don't like playing SP games because there is no one else around and it feels like an empty world and not exciting. Also, we talk a lot about how easy MMOs are and how that also makes them boring but PvP can add a level of diffculty that would otherwise not be there.
This doesn't explain however why it's not okay for there to be seperate servers or equal areas of OWPvP and no PvP. I think it's because the vast majority do not want 100% OWPvP at all times in a progressive fantasy MMO. Do most like to PvP sometimes when they choose to? I'd imagine a large majority do but that choice aspect can lessen the amount of "content" for the hardcore PvPers. It's like if certain areas of mobs were to suddenly be unattackable, that would seem very strange indeed.
I think the biggest fear of PvPers, especially in a pending MMO like EQN, is that if PvP isn't given a focus then it will be tacked on and not very fun. The honest truth is that far less people want PvP as a focus and many simply don't care about it. In the case of EQN Smed has said he would make sure it is given it's due but it's been heralded as meaning it's a main focus. My hope is that they make the PvP fun and it won't matter if it's optional because people will choose to opt for it. We'll see of course on the 2nd.
/Thread.
PvP isn't required to implement a "Risk vs Reward" mechanic in games. So while your statement is true, "Risk vs Reward" is a basic mechanic of most games, it's not an answer to my question.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Err, what? Most game design out there doesn't concern this issue at all. It's a valid way to design things in some cases, but it has little to do with reality and most games don't have it.
So Archeage isn't AAA or isn't FFA PVP?
Unless I'm mistaken, ArcheAge is FFA PvP, but the PvP is not allowed everywhere. The division is by continents.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Actually, it's the exact answer to your question.
Why do developers make the more dangerous areas more profitable? Because you take a risk to get the better stuff.
Risk vs reward. It's very VERY simple.
PvP isn't required to implement a "Risk vs Reward" mechanic in games. So while your statement is true, "Risk vs Reward" is a basic mechanic of most games, it's not an answer to my question.
Actually, it's the exact answer to your question.
Why do developers make the more dangerous areas more profitable? Because you take a risk to get the better stuff.
Risk vs reward. It's very VERY simple.
The answer to why developers do it that way is a little different than the answer to why some people who are into OW PvP seem to want it always on, everywhere in a game, even going to far as to be opposed to the idea of separate servers.
So, no, it's not an answer to my question, because my question was not, "why do developers do this?"
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
By making FFA PVP a toggle, it is no longer FFA PvP, and the PvP aspect becomes trivial.
What's the point of taking and defending a castle if people can turn their toggle off and just walk in and use it for their own?
Some games need FFA PVP and don't work with it turned off. Not all, but some.
My word would be "Blackrock". More specifically "Blackrock vs Argent Dawn".
Every time the servers went down. For years.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
So it is not a complete FFA PvP game.
Those games with FFA PvP are not needed if the audience is too small.
Let me put it this way, if some wow servers are made FFA PvP, how many players do you think will use it at all?
Unless they have changed, in Archeage anyone can attack anyone outside the safe zones. There are penaltys to attacks to people from same faction (the criminal system works here). In the third continent, there aren't any penalty.
That's easy.
PVP servers tend to die out in PVE-PVP games, if they're combined, they have less chance of dying out and PVP will get more support.
Some PVP players have realised this, but don't disclose it.
He is wrong (i already answered). Archeage is a complete AAA mmo with FFA PVP. Thus your statemente is false.
So Archeage isn't AAA or isn't FFA PVP?
Unless I'm mistaken, ArcheAge is FFA PvP, but the PvP is not allowed everywhere. The division is by continents.
So it is not a complete FFA PvP game.
He is wrong (i already answered). Archeage is a complete AAA mmo with FFA PVP. Thus your statemente is false.
It is Faction Based, FFA, OW PvP with a court system. I actually had to go look it up. It's also possible to tear up player's belongings in the world, like crops and houses. If you attack players of your own faction, eventually you'll rack up enough blood points to go to trial where the player may or may not go to jail.
No penalties at all on the third continent, same faction or no, and no penalties for attacking players of the opposite faction, or tearing up their stuff regardless of where the PvP happens. That about describe it?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Either way .. it won't work. If they combine the servers and everyone is forced to pvp, playres can leave.
Yes, agreed. But I'm looking at something a little more specific. Keep in mind this has come up specifically around EQN. It's something I've noticed before, but didn't think it was worth mentioning. Perhaps because it is the type of thing that only comes up before a game releases and the mechanics are actually set.
However, I've noticed that there is a preference among people who support PvP in EQN that there not be any sort of compromise. There should only be a PvP server, not a PvE and PvP server. There should only be OW PvP in the game, there should not be two continents, one with OW PvP and one with PvP flags or just PvE content.
Why is there the attitude that things must be all or nothing with the PvP? Answers like "Risk vs Reward" do not really answer the question. Yes, the people who enjoy PvP like the Risk vs Reward offered by PvP, buy why must it apply to everyone else in the game?
I have seen several answers given, but it doesn't seem like those answers are from the people who are supports of the "always on everywhere" PvP mindset.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm pro PvE.
You PvP'ers keep saying you want it realistic but that isn't so. Look at a wild life video. What do you see? Animals fighting? No. One predator chasing many prey. Realistic PvP would give me a chance to run. I don't see that happening in PvP.