Why are you talking about pvp balance? I'm not saying anything about balancing.
I'm saying games are meticulously made around certain rulesets. The fact that you think "we" will be satisfied by simply TURNING ON pvp, shows how little you understand our position. If what we wanted was to just fight other people, we would be playing non-persistent pvp arena games like Q3, SC2, etc. What we want is an organic, living world that is specifically made to be such. For instance, Darkfall (with all its faults) MUST include pvp. The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists.
To illustrate my point, I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post. If you want to take a game that was built with pvp in mind and turn off pvp and play that game, go ahead. If, in your mind, there's no difference in making pvp or pve games, then you should be happy with that. And it won't be bother me one bit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, really. IF you could make a GOOD game that fits the description of my ideal game (or at least a game I'd enjoy), while at the same time turn that game into a version of it you would enjoy, then by all means give it a try.
There is, however, another thing to consider and that's the problem of human nature. People will often tend to pick the easier option if they're given the choice. So it's very possible that people will gravitate towards the "easier" game, leaving the "harder" game less populated. You can say that's indicative of what people want and you may be right, but it also may be the case that people think they want one thing, but then would get bored with it. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the "easier" games are often the ones that flare up in popularity and then die off.
You act as if the rulesets between a PvE and PvP game are so different so let's make this easy:
Post the ACTUAL rules that are ACTUALLY different in a PvP and PvE game and also show how those same rules couldn't possibly coexist in a PvE and PvP environment. The only one you'll come up with that can't exist in both is.... killing other players. All other rules are 100% separate from PvP/PvE and can work just fine in either system.
That is what I was saying in the other post. I was trying to give a benefit of the doubt that you were indirectly referring to balance because to say that rules that have nothing to do with a player fighting another player would some how magically be different between a PvE or a PvP game is well, ridiculous.
The only example you even try for is:
"The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists."
and there is no actual reason that can't exist in a game that has PvE and PvP servers. The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc. In other words you can just as easily have a territory controlling feature in a game that has PvE and separate PvP servers. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. And since you've eluded to this before, why would you care if the city build/siege system was in fact only on the PvP servers of a game if that feature was 100% supported by the development team?
In a world where companies have unlimited resources, technically they could make a game that has everything that anybody could ever want, and then have different servers for different playstyles. They could have fantasy pvp worlds, they could have the same game except non-pvp and a post apocalyptic setting, they could have one that's entirely underwater, etc.
But in reality if a company spends the resources on game mechanics such as city sieging (which has pvp associated with it), that's resources they're not spending on non-pvp stuff. I don't know what else to tell you other than your understanding of how games are made is wrong... and so wrong that I can't believe you're trying to claim it.
Your response did not contain a single rule outside of killing/attacking/looting other players that couldn't work in both a PvE and PvP system.
And I assure you my knowledge is better than yours so maybe actually try to argue the points instead of trying to essentially call someone else stupid. And you also ignored the lead up to that secondary question which discussed how EASY it is to have a city/land control option work in PvE.
Maybe it's because I'm not your lap dog and I don't have to post several rulesets that are more/less conducive to pvp than others just because you demand that I do. I gave you one, apparently that wasn't enough for you. Another guy gave you another example of a game that wouldn't work as both a pvp and non-pvp game. Apparently that wasn't enough for you either.
Also, I didn't ignore your point about city building/sieging. Here's an exerpt of what you said:
"The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc"
I responded with the fact that companies don't have infinite resources to do everything for everybody and then simply have different servers for the different groups. It's frankly a stupid idea. But I'll explain it for you again:
Making a SEPARATE system of how cities are built/sieged is a totally different game mechanic and isn't as easy to make as you seem to think. The money they spend on developing that COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MECHANIC is money that's taken away from the pvp-oriented mechanic. So essentially what you're asserting is that game developers just have extra money laying around after their game is as good as it can be and should develop alternate version of their game to suit other people. Lol.....
So essentially we've come to this: You can't cite a single, not even 1, rule outside of harmful acts to other players that can't be developed in both a PvP and PvE system. This means all rules CAN be developed in a PvP and PvE system. This means a game can have quality PvP and PvE servers for the same game with all the same rules on both servers with the exception of the PvP server allowing PvP actions.
In other words, there is absolutely no reason a game needs all of their servers to force PvP and it is simply you wishing to force your desired gameplay on everyone else.
Well done you really proved your point LOL. We all now see that there is no reason to simply have separate servers which is why all major companies approach it that way and none of them make a player repelling open world FFA PvP only game.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Again you're misrepresenting people to prove your anemic arguments. It's not PVP v.s. PVE. It's full PVP vs quasi-PVP. JeremyBowyer actually wants PVE.
If you try to make a sandbox with PVP as a meaningful pillar of the game, but you make it quasi-PVP with the ability to opt in and out, that would destroy the economy. Because people could mine resources and take over the sandbox with no risk. And the rewards would be all out of whack. You're so wrong in your argument against him, just give up please.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Again you're misrepresenting people to prove your anemic arguments. It's not PVP v.s. PVE. It's full PVP vs quasi-PVP. JeremyBowyer actually wants PVE.
If you try to make a sandbox with PVP as a meaningful pillar of the game, but you make it quasi-PVP with the ability to opt in and out, that would destroy the economy. Because people could mine resources and take over the sandbox with no risk. And the rewards would be all out of whack. You're so wrong in your argument against him, just give up please.
Original SWG had that "quasi-PvP" you are bemoaning, and yet, it had the most vibrant and varied economy in any MMO so far (and a whole ton of people actually PvPing). All that matters is that there is a mechanism for item loss in the game and it need not be full loot PvP. The decay system in SWG worked just as well or better. So this "FFA full loot PvP or the economy will stink" is just plain wrong, because it has already been proven wrong.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Again you're misrepresenting people to prove your anemic arguments. It's not PVP v.s. PVE. It's full PVP vs quasi-PVP. JeremyBowyer actually wants PVE.
If you try to make a sandbox with PVP as a meaningful pillar of the game, but you make it quasi-PVP with the ability to opt in and out, that would destroy the economy. Because people could mine resources and take over the sandbox with no risk. And the rewards would be all out of whack. You're so wrong in your argument against him, just give up please.
Original SWG had that "quasi-PvP" you are bemoaning, and yet, it had the most vibrant and varied economy in any MMO so far (and a whole ton of people actually PvPing). All that matters is that there is a mechanism for item loss in the game and it need not be full loot PvP. The decay system in SWG worked just as well or better. So this "FFA full loot PvP or the economy will stink" is just plain wrong, because it has already been proven wrong.
Well, with that clarification, I would say, look at that history. They are probably scared their ffa pvp server would become the same ghost town the Zek servers became. They worry that the game would not focus on design for their needs but rather for the 15 servers which were not pvp ffa; as happened with EQ. They want a great game with their play style in mind, a game which would draw enough like-minded individuals to make it viable - a ffa pvp game so great, those of us who shun ffa pvp would convert and become enthralled and mesmerized by a totally new experience more fun than they have had.
Don't get me wrong - I think it is a pipe dream.
They should be. There is simply not enough people who like FFA pvp.
Now players can jump game as easy as they jump server. Either you put an option in a game for people to opt out of pvp. Otherwise, they opt out by playing other games.
It is certainly a pipe dream. This is no more realistic to make a perma-death only game, or text-interface only game.
Which part ? the part we talked to death or the graph you found that could be interpreted however you want ? Like does the graph show EQ's population was skyrocketing at the same time and people are well known for jumping ship to the popular game...oh yeah it kind of does. Does it show a game like DAOC launching and becoming a hugely popular pvp game that many people left uo for...oh well it kind of shows that too
Or does it just show a single line that you've read too much into ?
The last part was entertaining for a while the graph is just silly and not worth anyone's time. So which did you mean ?
People leaving UO for other games after Trammel was implemented does nothing except strengthen my argument. I'm not sure why you're counting those as points for your side. And EQ had penalties upon death. Not quite the same obviously as ffa pvp, but definitely sets up a similar risk/reward kind of atmosphere.
Also in the case of DAoC you can see the sharp decline that I keep talking about. As I've said before, it's not a coincidence that the most stable game on that graph is also the purest sandbox.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Again you're misrepresenting people to prove your anemic arguments. It's not PVP v.s. PVE. It's full PVP vs quasi-PVP. JeremyBowyer actually wants PVE.
If you try to make a sandbox with PVP as a meaningful pillar of the game, but you make it quasi-PVP with the ability to opt in and out, that would destroy the economy. Because people could mine resources and take over the sandbox with no risk. And the rewards would be all out of whack. You're so wrong in your argument against him, just give up please.
Original SWG had that "quasi-PvP" you are bemoaning, and yet, it had the most vibrant and varied economy in any MMO so far (and a whole ton of people actually PvPing). All that matters is that there is a mechanism for item loss in the game and it need not be full loot PvP. The decay system in SWG worked just as well or better. So this "FFA full loot PvP or the economy will stink" is just plain wrong, because it has already been proven wrong.
So why isn't anyone playing SWG? Oh wait....
Because SOE wrecked it when the took out decay, among other things. That does not mean that the player-based economy didn't function extremely well (because it did) and it does not mean you need full loot / loss PvP to make an in-game economy work (because you don't). What ever else SWG was or wasn't, the original version was extremely detailed and functional economic sim, and without full loot PvP. And that more or less kills your argument.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Again you're misrepresenting people to prove your anemic arguments. It's not PVP v.s. PVE. It's full PVP vs quasi-PVP. JeremyBowyer actually wants PVE.
If you try to make a sandbox with PVP as a meaningful pillar of the game, but you make it quasi-PVP with the ability to opt in and out, that would destroy the economy. Because people could mine resources and take over the sandbox with no risk. And the rewards would be all out of whack. You're so wrong in your argument against him, just give up please.
Original SWG had that "quasi-PvP" you are bemoaning, and yet, it had the most vibrant and varied economy in any MMO so far (and a whole ton of people actually PvPing). All that matters is that there is a mechanism for item loss in the game and it need not be full loot PvP. The decay system in SWG worked just as well or better. So this "FFA full loot PvP or the economy will stink" is just plain wrong, because it has already been proven wrong.
Well then pvp wasn't a "meaningful pillar of the game."
He was reponding to a guy saying that games should have pvp servers and pve servers. We tried to tell him that some games are built around pvp and some are built around pve and you can't necessarily make a game that's built around whichever one you want at the time.
I don't think anybody is claiming that a game without pvp can't have a functioning economy.
Why are you talking about pvp balance? I'm not saying anything about balancing.
I'm saying games are meticulously made around certain rulesets. The fact that you think "we" will be satisfied by simply TURNING ON pvp, shows how little you understand our position. If what we wanted was to just fight other people, we would be playing non-persistent pvp arena games like Q3, SC2, etc. What we want is an organic, living world that is specifically made to be such. For instance, Darkfall (with all its faults) MUST include pvp. The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists.
To illustrate my point, I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post. If you want to take a game that was built with pvp in mind and turn off pvp and play that game, go ahead. If, in your mind, there's no difference in making pvp or pve games, then you should be happy with that. And it won't be bother me one bit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, really. IF you could make a GOOD game that fits the description of my ideal game (or at least a game I'd enjoy), while at the same time turn that game into a version of it you would enjoy, then by all means give it a try.
There is, however, another thing to consider and that's the problem of human nature. People will often tend to pick the easier option if they're given the choice. So it's very possible that people will gravitate towards the "easier" game, leaving the "harder" game less populated. You can say that's indicative of what people want and you may be right, but it also may be the case that people think they want one thing, but then would get bored with it. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the "easier" games are often the ones that flare up in popularity and then die off.
You act as if the rulesets between a PvE and PvP game are so different so let's make this easy:
Post the ACTUAL rules that are ACTUALLY different in a PvP and PvE game and also show how those same rules couldn't possibly coexist in a PvE and PvP environment. The only one you'll come up with that can't exist in both is.... killing other players. All other rules are 100% separate from PvP/PvE and can work just fine in either system.
That is what I was saying in the other post. I was trying to give a benefit of the doubt that you were indirectly referring to balance because to say that rules that have nothing to do with a player fighting another player would some how magically be different between a PvE or a PvP game is well, ridiculous.
The only example you even try for is:
"The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists."
and there is no actual reason that can't exist in a game that has PvE and PvP servers. The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc. In other words you can just as easily have a territory controlling feature in a game that has PvE and separate PvP servers. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. And since you've eluded to this before, why would you care if the city build/siege system was in fact only on the PvP servers of a game if that feature was 100% supported by the development team?
In a world where companies have unlimited resources, technically they could make a game that has everything that anybody could ever want, and then have different servers for different playstyles. They could have fantasy pvp worlds, they could have the same game except non-pvp and a post apocalyptic setting, they could have one that's entirely underwater, etc.
But in reality if a company spends the resources on game mechanics such as city sieging (which has pvp associated with it), that's resources they're not spending on non-pvp stuff. I don't know what else to tell you other than your understanding of how games are made is wrong... and so wrong that I can't believe you're trying to claim it.
Your response did not contain a single rule outside of killing/attacking/looting other players that couldn't work in both a PvE and PvP system.
And I assure you my knowledge is better than yours so maybe actually try to argue the points instead of trying to essentially call someone else stupid. And you also ignored the lead up to that secondary question which discussed how EASY it is to have a city/land control option work in PvE.
Maybe it's because I'm not your lap dog and I don't have to post several rulesets that are more/less conducive to pvp than others just because you demand that I do. I gave you one, apparently that wasn't enough for you. Another guy gave you another example of a game that wouldn't work as both a pvp and non-pvp game. Apparently that wasn't enough for you either.
Also, I didn't ignore your point about city building/sieging. Here's an exerpt of what you said:
"The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc"
I responded with the fact that companies don't have infinite resources to do everything for everybody and then simply have different servers for the different groups. It's frankly a stupid idea. But I'll explain it for you again:
Making a SEPARATE system of how cities are built/sieged is a totally different game mechanic and isn't as easy to make as you seem to think. The money they spend on developing that COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MECHANIC is money that's taken away from the pvp-oriented mechanic. So essentially what you're asserting is that game developers just have extra money laying around after their game is as good as it can be and should develop alternate version of their game to suit other people. Lol.....
So essentially we've come to this: You can't cite a single, not even 1, rule outside of harmful acts to other players that can't be developed in both a PvP and PvE system. This means all rules CAN be developed in a PvP and PvE system. This means a game can have quality PvP and PvE servers for the same game with all the same rules on both servers with the exception of the PvP server allowing PvP actions.
In other words, there is absolutely no reason a game needs all of their servers to force PvP and it is simply you wishing to force your desired gameplay on everyone else.
Well done you really proved your point LOL. We all now see that there is no reason to simply have separate servers which is why all major companies approach it that way and none of them make a player repelling open world FFA PvP only game.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Are you delusional? MONEY. Money is the reason. I've already told you this. Why do you say "there is absolutely no reason a game needs all of their servers to force pvp"? I and others have pointed out how this works.... you spend time/money on one thing, you're not spending it on another thing. How do you not understand that?
By the way, some developers will be naturally better at making the pvp aspects and some will be better at making the pve aspects. Remember, a lot of developers are gamers too. So they have their own opinions and visions about how they want their game to turn out. That's why it's better to have DIFFERENT KINDS OF GAMES.
This really isn't hard to understand, you're clearly just too egotistical to admit you're wrong.
You could actually be misreading what I'm saying, but I think you are actually just avoiding it at all costs because it utterly destroys the entire foundation of your argument.
If a company has spent the money on making a land control system, in comparison it takes little time and little money to add a second interface into the feature where PvE aspects can activate the system as well.
What you are, well I can't even call it debating because you aren't debating anything you're randomly saying things, talking about has nothing at all to do with money.
The fact remains, and it is a fact you haven't come even the tiniest bit close to disproving as you can't come up with a single example, is that any rule that doesn't involve harm to other players can be developed equally in either a PvP or PvE setting. This means the exact same game that could be developed a stand alone PvP game could instead be developed as a PvE game with open world FFA PvP servers at little additional cost and resources. The game would be identical yet would reach an audience of likely 10000x or more of the size it would reach if it had launched as only an open world FFA PvP game.
Because of that fact, that fact that all major companies know, you will NOT see a major company release a FFA MMORPG because they'd be putting in all the same work as if they were to release a PvE with a PvP server and bringing in 1% of the revenue.
So if you want to focus on money, since you keep shouting it out with no correlation to anything in the actual discussion, it is because of money that major companies WILL NEVER DO what you want them to do. Because the cost of development is the same, yet the revenue is a tiny fraction of what it could be.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Again you're misrepresenting people to prove your anemic arguments. It's not PVP v.s. PVE. It's full PVP vs quasi-PVP. JeremyBowyer actually wants PVE.
If you try to make a sandbox with PVP as a meaningful pillar of the game, but you make it quasi-PVP with the ability to opt in and out, that would destroy the economy. Because people could mine resources and take over the sandbox with no risk. And the rewards would be all out of whack. You're so wrong in your argument against him, just give up please.
Original SWG had that "quasi-PvP" you are bemoaning, and yet, it had the most vibrant and varied economy in any MMO so far (and a whole ton of people actually PvPing). All that matters is that there is a mechanism for item loss in the game and it need not be full loot PvP. The decay system in SWG worked just as well or better. So this "FFA full loot PvP or the economy will stink" is just plain wrong, because it has already been proven wrong.
Well then pvp wasn't a "meaningful pillar of the game."
He was reponding to a guy saying that games should have pvp servers and pve servers. We tried to tell him that some games are built around pvp and some are built around pve and you can't necessarily make a game that's built around whichever one you want at the time.
I don't think anybody is claiming that a game without pvp can't have a functioning economy.
Honestly, the original game had a lot of pillars. PvE was certainly one, but crafting was also just as big. And so were several other things taken together. And so was PvP. That aside, let me tell you, there was a hell of lot of PvP and PvPers had a place in that game (there were 150 vs 150+ battle most nights on my server, and I was on a small one). But so did everyone else, at that is why it was so different than so many other games that get put out. I think, if anything, game makers build their games mostly around a single pillar (PvE, PvP, what have you...) and that does not have to be the case.
Again you're misrepresenting people to prove your anemic arguments. It's not PVP v.s. PVE. It's full PVP vs quasi-PVP. JeremyBowyer actually wants PVE.
If you try to make a sandbox with PVP as a meaningful pillar of the game, but you make it quasi-PVP with the ability to opt in and out, that would destroy the economy. Because people could mine resources and take over the sandbox with no risk. And the rewards would be all out of whack. You're so wrong in your argument against him, just give up please.
That is incorrect in every possible way.
A server with open world FFA PvP is not quasi pvp so there is mistake one.
My point is that any rule, outside of rules that allow harm to other players, that can exist in a PvP MMORPG can also exist in a PvE MMORPG. That means you can create the full fledged PvP game in the same game that has plenty of quality PvE and then have PvE and PvP servers. That is because all of the other rules are the same, the PvP server simply has the PvP rules in place. That is why companies already do this.
It isn't that PvE is holding back any of the PvP that you imagine is possible. It is simply companies not making the game the way you want. You can go ahead and design this perfect MMORPG PvP game that you think needs to exist and it can 100% be put into a PvE world, work exactly the way you want, and then have PvE servers.
There's no need to give up when I am fundamentally correct on every point and none of the PvP junkies who just rage at anyone who points out the logic as to why no major company makes FFA PvP only MMORPGs have proven any of those points wrong.
Well, with that clarification, I would say, look at that history. They are probably scared their ffa pvp server would become the same ghost town the Zek servers became. They worry that the game would not focus on design for their needs but rather for the 15 servers which were not pvp ffa; as happened with EQ. They want a great game with their play style in mind, a game which would draw enough like-minded individuals to make it viable - a ffa pvp game so great, those of us who shun ffa pvp would convert and become enthralled and mesmerized by a totally new experience more fun than they have had.
Don't get me wrong - I think it is a pipe dream.
They should be. There is simply not enough people who like FFA pvp.
Now players can jump game as easy as they jump server. Either you put an option in a game for people to opt out of pvp. Otherwise, they opt out by playing other games.
It is certainly a pipe dream. This is no more realistic to make a perma-death only game, or text-interface only game.
The few FFA PvPers out there don't realize how absolutely tiny of a market they are. Truly 99% of MMORPG players do not want open world PvP and to make a game that has only open world PvP servers costs just as much as to make a game that has PvE and open world PvP servers. Major companies will always choose the option that can bring in the other 99% of the revenue they need to make a profit.
Which part ? the part we talked to death or the graph you found that could be interpreted however you want ? Like does the graph show EQ's population was skyrocketing at the same time and people are well known for jumping ship to the popular game...oh yeah it kind of does. Does it show a game like DAOC launching and becoming a hugely popular pvp game that many people left uo for...oh well it kind of shows that too
Or does it just show a single line that you've read too much into ?
The last part was entertaining for a while the graph is just silly and not worth anyone's time. So which did you mean ?
People leaving UO for other games after Trammel was implemented does nothing except strengthen my argument. I'm not sure why you're counting those as points for your side. And EQ had penalties upon death. Not quite the same obviously as ffa pvp, but definitely sets up a similar risk/reward kind of atmosphere.
Also in the case of DAoC you can see the sharp decline that I keep talking about. As I've said before, it's not a coincidence that the most stable game on that graph is also the purest sandbox.
Any number on any graph is going to support what you say. All you have to do is interpret it to. You're not talking facts here. Your pointing at a line and saying people did this because... The whole reason I didn't respond to your graph is because it's not factual and doesn't support anything. It's a line on a page that shows numbers. You saying it means something doesn't make it any more a fact. Having someone quote you on here and say ^this doesn't make it fact.
I will however admit it was my mistake to even bring up number on this. I used them as facts as well and that was also a mistake on my part. I can't throw them around to support my point of view and not expect others to do the same. So that is why I moved away from the graph/sub numbers mean anything conversation.
And to end all this. I enjoy a good argument with intelligent people but at some point it drags on too long. This one is at that point for me so I'm going to go play in another puddle. I respect your strong opinions even though I don't agree with them at all. It was an enjoyable day of arguing.
Again you're misrepresenting people to prove your anemic arguments. It's not PVP v.s. PVE. It's full PVP vs quasi-PVP. JeremyBowyer actually wants PVE.
If you try to make a sandbox with PVP as a meaningful pillar of the game, but you make it quasi-PVP with the ability to opt in and out, that would destroy the economy. Because people could mine resources and take over the sandbox with no risk. And the rewards would be all out of whack. You're so wrong in your argument against him, just give up please.
That is incorrect in every possible way.
A server with open world FFA PvP is not quasi pvp so there is mistake one.
My point is that any rule, outside of rules that allow harm to other players, that can exist in a PvP MMORPG can also exist in a PvE MMORPG. That means you can create the full fledged PvP game in the same game that has plenty of quality PvE and then have PvE and PvP servers. That is because all of the other rules are the same, the PvP server simply has the PvP rules in place. That is why companies already do this.
It isn't that PvE is holding back any of the PvP that you imagine is possible. It is simply companies not making the game the way you want. You can go ahead and design this perfect MMORPG PvP game that you think needs to exist and it can 100% be put into a PvE world, work exactly the way you want, and then have PvE servers.
There's no need to give up when I am fundamentally correct on every point and none of the PvP junkies who just rage at anyone who points out the logic as to why no major company makes FFA PvP only MMORPGs have proven any of those points wrong.
You're putting words in my mouth. Starting to wonder if you're actually arguing or just trolling...
Which part ? the part we talked to death or the graph you found that could be interpreted however you want ? Like does the graph show EQ's population was skyrocketing at the same time and people are well known for jumping ship to the popular game...oh yeah it kind of does. Does it show a game like DAOC launching and becoming a hugely popular pvp game that many people left uo for...oh well it kind of shows that too
Or does it just show a single line that you've read too much into ?
The last part was entertaining for a while the graph is just silly and not worth anyone's time. So which did you mean ?
People leaving UO for other games after Trammel was implemented does nothing except strengthen my argument. I'm not sure why you're counting those as points for your side. And EQ had penalties upon death. Not quite the same obviously as ffa pvp, but definitely sets up a similar risk/reward kind of atmosphere.
Also in the case of DAoC you can see the sharp decline that I keep talking about. As I've said before, it's not a coincidence that the most stable game on that graph is also the purest sandbox.
Any number on any graph is going to support what you say. All you have to do is interpret it to. You're not talking facts here. Your pointing at a line and saying people did this because... The whole reason I didn't respond to your graph is because it's not factual and doesn't support anything. It's a line on a page that shows numbers. You saying it means something doesn't make it any more a fact. Having someone quote you on here and say ^this doesn't make it fact.
I will however admit it was my mistake to even bring up number on this. I used them as facts as well and that was also a mistake on my part. I can't throw them around to support my point of view and not expect others to do the same. So that is why I moved away from the graph/sub numbers mean anything conversation.
And to end all this. I enjoy a good argument with intelligent people but at some point it drags on too long. This one is at that point for me so I'm going to go play in another puddle. I respect your strong opinions even though I don't agree with them at all. It was an enjoyable day of arguing.
If you think they mean NOTHING, you're wrong. If anybody thinks they PROVE anything, they're wrong. In reality what they do is support my argument. It happens to fit in perfectly with my views on the subject before I ever saw that graph. You can say that means nothing, I say it means something.
I think new mmos need both a PvE system and PvP system.
What developers needs to do, is beeing able to seperate PvP and PvE both gear and skillwise.
In to many mmos, one or the other gets affected to much. For example one skill beeing imbalanced in raiding which leads to a nerf of that skill, or some class beeing to powerful in PvP, which leads to a nerf of that class.
Im a PvPers myself since DaoC days and cant really see myself play a game without any PvP system.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Again you're misrepresenting people to prove your anemic arguments. It's not PVP v.s. PVE. It's full PVP vs quasi-PVP. JeremyBowyer actually wants PVE.
If you try to make a sandbox with PVP as a meaningful pillar of the game, but you make it quasi-PVP with the ability to opt in and out, that would destroy the economy. Because people could mine resources and take over the sandbox with no risk. And the rewards would be all out of whack. You're so wrong in your argument against him, just give up please.
Original SWG had that "quasi-PvP" you are bemoaning, and yet, it had the most vibrant and varied economy in any MMO so far (and a whole ton of people actually PvPing). All that matters is that there is a mechanism for item loss in the game and it need not be full loot PvP. The decay system in SWG worked just as well or better. So this "FFA full loot PvP or the economy will stink" is just plain wrong, because it has already been proven wrong.
Well then pvp wasn't a "meaningful pillar of the game."
He was reponding to a guy saying that games should have pvp servers and pve servers. We tried to tell him that some games are built around pvp and some are built around pve and you can't necessarily make a game that's built around whichever one you want at the time.
I don't think anybody is claiming that a game without pvp can't have a functioning economy.
Honestly, the original game had a lot of pillars. PvE was certainly one, but crafting was also just as big. And so were several other things taken together. And so was PvP. That aside, let me tell you, there was a hell of lot of PvP and PvPers had a place in that game (there were 150 vs 150+ battle most nights on my server, and I was on a small one). But so did everyone else, at that is why it was so different than so many other games that get put out. I think, if anything, game makers build their games mostly around a single pillar (PvE, PvP, what have you...) and that does not have to be the case.
That all sounds fine. I don't have anything against SWG as far as I know. I didn't play it but from what I hear it sounds like a good, deep game. Probably not exactly my speed but it sounds a lot better than typical mmo's today.
Yes, I do. I need a PvP focused sandbox. I could give a **** what other peoples "needs" are, as I'm sure they don't care what I need, but I need one none the less.
I think a lot of you that have the thirst for a more PvE based game, should give a gander at Shroud of the Avatar, Garriott's most recent endeavor, in which he's brought back Blackthorne (UO producer) and a few others from the Ultima era, and together they are attempting to make a very polished mmoRPG, and emphasis on the RPG part of that.
Though his most recent projects haven't been great, he seems to be doing what he does best in the scheme of player immersion as well as Team/Group play. I've been following it fairly closely, and have been impressed what they've come up with so far.
Specifically surprising, is the communication between the player and the NPC's. No more multiple guess scenarios, but conversations dependent upon what the player chats to the NPC, the dialog changes accordingly.
It also seems to take a good look at sandbox style crafting systems, bringing me to mind old school Horizons, with buildable crafting stations and resource gathering.
So carebears, be patient, SotA is coming. They are only a few months into development, but what he's come up with so far, and so quickly, impresses the hell out of me. Take a gander at: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/389524/page/1 for the vid and some more info/chat on it.
Willbonney, a.k.a. William H Bonney, a.k.a. William Antrem, a.k.a. Billy the Kid "I'll make ya' famous." "Best dollar 'n eighty I ever spent."
Why are you talking about pvp balance? I'm not saying anything about balancing.
I'm saying games are meticulously made around certain rulesets. The fact that you think "we" will be satisfied by simply TURNING ON pvp, shows how little you understand our position. If what we wanted was to just fight other people, we would be playing non-persistent pvp arena games like Q3, SC2, etc. What we want is an organic, living world that is specifically made to be such. For instance, Darkfall (with all its faults) MUST include pvp. The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists.
To illustrate my point, I'll reiterate what I said in my previous post. If you want to take a game that was built with pvp in mind and turn off pvp and play that game, go ahead. If, in your mind, there's no difference in making pvp or pve games, then you should be happy with that. And it won't be bother me one bit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, really. IF you could make a GOOD game that fits the description of my ideal game (or at least a game I'd enjoy), while at the same time turn that game into a version of it you would enjoy, then by all means give it a try.
There is, however, another thing to consider and that's the problem of human nature. People will often tend to pick the easier option if they're given the choice. So it's very possible that people will gravitate towards the "easier" game, leaving the "harder" game less populated. You can say that's indicative of what people want and you may be right, but it also may be the case that people think they want one thing, but then would get bored with it. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the "easier" games are often the ones that flare up in popularity and then die off.
You act as if the rulesets between a PvE and PvP game are so different so let's make this easy:
Post the ACTUAL rules that are ACTUALLY different in a PvP and PvE game and also show how those same rules couldn't possibly coexist in a PvE and PvP environment. The only one you'll come up with that can't exist in both is.... killing other players. All other rules are 100% separate from PvP/PvE and can work just fine in either system.
That is what I was saying in the other post. I was trying to give a benefit of the doubt that you were indirectly referring to balance because to say that rules that have nothing to do with a player fighting another player would some how magically be different between a PvE or a PvP game is well, ridiculous.
The only example you even try for is:
"The entire game is about clans building/sieging cities for territory control so they can lock down mob/harvesting spots to gain materials needed to outfit their clan and increase their dominance. There is no game without the idea that pvp exists."
and there is no actual reason that can't exist in a game that has PvE and PvP servers. The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc. In other words you can just as easily have a territory controlling feature in a game that has PvE and separate PvP servers. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. And since you've eluded to this before, why would you care if the city build/siege system was in fact only on the PvP servers of a game if that feature was 100% supported by the development team?
In a world where companies have unlimited resources, technically they could make a game that has everything that anybody could ever want, and then have different servers for different playstyles. They could have fantasy pvp worlds, they could have the same game except non-pvp and a post apocalyptic setting, they could have one that's entirely underwater, etc.
But in reality if a company spends the resources on game mechanics such as city sieging (which has pvp associated with it), that's resources they're not spending on non-pvp stuff. I don't know what else to tell you other than your understanding of how games are made is wrong... and so wrong that I can't believe you're trying to claim it.
Your response did not contain a single rule outside of killing/attacking/looting other players that couldn't work in both a PvE and PvP system.
And I assure you my knowledge is better than yours so maybe actually try to argue the points instead of trying to essentially call someone else stupid. And you also ignored the lead up to that secondary question which discussed how EASY it is to have a city/land control option work in PvE.
Maybe it's because I'm not your lap dog and I don't have to post several rulesets that are more/less conducive to pvp than others just because you demand that I do. I gave you one, apparently that wasn't enough for you. Another guy gave you another example of a game that wouldn't work as both a pvp and non-pvp game. Apparently that wasn't enough for you either.
Also, I didn't ignore your point about city building/sieging. Here's an exerpt of what you said:
"The game can either only turn the system on for the PvP worlds or they can have the system on both worlds, but have the way the cities are built/sieged/etc. on the PvE worlds done through a separate means such as which faction completes the most quests/gathers the most materials etc"
I responded with the fact that companies don't have infinite resources to do everything for everybody and then simply have different servers for the different groups. It's frankly a stupid idea. But I'll explain it for you again:
Making a SEPARATE system of how cities are built/sieged is a totally different game mechanic and isn't as easy to make as you seem to think. The money they spend on developing that COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MECHANIC is money that's taken away from the pvp-oriented mechanic. So essentially what you're asserting is that game developers just have extra money laying around after their game is as good as it can be and should develop alternate version of their game to suit other people. Lol.....
So essentially we've come to this: You can't cite a single, not even 1, rule outside of harmful acts to other players that can't be developed in both a PvP and PvE system. This means all rules CAN be developed in a PvP and PvE system. This means a game can have quality PvP and PvE servers for the same game with all the same rules on both servers with the exception of the PvP server allowing PvP actions.
In other words, there is absolutely no reason a game needs all of their servers to force PvP and it is simply you wishing to force your desired gameplay on everyone else.
Well done you really proved your point LOL. We all now see that there is no reason to simply have separate servers which is why all major companies approach it that way and none of them make a player repelling open world FFA PvP only game.
Adding in a server flaggable option on in quests/tasks/collections are completed for NPCs to switch the control of land vs having the players attack siege and control is actually very little in the way of extra resources but I know you have absolutely no clue about game development. The land control system is the big time sink, the tie in is much quicker and easier to implement.
Are you delusional? MONEY. Money is the reason. I've already told you this. Why do you say "there is absolutely no reason a game needs all of their servers to force pvp"? I and others have pointed out how this works.... you spend time/money on one thing, you're not spending it on another thing. How do you not understand that?
By the way, some developers will be naturally better at making the pvp aspects and some will be better at making the pve aspects. Remember, a lot of developers are gamers too. So they have their own opinions and visions about how they want their game to turn out. That's why it's better to have DIFFERENT KINDS OF GAMES.
This really isn't hard to understand, you're clearly just too egotistical to admit you're wrong.
You could actually be misreading what I'm saying, but I think you are actually just avoiding it at all costs because it utterly destroys the entire foundation of your argument.
If a company has spent the money on making a land control system, in comparison it takes little time and little money to add a second interface into the feature where PvE aspects can activate the system as well.
The fact is you have no idea how much anything costs when developing a game. It's also the upkeep of the game. What are they going to put effort into? All I'm claiming is that if you spend money on one thing, you're not spending it on another. So a game that has to develop parallel systems has more work to do than just developing one.
What you are, well I can't even call it debating because you aren't debating anything you're randomly saying things, talking about has nothing at all to do with money.
What? You know you pay people to come up with ideas and you pay people to program those ides into your game? And you pay people to fix things as needed?
The fact remains, and it is a fact you haven't come even the tiniest bit close to disproving as you can't come up with a single example, is that any rule that doesn't involve harm to other players can be developed equally in either a PvP or PvE setting. This means the exact same game that could be developed a stand alone PvP game could instead be developed as a PvE game with open world FFA PvP servers at little additional cost and resources. The game would be identical yet would reach an audience of likely 10000x or more of the size it would reach if it had launched as only an open world FFA PvP game.
Whoa whoa whoa. First of all, why does it have to be a rule that doesn't involve harming another player? We're talking about pvp games here. Why would you be asking about rulesets that don't involve harming people?
Also, what about the examples we've given you? In Darkfall Unholy Wars the vast majority of the "content" is city building, raiding and sieging. Literally none of those things can be done without pvp. You mention some vague crap about using a quest system to exchange cities or whatever? There are no quests in the game! They'd have to develop quests, and develop a coherent system that would tie into how city sieging and raiding currently works. Also, city raiding just straight up NOT EXIST AT ALL because it's literally just going into somebody's city and KILLING THEM. That's a mechanic that cannot exist without pvp. So please tell me how DFUW is supposed to work if you turn off pvp?
Because of that fact, that fact that all major companies know, you will NOT see a major company release a FFA MMORPG because they'd be putting in all the same work as if they were to release a PvE with a PvP server and bringing in 1% of the revenue.
No, they won't do it not because it's a bad idea, but because themepark cash cows are a BETTER and SAFER idea. That's how large game developers currently work. They see the success of WoW and know that they will be able to make a knock off with a couple special additions and make a quick buck. Sandbox games are much trickier because the games are more complex and it's a lot hard to create a world where people create the content than it is to just pay some people to write quests for you.
So if you want to focus on money, since you keep shouting it out with no correlation to anything in the actual discussion, it is because of money that major companies WILL NEVER DO what you want them to do. Because the cost of development is the same, yet the revenue is a tiny fraction of what it could be.
How exactly are you claiming such a stupid thing? Please tell me how you get employees to do things for you for free? Obviously it's not economically viable otherwise people would be doing it. Right? Seriously, if you think it doesn't cost extra money, why don't they do it?
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by JeremyBowyerThis is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
There are a few problems here. One is that the "general idea" behind sandboxes isn't removing restrictions. It's a bit more complex than that. SWG had PvP restrictions and UO Trammel had PvP restrictions, yet they are both considered sandboxes. You've arbitrarily decided that the PvP player's "rights" are more important than the PvE player's "rights". The decision about whether players can flag or not is made by the developer, depending on the audience they want to attract to their game among other things. You're making it seem as if there is some sort of ideal that must be aspired to, and in order to get there all players must participate in PvP in a sandbox game. This isn't true. In talking about artificial restrictions, video games are just layers of artificial restrictions anyway. Restrictions and permissions are made to make game play. For instance, anyone hit by a two pound sledge hammer in the head is not going to stand back up. It certainly isn't going to require several hits to take them down. Yet most games allow this sort of thing for the sake of game play. The decisions made about PvP and PvE fall into the same category. Some things are allowed and some things aren't to make way for game play.
I know it's more complex than just removing restrictions, that's why I said the "general idea." And that's true. Sandbox elements are elements that tend to have less boundaries and invisible walls than other games.
As for your points about SWG and post-trammel UO, yes they are sandboxes compared to games that are less sandboxy. There are no true sandbox games, only a sliding scale from themepark to sandbox. UO was a sandbox, but the addition of Trammel made it LESS of a sandbox.
I'm not arbitrarily saying anything about what game developer's can or can't do. If game developers want to make a game that is less sandboxy, they can do that. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. But when it comes to what features are more sandbox than others, that's not arbitrary. If the goal is to make a sandbox, as a general rule you want to be eliminating invisible walls, not putting them up. That doesn't mean it's impossible to have a game that has sandbox elements without pvp, but it does mean that ffa pvp is a sandbox element.
And please, you can spare me the "games all have artificial restrictions" speech. I know this. That doesn't change any of my points.
How did the addition of Trammel make UO less of a sandbox, since the first FFA PvP world still existed? The PvP rules weren't thrown out, a new world was added with a different set of rules.
When a person brings forward a feature, saying it's a defining feature of something, with nothing to support it other than their point of view, it's arbitrary. If PvP were a defining feature of sandboxes, then WoW's, Rift's or SWToR's PvP servers would have some noticeable sandbox nature to them. They do not. I will award you a cookie if you say they do though, in order to support your point of view. If the PvP was removed from Eve, the game would not become more theme park. It would certainly become more boring, but it wouldn't become more of a theme park game.
If PvP were a defining feature of sandboxes, removing the PvP from Minecraft or not allowing combat and PvP mods in Garry's Mod would remove a significant sandbox element from Minecraft and Garry's Mod. Yet this doesn't happen. Minecraft's creative servers are sandbox experiences, one and all.
Single player sandbox games could not exist if PvP were a defining sandbox feature. Single player sandbox games exist.
A Tale In The Desert is a sandbox game. A small sandbox game, but a sandbox game none the less. It doesn't even have combat. Adding PvP would not increase the sandbox nature of ATitD because the overall goals of the game would not change.
Combat and PvP are features, but they are not sandbox or theme park features. They are game features. Combat and PvP can be added and removed from games without changing the sandbox or theme park nature of the games. Combat and PvP aren't even part of the spectrum between sandbox and theme park games. If that were true, then removing PvP from Eve would make it more of a theme park game, and that's not the case.
I'm not trying to change your points, I'm just highlighting the flaws in your reasoning.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Its laughable to point to a game of said genre and say why don't you play it? Will you play horrible PvE themepark games just because you like themepark games? Obviously with the amount of PvE themepark games out you never need a new one or one with any quality right?
Counter Vermillion intelligently and claim victory and if no one can I say he won the thread.
Comments
Again you're misrepresenting people to prove your anemic arguments. It's not PVP v.s. PVE. It's full PVP vs quasi-PVP. JeremyBowyer actually wants PVE.
If you try to make a sandbox with PVP as a meaningful pillar of the game, but you make it quasi-PVP with the ability to opt in and out, that would destroy the economy. Because people could mine resources and take over the sandbox with no risk. And the rewards would be all out of whack. You're so wrong in your argument against him, just give up please.
Original SWG had that "quasi-PvP" you are bemoaning, and yet, it had the most vibrant and varied economy in any MMO so far (and a whole ton of people actually PvPing). All that matters is that there is a mechanism for item loss in the game and it need not be full loot PvP. The decay system in SWG worked just as well or better. So this "FFA full loot PvP or the economy will stink" is just plain wrong, because it has already been proven wrong.
So why isn't anyone playing SWG? Oh wait....
They should be. There is simply not enough people who like FFA pvp.
Now players can jump game as easy as they jump server. Either you put an option in a game for people to opt out of pvp. Otherwise, they opt out by playing other games.
It is certainly a pipe dream. This is no more realistic to make a perma-death only game, or text-interface only game.
People leaving UO for other games after Trammel was implemented does nothing except strengthen my argument. I'm not sure why you're counting those as points for your side. And EQ had penalties upon death. Not quite the same obviously as ffa pvp, but definitely sets up a similar risk/reward kind of atmosphere.
Also in the case of DAoC you can see the sharp decline that I keep talking about. As I've said before, it's not a coincidence that the most stable game on that graph is also the purest sandbox.
Because SOE wrecked it when the took out decay, among other things. That does not mean that the player-based economy didn't function extremely well (because it did) and it does not mean you need full loot / loss PvP to make an in-game economy work (because you don't). What ever else SWG was or wasn't, the original version was extremely detailed and functional economic sim, and without full loot PvP. And that more or less kills your argument.
And i hope it has consensual pvp. If not, no biggie .. there are tons of other games i can play.
Well then pvp wasn't a "meaningful pillar of the game."
He was reponding to a guy saying that games should have pvp servers and pve servers. We tried to tell him that some games are built around pvp and some are built around pve and you can't necessarily make a game that's built around whichever one you want at the time.
I don't think anybody is claiming that a game without pvp can't have a functioning economy.
You could actually be misreading what I'm saying, but I think you are actually just avoiding it at all costs because it utterly destroys the entire foundation of your argument.
If a company has spent the money on making a land control system, in comparison it takes little time and little money to add a second interface into the feature where PvE aspects can activate the system as well.
What you are, well I can't even call it debating because you aren't debating anything you're randomly saying things, talking about has nothing at all to do with money.
The fact remains, and it is a fact you haven't come even the tiniest bit close to disproving as you can't come up with a single example, is that any rule that doesn't involve harm to other players can be developed equally in either a PvP or PvE setting. This means the exact same game that could be developed a stand alone PvP game could instead be developed as a PvE game with open world FFA PvP servers at little additional cost and resources. The game would be identical yet would reach an audience of likely 10000x or more of the size it would reach if it had launched as only an open world FFA PvP game.
Because of that fact, that fact that all major companies know, you will NOT see a major company release a FFA MMORPG because they'd be putting in all the same work as if they were to release a PvE with a PvP server and bringing in 1% of the revenue.
So if you want to focus on money, since you keep shouting it out with no correlation to anything in the actual discussion, it is because of money that major companies WILL NEVER DO what you want them to do. Because the cost of development is the same, yet the revenue is a tiny fraction of what it could be.
Honestly, the original game had a lot of pillars. PvE was certainly one, but crafting was also just as big. And so were several other things taken together. And so was PvP. That aside, let me tell you, there was a hell of lot of PvP and PvPers had a place in that game (there were 150 vs 150+ battle most nights on my server, and I was on a small one). But so did everyone else, at that is why it was so different than so many other games that get put out. I think, if anything, game makers build their games mostly around a single pillar (PvE, PvP, what have you...) and that does not have to be the case.
That is incorrect in every possible way.
A server with open world FFA PvP is not quasi pvp so there is mistake one.
My point is that any rule, outside of rules that allow harm to other players, that can exist in a PvP MMORPG can also exist in a PvE MMORPG. That means you can create the full fledged PvP game in the same game that has plenty of quality PvE and then have PvE and PvP servers. That is because all of the other rules are the same, the PvP server simply has the PvP rules in place. That is why companies already do this.
It isn't that PvE is holding back any of the PvP that you imagine is possible. It is simply companies not making the game the way you want. You can go ahead and design this perfect MMORPG PvP game that you think needs to exist and it can 100% be put into a PvE world, work exactly the way you want, and then have PvE servers.
There's no need to give up when I am fundamentally correct on every point and none of the PvP junkies who just rage at anyone who points out the logic as to why no major company makes FFA PvP only MMORPGs have proven any of those points wrong.
The few FFA PvPers out there don't realize how absolutely tiny of a market they are. Truly 99% of MMORPG players do not want open world PvP and to make a game that has only open world PvP servers costs just as much as to make a game that has PvE and open world PvP servers. Major companies will always choose the option that can bring in the other 99% of the revenue they need to make a profit.
Any number on any graph is going to support what you say. All you have to do is interpret it to. You're not talking facts here. Your pointing at a line and saying people did this because... The whole reason I didn't respond to your graph is because it's not factual and doesn't support anything. It's a line on a page that shows numbers. You saying it means something doesn't make it any more a fact. Having someone quote you on here and say ^this doesn't make it fact.
I will however admit it was my mistake to even bring up number on this. I used them as facts as well and that was also a mistake on my part. I can't throw them around to support my point of view and not expect others to do the same. So that is why I moved away from the graph/sub numbers mean anything conversation.
And to end all this. I enjoy a good argument with intelligent people but at some point it drags on too long. This one is at that point for me so I'm going to go play in another puddle. I respect your strong opinions even though I don't agree with them at all. It was an enjoyable day of arguing.
You're putting words in my mouth. Starting to wonder if you're actually arguing or just trolling...
If you think they mean NOTHING, you're wrong. If anybody thinks they PROVE anything, they're wrong. In reality what they do is support my argument. It happens to fit in perfectly with my views on the subject before I ever saw that graph. You can say that means nothing, I say it means something.
I think new mmos need both a PvE system and PvP system.
What developers needs to do, is beeing able to seperate PvP and PvE both gear and skillwise.
In to many mmos, one or the other gets affected to much. For example one skill beeing imbalanced in raiding which leads to a nerf of that skill, or some class beeing to powerful in PvP, which leads to a nerf of that class.
Im a PvPers myself since DaoC days and cant really see myself play a game without any PvP system.
That all sounds fine. I don't have anything against SWG as far as I know. I didn't play it but from what I hear it sounds like a good, deep game. Probably not exactly my speed but it sounds a lot better than typical mmo's today.
I think a lot of you that have the thirst for a more PvE based game, should give a gander at Shroud of the Avatar, Garriott's most recent endeavor, in which he's brought back Blackthorne (UO producer) and a few others from the Ultima era, and together they are attempting to make a very polished mmoRPG, and emphasis on the RPG part of that.
Though his most recent projects haven't been great, he seems to be doing what he does best in the scheme of player immersion as well as Team/Group play. I've been following it fairly closely, and have been impressed what they've come up with so far.
Specifically surprising, is the communication between the player and the NPC's. No more multiple guess scenarios, but conversations dependent upon what the player chats to the NPC, the dialog changes accordingly.
It also seems to take a good look at sandbox style crafting systems, bringing me to mind old school Horizons, with buildable crafting stations and resource gathering.
So carebears, be patient, SotA is coming. They are only a few months into development, but what he's come up with so far, and so quickly, impresses the hell out of me. Take a gander at: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/389524/page/1 for the vid and some more info/chat on it.
Willbonney, a.k.a. William H Bonney, a.k.a. William Antrem, a.k.a. Billy the Kid
"I'll make ya' famous."
"Best dollar 'n eighty I ever spent."
The fact is you have no idea how much anything costs when developing a game. It's also the upkeep of the game. What are they going to put effort into? All I'm claiming is that if you spend money on one thing, you're not spending it on another. So a game that has to develop parallel systems has more work to do than just developing one.
What? You know you pay people to come up with ideas and you pay people to program those ides into your game? And you pay people to fix things as needed?
Whoa whoa whoa. First of all, why does it have to be a rule that doesn't involve harming another player? We're talking about pvp games here. Why would you be asking about rulesets that don't involve harming people?
Also, what about the examples we've given you? In Darkfall Unholy Wars the vast majority of the "content" is city building, raiding and sieging. Literally none of those things can be done without pvp. You mention some vague crap about using a quest system to exchange cities or whatever? There are no quests in the game! They'd have to develop quests, and develop a coherent system that would tie into how city sieging and raiding currently works. Also, city raiding just straight up NOT EXIST AT ALL because it's literally just going into somebody's city and KILLING THEM. That's a mechanic that cannot exist without pvp. So please tell me how DFUW is supposed to work if you turn off pvp?
No, they won't do it not because it's a bad idea, but because themepark cash cows are a BETTER and SAFER idea. That's how large game developers currently work. They see the success of WoW and know that they will be able to make a knock off with a couple special additions and make a quick buck. Sandbox games are much trickier because the games are more complex and it's a lot hard to create a world where people create the content than it is to just pay some people to write quests for you.
How exactly are you claiming such a stupid thing? Please tell me how you get employees to do things for you for free? Obviously it's not economically viable otherwise people would be doing it. Right? Seriously, if you think it doesn't cost extra money, why don't they do it?
I know it's more complex than just removing restrictions, that's why I said the "general idea." And that's true. Sandbox elements are elements that tend to have less boundaries and invisible walls than other games.
As for your points about SWG and post-trammel UO, yes they are sandboxes compared to games that are less sandboxy. There are no true sandbox games, only a sliding scale from themepark to sandbox. UO was a sandbox, but the addition of Trammel made it LESS of a sandbox.
I'm not arbitrarily saying anything about what game developer's can or can't do. If game developers want to make a game that is less sandboxy, they can do that. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. But when it comes to what features are more sandbox than others, that's not arbitrary. If the goal is to make a sandbox, as a general rule you want to be eliminating invisible walls, not putting them up. That doesn't mean it's impossible to have a game that has sandbox elements without pvp, but it does mean that ffa pvp is a sandbox element.
And please, you can spare me the "games all have artificial restrictions" speech. I know this. That doesn't change any of my points.
How did the addition of Trammel make UO less of a sandbox, since the first FFA PvP world still existed? The PvP rules weren't thrown out, a new world was added with a different set of rules.
When a person brings forward a feature, saying it's a defining feature of something, with nothing to support it other than their point of view, it's arbitrary. If PvP were a defining feature of sandboxes, then WoW's, Rift's or SWToR's PvP servers would have some noticeable sandbox nature to them. They do not. I will award you a cookie if you say they do though, in order to support your point of view. If the PvP was removed from Eve, the game would not become more theme park. It would certainly become more boring, but it wouldn't become more of a theme park game.
If PvP were a defining feature of sandboxes, removing the PvP from Minecraft or not allowing combat and PvP mods in Garry's Mod would remove a significant sandbox element from Minecraft and Garry's Mod. Yet this doesn't happen. Minecraft's creative servers are sandbox experiences, one and all.
Single player sandbox games could not exist if PvP were a defining sandbox feature. Single player sandbox games exist.
A Tale In The Desert is a sandbox game. A small sandbox game, but a sandbox game none the less. It doesn't even have combat. Adding PvP would not increase the sandbox nature of ATitD because the overall goals of the game would not change.
Combat and PvP are features, but they are not sandbox or theme park features. They are game features. Combat and PvP can be added and removed from games without changing the sandbox or theme park nature of the games. Combat and PvP aren't even part of the spectrum between sandbox and theme park games. If that were true, then removing PvP from Eve would make it more of a theme park game, and that's not the case.
I'm not trying to change your points, I'm just highlighting the flaws in your reasoning.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Jeremy... some folks here are trolling. Don't take the bait.
I.... can't.... help it. Too...... stubborn.....
Counter Vermillion intelligently and claim victory and if no one can I say he won the thread.
Life IS Feudal