We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.
Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
You need more PvP games like EVE or DF?
Wait why aren't you playing DF or EVE then? Why do you need a third one?
Because DF is not very good (read: bad) and EVE is a 10 year old sci fi MMO with combat that is also quite slow, clunky and not what most gamers are looking for?
Fact is most games are PVE games (read: like 99%) and very few are PVP focused. Even ArcheAge is becoming more of a carebear shit game these days.
Except my point is that people get excited by the prospect of being able to farm in peace but eventually get bored because it makes the game more shallow and boring. So the fact that there was an increase with Trammel and then stagnant growth and then a sharp decline makes perfect sense.
Except my point is that people get excited by the prospect of being able to farm in peace but eventually get bored because it makes the game more shallow and boring. So the fact that there was an increase with Trammel and then stagnant growth and then a sharp decline makes perfect sense.
Sure wow players want some pvp ... in instances, and not open world. It is quite clear.
WoW is considered a statistical anomaly and even that has come down quite a bit from its glory days. Aside from WoW basically every other AAA themepark explodes in popularity and then quickly dies.
I'm not sure I get your point about diablo. It's not an mmo.
Except my point is that people get excited by the prospect of being able to farm in peace but eventually get bored because it makes the game more shallow and boring. So the fact that there was an increase with Trammel and then stagnant growth and then a sharp decline makes perfect sense.
Sure wow players want some pvp ... in instances, and not open world. It is quite clear.
WoW is considered a statistical anomaly and even that has come down quite a bit from its glory days. Aside from WoW basically every other AAA themepark explodes in popularity and then quickly dies. I'm not sure I get your point about diablo. It's not an mmo.
The point is about farming.
In D3, WOW, as well as many MMO, the main gameplay is farming .. in peace. If farming pve is boring, why would so many people spend so much time on it?
The conclusion is that it is not boring for many people.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
Except my point is that people get excited by the prospect of being able to farm in peace but eventually get bored because it makes the game more shallow and boring. So the fact that there was an increase with Trammel and then stagnant growth and then a sharp decline makes perfect sense.
Sure wow players want some pvp ... in instances, and not open world. It is quite clear.
WoW is considered a statistical anomaly and even that has come down quite a bit from its glory days. Aside from WoW basically every other AAA themepark explodes in popularity and then quickly dies. I'm not sure I get your point about diablo. It's not an mmo.
The point is about farming.
In D3, WOW, as well as many MMO, the main gameplay is farming .. in peace. If farming pve is boring, why would so many people spend so much time on it?
The conclusion is that it is not boring for many people.
Because the lack of gameplay is made up for with more "carrot on a stick" content. Why do you think there are so many expansions and why those expansions always have a level cap increase, additional dungeons, etc?
It's not the farming that the masses enjoy, in fact most people consider it to soul crushingly dull and tedious. But they want to get to the "end game content" so they grind it out.
Wow is basically just an ongoing coop game, not an organic, living world.
Because the lack of gameplay is made up for with more "carrot on a stick" content. Why do you think there are so many expansions and why those expansions always have a level cap increase, additional dungeons, etc? It's not the farming that the masses enjoy, in fact most people consider it to soul crushingly dull and tedious. But they want to get to the "end game content" so they grind it out. Wow is basically just an ongoing coop game, not an organic, living world.
I doubt you have any evidence of that.
Fact is that games based on farming is immensely popular. I doubt most people will spend hundred of hours on "soul crushingly dull and tedious" games.
We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.
Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
Yes, DF is a great example.... of how to never design a game if you want to be successful. DF shows exactly how limited the open world always vulnerable PvP style makes players avoid your game like the plague. No company on Earth is going to look at them and their numbers and say "Man we need to tap that market!".
Because the lack of gameplay is made up for with more "carrot on a stick" content. Why do you think there are so many expansions and why those expansions always have a level cap increase, additional dungeons, etc? It's not the farming that the masses enjoy, in fact most people consider it to soul crushingly dull and tedious. But they want to get to the "end game content" so they grind it out. Wow is basically just an ongoing coop game, not an organic, living world.
I doubt you have any evidence of that.
Fact is that games based on farming is immensely popular. I doubt most people will spend hundred of hours on "soul crushingly dull and tedious" games.
You can doubt it all you want, but I've explained why it makes sense. WoW is very much about trudging through boring gameplay because of a promise of some shiny toy at the end.
Originally posted by Adalwulff Funny, I was just reading that thread.We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
Yes, DF is a great example.... of how to never design a game if you want to be successful. DF shows exactly how limited the open world always vulnerable PvP style makes players avoid your game like the plague. No company on Earth is going to look at them and their numbers and say "Man we need to tap that market!".
That's due to a lot of different factors, not related to the ffa pvp aspect. There are a lot of people who would try the game but dont because of things like missing content, bad ui, etc.
Because the lack of gameplay is made up for with more "carrot on a stick" content. Why do you think there are so many expansions and why those expansions always have a level cap increase, additional dungeons, etc? It's not the farming that the masses enjoy, in fact most people consider it to soul crushingly dull and tedious. But they want to get to the "end game content" so they grind it out. Wow is basically just an ongoing coop game, not an organic, living world.
I doubt you have any evidence of that.
Fact is that games based on farming is immensely popular. I doubt most people will spend hundred of hours on "soul crushingly dull and tedious" games.
If they have friends in the game, a love of the lore or nothing better to play they will spend years playing the same soul crushing game. The best sandbox with the best gameplay imaginable will have massive retention issues if the whole "get your friend hooked too" angle doesn't get some love. A fair game will get people to play it, a deep game with many choices will keep them in it. Challenge is part of the depth of a game and it is the main reason why WoW is now taking a flaming nose dive in subs as its main draw was the challenge of the game, choices weren't really built into it to be honest.
We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.
Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
Yes, DF is a great example.... of how to never design a game if you want to be successful. DF shows exactly how limited the open world always vulnerable PvP style makes players avoid your game like the plague. No company on Earth is going to look at them and their numbers and say "Man we need to tap that market!".
That's due to a lot of different factors, not related to the ffa pvp aspect. There are a lot of people who would try the game but dont because of things like missing content, bad ui, etc.
No. FFA PvPers try to explain it off like that, but the simple and impossible to ignore truth is that the vast majority of gamers don't want to deal with FFA PvP. Companies fully understand this as well. That is why all big companies will at most give players a separate server where those who want to massacre each other can go while the rest play on all of their much more populated servers.
No one seems to have figured out why Trammel was "successful" briefly before the decline of UO. It's because the devs gave the economy a major artificial boost in the form of another EMPTY continent to build on. In other words, the sandbox was running low on "sand" and when it got more people came rushing to play with it. Unfortunately Trammel was also the five point palm exploding heart technique for UO. Ironically PVP and the ability to destroy houses and conquer territory could have fixed this.
Yes, DF is a great example.... of how to never design a game if you want to be successful. DF shows exactly how limited the open world always vulnerable PvP style makes players avoid your game like the plague. No company on Earth is going to look at them and their numbers and say "Man we need to tap that market!".
That's due to a lot of different factors, not related to the ffa pvp aspect. There are a lot of people who would try the game but dont because of things like missing content, bad ui, etc.
How would the new player even know about the missing content and/or bad UI? Hype is very effective into getting respective players into the games they wish to play.
I doubt any FFA PvP oriented players scoff at a potentially good PvP game because they heard or read about a bad UI or missing content.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Originally posted by Adalwulff Funny, I was just reading that thread.We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
Yes, DF is a great example.... of how to never design a game if you want to be successful. DF shows exactly how limited the open world always vulnerable PvP style makes players avoid your game like the plague. No company on Earth is going to look at them and their numbers and say "Man we need to tap that market!".
That's due to a lot of different factors, not related to the ffa pvp aspect. There are a lot of people who would try the game but dont because of things like missing content, bad ui, etc.
No. FFA PvPers try to explain it off like that, but the simple and impossible to ignore truth is that the vast majority of gamers don't want to deal with FFA PvP. Companies fully understand this as well. That is why all big companies will at most give players a separate server where those who want to massacre each other can go while the rest play on all of their much more populated servers.
I didnt say a ffa pvp sandbox would have the same amount of people that the most carebear themepark would have. I said thays not why df1 failed and why dfuw may fail as well. If AV did things perfectly, the game would prosper and survive indrfintely. In other words, its not related to the ffa pvp aspect. Will it deter some people from playing? Of course, people like different games, but using AV's failure as an argument against ffa pvp games is inaccurate at best.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Yes, DF is a great example.... of how to never design a game if you want to be successful. DF shows exactly how limited the open world always vulnerable PvP style makes players avoid your game like the plague. No company on Earth is going to look at them and their numbers and say "Man we need to tap that market!".
That's due to a lot of different factors, not related to the ffa pvp aspect. There are a lot of people who would try the game but dont because of things like missing content, bad ui, etc.
How would the new player even know about the missing content and/or bad UI? Hype is very effective into getting respective players into the games they wish to play.
I doubt any FFA PvP oriented players scoff at a potentially good PvP game because they heard or read about a bad UI or missing content.
Well youre wrong. You answered your own question. Hype is very important. The darkfall community = anti-hype.
One thing is sure, this thread mirrors the attitude of defenders of FFA PvP in any other similar thread.
The PvE+PvP players are willing to share the game with the FFA PvP players, through various means like separate servers with different rulesets, so that everybody can enjoy his play style in peace, for the greater good of the whole game since more players means more money means more content and higher quality.
The FFA PvP players want to impose their play style on everybody playing the game, the main reason most likely being that they are afraid not to find enough "victims", but they don't understand that forcing people do to what they don't want to doesn't work in today's MMO market, with so many game choices, and games which try fail or remain tiny niches with exactly the same problem... not enough players.
If people can't even agree to share a video game world so everybody can have fun, it's no wonder our world is in such bad shape.
If you're willing to share a game with them by putting them in a enclosed space far removed from you... you don't really grasp the notion of sharing now do you? I am a militant virtual world player and want both the good and the bad in a game because that makes a world real, give FFA PVP but have a strict law system in place which could be enforced by NPC or even players. Give people the choice and the tools and they will take a wild west world and colonize bits of it while the hordes of PVP purists strive for anarchy thus driving a system based on Darwin's laws ( the strong groups survive, decay eventually overtakes even the strong groups and power vacuums get filled by new groups, cities fall to ruin and new ones rise to take their place ). Have a zone where PVE players are better protected from PVPers like High-Security space in EVE-Online, have easy means for people within those area to mount expeditions into wildland areas (places where the law is still in effect but is not enforced directly) for resources and allow PVPers the choice to jump on that group and try and take it down.
Bottom line is: We need more choices, we need more virtual world games where the players have the tools to do anything they can imagine within the limits of reason and the laws of suspension of disbelief within that Universe.
We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.
Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
Yes, DF is a great example.... of how to never design a game if you want to be successful. DF shows exactly how limited the open world always vulnerable PvP style makes players avoid your game like the plague. No company on Earth is going to look at them and their numbers and say "Man we need to tap that market!".
That's due to a lot of different factors, not related to the ffa pvp aspect. There are a lot of people who would try the game but dont because of things like missing content, bad ui, etc.
No. FFA PvPers try to explain it off like that, but the simple and impossible to ignore truth is that the vast majority of gamers don't want to deal with FFA PvP. Companies fully understand this as well. That is why all big companies will at most give players a separate server where those who want to massacre each other can go while the rest play on all of their much more populated servers.
I didnt say a ffa pvp sandbox would have the same amount of people that the most carebear themepark would have. I said thays not why df1 failed and why dfuw may fail as well. If AV did things perfectly, the game would prosper and survive indrfintely. In other words, its not related to the ffa pvp aspect. Will it deter some people from playing? Of course, people like different games, but using AV's failure as an argument against ffa pvp games is inaccurate at best.
It is clear you don't understand gamers.
You use the word "some" in referring to the amount of people deterred because it is a ffa pvp game. The absolute truth is that it is more like 99% of MMORPG players who are deterred from the game.
If DF had a perfect UI, no bugs, plenty of content, etc., the game would likely never even hit 75k consistent subscribers let alone break the 6 figure mark. Companies are at the point of spending $100 million dollars on a new MMO. They need to get in lots of players. A FFA PvP game will not allow for that.
That is why no major company will release a new MMO that is ffa PvP. All you will see is server options at best or opt in opt out. As a FFA PvPer you may want to get used to that as it is all you are getting and you should be fine playing on a FFA PvP server while others are playing the same game on PvE servers.
No one seems to have figured out why Trammel was "successful" briefly before the decline of UO. It's because the devs gave the economy a major artificial boost in the form of another EMPTY continent to build on. In other words, the sandbox was running low on "sand" and when it got more people came rushing to play with it. Unfortunately Trammel was also the five point palm exploding heart technique for UO. Ironically PVP and the ability to destroy houses and conquer territory could have fixed this.
That's a good point. I really wish I knew how UO would've turned out if they spent their resources on more sandbox mechanics and less on trammel and "content."
It's hard to believe it would be in worse shape than it's in now.
If you're willing to share a game with them by putting them in a enclosed space far removed from you... you don't really grasp the notion of sharing now do you? I am a militant virtual world player and want both the good and the bad in a game because that makes a world real, give FFA PVP but have a strict law system in place which could be enforced by NPC or even players. Give people the choice and the tools and they will take a wild west world and colonize bits of it while the hordes of PVP purists strive for anarchy thus driving a system based on Darwin's laws ( the strong groups survive, decay eventually overtakes even the strong groups and power vacuums get filled by new groups, cities fall to ruin and new ones rise to take their place ). Have a zone where PVE players are better protected from PVPers like High-Security space in EVE-Online, have easy means for people within those area to mount expeditions into wildland areas (places where the law is still in effect but is not enforced directly) for resources and allow PVPers the choice to jump on that group and try and take it down.
Bottom line is: We need more choices, we need more virtual world games where the players have the tools to do anything they can imagine within the limits of reason and the laws of suspension of disbelief within that Universe.
You are describing a more PvP oriented game than a mutual PvP/PvE one. Why would a PvEr want to play here? Always at the risk of getting jumped even with the law in place? Won't stop the griefer who will enjoy that sort of thing even with the penalties.
So again, how is this mutually beneficial? It caters more towards the PvP player, and that's fine if the game were made. You just won't see many PvErs in it though.
If you're willing to share a game with them by putting them in a enclosed space far removed from you... you don't really grasp the notion of sharing now do you? I am a militant virtual world player and want both the good and the bad in a game because that makes a world real, give FFA PVP but have a strict law system in place which could be enforced by NPC or even players. Give people the choice and the tools and they will take a wild west world and colonize bits of it while the hordes of PVP purists strive for anarchy thus driving a system based on Darwin's laws ( the strong groups survive, decay eventually overtakes even the strong groups and power vacuums get filled by new groups, cities fall to ruin and new ones rise to take their place ). Have a zone where PVE players are better protected from PVPers like High-Security space in EVE-Online, have easy means for people within those area to mount expeditions into wildland areas (places where the law is still in effect but is not enforced directly) for resources and allow PVPers the choice to jump on that group and try and take it down.
Bottom line is: We need more choices, we need more virtual world games where the players have the tools to do anything they can imagine within the limits of reason and the laws of suspension of disbelief within that Universe.
You are describing a more PvP oriented game than a mutual PvP/PvE one. Why would a PvEr want to play here? Always at the risk of getting jumped even with the law in place? Won't stop the griefer who will enjoy that sort of thing even with the penalties.
So again, how is this mutually beneficial? It caters more towards the PvP player, and that's fine if the game were made. You just won't see many PvErs in it though.
Do you guys even play any "pvp" games? Threes a lot of pve and harvesting/crafting.
Even in darkfall there are people in my clan who have maxed out characters solely from fishing and crafting.
One thing is sure, this thread mirrors the attitude of defenders of FFA PvP in any other similar thread.
The PvE+PvP players are willing to share the game with the FFA PvP players, through various means like separate servers with different rulesets, so that everybody can enjoy his play style in peace, for the greater good of the whole game since more players means more money means more content and higher quality.
The FFA PvP players want to impose their play style on everybody playing the game, the main reason most likely being that they are afraid not to find enough "victims", but they don't understand that forcing people do to what they don't want to doesn't work in today's MMO market, with so many game choices, and games which try fail or remain tiny niches with exactly the same problem... not enough players.
If people can't even agree to share a video game world so everybody can have fun, it's no wonder our world is in such bad shape.
If you're willing to share a game with them by putting them in a enclosed space far removed from you... you don't really grasp the notion of sharing now do you? I am a militant virtual world player and want both the good and the bad in a game because that makes a world real, give FFA PVP but have a strict law system in place which could be enforced by NPC or even players. Give people the choice and the tools and they will take a wild west world and colonize bits of it while the hordes of PVP purists strive for anarchy thus driving a system based on Darwin's laws ( the strong groups survive, decay eventually overtakes even the strong groups and power vacuums get filled by new groups, cities fall to ruin and new ones rise to take their place ). Have a zone where PVE players are better protected from PVPers like High-Security space in EVE-Online, have easy means for people within those area to mount expeditions into wildland areas (places where the law is still in effect but is not enforced directly) for resources and allow PVPers the choice to jump on that group and try and take it down.
Bottom line is: We need more choices, we need more virtual world games where the players have the tools to do anything they can imagine within the limits of reason and the laws of suspension of disbelief within that Universe.
It isn't the same as the real world and that is why it will never work.
Ok so you killed someone and if they manage to arrest you your character dies. Delete and reroll, who cares. You killed someone and now everyone can kill you without penalty. Ok, just play an alt for a while and you don't have to deal with the consequences.
In the real world you don't get to hit restart, do over, or jump on an alt. A video game doesn't have this and therefore you can never recreate a true virtual world with true "consequences" at best you have someone who ruined the game for someone else, possibly enough to make them quit, and now the consequences are enough that the other person doesn't want to deal with it and also quits. Not the best business for growing a player base and making money.
People play a game to be entertained. Being griefed or bullied doesn't provide that so people won't deal with it. If they read that it has open world ffa pvp, they just look over to another game and go play it instead.
People really need to realize it isn't something you can force on people and then also have a big player base and big profits. Companies want to make money, players want to have fun. So companies don't bother with FFA PvP games which aren't fun for most players and therefore don't make them money.
If you're willing to share a game with them by putting them in a enclosed space far removed from you... you don't really grasp the notion of sharing now do you? I am a militant virtual world player and want both the good and the bad in a game because that makes a world real, give FFA PVP but have a strict law system in place which could be enforced by NPC or even players. Give people the choice and the tools and they will take a wild west world and colonize bits of it while the hordes of PVP purists strive for anarchy thus driving a system based on Darwin's laws ( the strong groups survive, decay eventually overtakes even the strong groups and power vacuums get filled by new groups, cities fall to ruin and new ones rise to take their place ). Have a zone where PVE players are better protected from PVPers like High-Security space in EVE-Online, have easy means for people within those area to mount expeditions into wildland areas (places where the law is still in effect but is not enforced directly) for resources and allow PVPers the choice to jump on that group and try and take it down.
Bottom line is: We need more choices, we need more virtual world games where the players have the tools to do anything they can imagine within the limits of reason and the laws of suspension of disbelief within that Universe.
You are describing a more PvP oriented game than a mutual PvP/PvE one. Why would a PvEr want to play here? Always at the risk of getting jumped even with the law in place? Won't stop the griefer who will enjoy that sort of thing even with the penalties.
So again, how is this mutually beneficial? It caters more towards the PvP player, and that's fine if the game were made. You just won't see many PvErs in it though.
Do you guys even play any "pvp" games? Threes a lot of pve and harvesting/crafting. Even in darkfall there are people in my clan who have maxed out characters solely from fishing and crafting.
Nope never played a PvP game in my life.... oh wait, yes of course I have. Most people have at least tried it at some point. For many of them it didn't take them long to hate it.
I played UO from launch, played AC where I sometimes got into PvP, played a lot of DAoC. Played plenty of other genres that are nothing but PvP. As I grew up and had less time for gaming, I moved further and further from FFA PvP MMOs. If I have 1-2 hours to finally get in and play, then I want to do what I want. I don't want to log in to go do a quest and get ganked. I don't want to log in to harvest and get ganked, etc etc. And I don't want to log in to PvP and not be able to find anyone. So you know what I do? I play non-open world ffa pvp games and instead play PvE games with battlegrounds. If I want to do a quest I do it. If I want to PvP I hop in a battleground. I can always do what I want when I want which is what entertainment is meant to be.
The fact is you can't force what you like and want onto other people. The majority don't want ffa PvP, just give it up.
Do you guys even play any "pvp" games? Threes a lot of pve and harvesting/crafting. Even in darkfall there are people in my clan who have maxed out characters solely from fishing and crafting.
That's not really the point. The discussion is about how to implement the game with PvP and PvE in mind, which obviously seems cannot be done. In games EVE and DF1, yes you could craft/harvest/mine in secure locales/zones. But eventually you always have to venture forth into areas where PvP is allowed. Idk about the new DF, haven't played.
And if PvE to you is simply harvesting/crafting and going into small areas to grind goblins and such then of course you don't understand the point being made by the PvErs as well.
And this, people is why more games should have PVP and PVE servers. Let the bloodthirsty players fight among themselves while you can grind your dull quests.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard Originally posted by SnarlingWolfOriginally posted by DihoruOriginally posted by Jean-Luc_PicardOne thing is sure, this thread mirrors the attitude of defenders of FFA PvP in any other similar thread.The PvE+PvP players are willing to share the game with the FFA PvP players, through various means like separate servers with different rulesets, so that everybody can enjoy his play style in peace, for the greater good of the whole game since more players means more money means more content and higher quality.The FFA PvP players want to impose their play style on everybody playing the game, the main reason most likely being that they are afraid not to find enough "victims", but they don't understand that forcing people do to what they don't want to doesn't work in today's MMO market, with so many game choices, and games which try fail or remain tiny niches with exactly the same problem... not enough players.If people can't even agree to share a video game world so everybody can have fun, it's no wonder our world is in such bad shape.
If you're willing to share a game with them by putting them in a enclosed space far removed from you... you don't really grasp the notion of sharing now do you? I am a militant virtual world player and want both the good and the bad in a game because that makes a world real, give FFA PVP but have a strict law system in place which could be enforced by NPC or even players. Give people the choice and the tools and they will take a wild west world and colonize bits of it while the hordes of PVP purists strive for anarchy thus driving a system based on Darwin's laws ( the strong groups survive, decay eventually overtakes even the strong groups and power vacuums get filled by new groups, cities fall to ruin and new ones rise to take their place ). Have a zone where PVE players are better protected from PVPers like High-Security space in EVE-Online, have easy means for people within those area to mount expeditions into wildland areas (places where the law is still in effect but is not enforced directly) for resources and allow PVPers the choice to jump on that group and try and take it down.Bottom line is: We need more choices, we need more virtual world games where the players have the tools to do anything they can imagine within the limits of reason and the laws of suspension of disbelief within that Universe. It isn't the same as the real world and that is why it will never work.Ok so you killed someone and if they manage to arrest you your character dies. Delete and reroll, who cares. You killed someone and now everyone can kill you without penalty. Ok, just play an alt for a while and you don't have to deal with the consequences.In the real world you don't get to hit restart, do over, or jump on an alt. A video game doesn't have this and therefore you can never recreate a true virtual world with true "consequences" at best you have someone who ruined the game for someone else, possibly enough to make them quit, and now the consequences are enough that the other person doesn't want to deal with it and also quits. Not the best business for growing a player base and making money.People play a game to be entertained. Being griefed or bullied doesn't provide that so people won't deal with it. If they read that it has open world ffa pvp, they just look over to another game and go play it instead.People really need to realize it isn't something you can force on people and then also have a big player base and big profits. Companies want to make money, players want to have fun. So companies don't bother with FFA PvP games which aren't fun for most players and therefore don't make them money.Yeah, someone else who understands.
- Sandbox game with both FFA PvP and also PvE with "PvP on choice" servers = win win for everybody. Note that the switch on the PvE servers doesn't have to be a simple 5 minutes cooldown... AC1 got a quite good mechanic for it.
- Sandbox game with only FFA PvP everywhere = Darkfall or Mortal... = failure niche game.
As I said in the previous post, it's appalling that the FFA PvP players refuse to give people the choice. For them it would change nothing gameplay wise, they could just play on the FFA PvP part and enjoy ganking each other. But for the game as a whole and for content THEY can enjoy too, it's a world of difference, the difference between a niche game with crap content and an AAA game with regular content additions... because the developers have money!
That is really the only part I don't understand. I can understand not wanting to play a game that doesn't have FFA PvP. What I don't understand is the requirement for a game to not offer any alternatives.
I started a thread on this, and never really got a good answer. I got good answers for specific instances, like Darkfall and Eve being designed around PvP, so not having it removes half the game, but for a new game? Why not have two servers? It's like wanting FFA/Always On PvP means not allowing for any other type of game play to exist.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Because DF is not very good (read: bad) and EVE is a 10 year old sci fi MMO with combat that is also quite slow, clunky and not what most gamers are looking for?
Fact is most games are PVE games (read: like 99%) and very few are PVP focused. Even ArcheAge is becoming more of a carebear shit game these days.
Diablo 1, 2 & 3 says otherwise. WoW says otherwise.
Sure wow players want some pvp ... in instances, and not open world. It is quite clear.
Except my point is that people get excited by the prospect of being able to farm in peace but eventually get bored because it makes the game more shallow and boring. So the fact that there was an increase with Trammel and then stagnant growth and then a sharp decline makes perfect sense.
Diablo 1, 2 & 3 says otherwise. WoW says otherwise.
Sure wow players want some pvp ... in instances, and not open world. It is quite clear.
WoW is considered a statistical anomaly and even that has come down quite a bit from its glory days. Aside from WoW basically every other AAA themepark explodes in popularity and then quickly dies.I'm not sure I get your point about diablo. It's not an mmo.
The point is about farming.
In D3, WOW, as well as many MMO, the main gameplay is farming .. in peace. If farming pve is boring, why would so many people spend so much time on it?
The conclusion is that it is not boring for many people.
Except my point is that people get excited by the prospect of being able to farm in peace but eventually get bored because it makes the game more shallow and boring. So the fact that there was an increase with Trammel and then stagnant growth and then a sharp decline makes perfect sense.
Diablo 1, 2 & 3 says otherwise. WoW says otherwise.
Sure wow players want some pvp ... in instances, and not open world. It is quite clear.
WoW is considered a statistical anomaly and even that has come down quite a bit from its glory days. Aside from WoW basically every other AAA themepark explodes in popularity and then quickly dies. I'm not sure I get your point about diablo. It's not an mmo.The point is about farming.
In D3, WOW, as well as many MMO, the main gameplay is farming .. in peace. If farming pve is boring, why would so many people spend so much time on it?
The conclusion is that it is not boring for many people.
Because the lack of gameplay is made up for with more "carrot on a stick" content. Why do you think there are so many expansions and why those expansions always have a level cap increase, additional dungeons, etc?It's not the farming that the masses enjoy, in fact most people consider it to soul crushingly dull and tedious. But they want to get to the "end game content" so they grind it out.
Wow is basically just an ongoing coop game, not an organic, living world.
I doubt you have any evidence of that.
Fact is that games based on farming is immensely popular. I doubt most people will spend hundred of hours on "soul crushingly dull and tedious" games.
Yes, DF is a great example.... of how to never design a game if you want to be successful. DF shows exactly how limited the open world always vulnerable PvP style makes players avoid your game like the plague. No company on Earth is going to look at them and their numbers and say "Man we need to tap that market!".
Because the lack of gameplay is made up for with more "carrot on a stick" content. Why do you think there are so many expansions and why those expansions always have a level cap increase, additional dungeons, etc? It's not the farming that the masses enjoy, in fact most people consider it to soul crushingly dull and tedious. But they want to get to the "end game content" so they grind it out. Wow is basically just an ongoing coop game, not an organic, living world.I doubt you have any evidence of that.
Fact is that games based on farming is immensely popular. I doubt most people will spend hundred of hours on "soul crushingly dull and tedious" games.
You can doubt it all you want, but I've explained why it makes sense. WoW is very much about trudging through boring gameplay because of a promise of some shiny toy at the end.Yes, DF is a great example.... of how to never design a game if you want to be successful. DF shows exactly how limited the open world always vulnerable PvP style makes players avoid your game like the plague. No company on Earth is going to look at them and their numbers and say "Man we need to tap that market!".
That's due to a lot of different factors, not related to the ffa pvp aspect. There are a lot of people who would try the game but dont because of things like missing content, bad ui, etc.If they have friends in the game, a love of the lore or nothing better to play they will spend years playing the same soul crushing game. The best sandbox with the best gameplay imaginable will have massive retention issues if the whole "get your friend hooked too" angle doesn't get some love. A fair game will get people to play it, a deep game with many choices will keep them in it. Challenge is part of the depth of a game and it is the main reason why WoW is now taking a flaming nose dive in subs as its main draw was the challenge of the game, choices weren't really built into it to be honest.
No. FFA PvPers try to explain it off like that, but the simple and impossible to ignore truth is that the vast majority of gamers don't want to deal with FFA PvP. Companies fully understand this as well. That is why all big companies will at most give players a separate server where those who want to massacre each other can go while the rest play on all of their much more populated servers.
How would the new player even know about the missing content and/or bad UI? Hype is very effective into getting respective players into the games they wish to play.
I doubt any FFA PvP oriented players scoff at a potentially good PvP game because they heard or read about a bad UI or missing content.
Yes, DF is a great example.... of how to never design a game if you want to be successful. DF shows exactly how limited the open world always vulnerable PvP style makes players avoid your game like the plague. No company on Earth is going to look at them and their numbers and say "Man we need to tap that market!".
That's due to a lot of different factors, not related to the ffa pvp aspect. There are a lot of people who would try the game but dont because of things like missing content, bad ui, etc.No. FFA PvPers try to explain it off like that, but the simple and impossible to ignore truth is that the vast majority of gamers don't want to deal with FFA PvP. Companies fully understand this as well. That is why all big companies will at most give players a separate server where those who want to massacre each other can go while the rest play on all of their much more populated servers.
I didnt say a ffa pvp sandbox would have the same amount of people that the most carebear themepark would have. I said thays not why df1 failed and why dfuw may fail as well. If AV did things perfectly, the game would prosper and survive indrfintely. In other words, its not related to the ffa pvp aspect. Will it deter some people from playing? Of course, people like different games, but using AV's failure as an argument against ffa pvp games is inaccurate at best.
That's due to a lot of different factors, not related to the ffa pvp aspect. There are a lot of people who would try the game but dont because of things like missing content, bad ui, etc.How would the new player even know about the missing content and/or bad UI? Hype is very effective into getting respective players into the games they wish to play.
I doubt any FFA PvP oriented players scoff at a potentially good PvP game because they heard or read about a bad UI or missing content.
Well youre wrong. You answered your own question. Hype is very important. The darkfall community = anti-hype.If you're willing to share a game with them by putting them in a enclosed space far removed from you... you don't really grasp the notion of sharing now do you? I am a militant virtual world player and want both the good and the bad in a game because that makes a world real, give FFA PVP but have a strict law system in place which could be enforced by NPC or even players. Give people the choice and the tools and they will take a wild west world and colonize bits of it while the hordes of PVP purists strive for anarchy thus driving a system based on Darwin's laws ( the strong groups survive, decay eventually overtakes even the strong groups and power vacuums get filled by new groups, cities fall to ruin and new ones rise to take their place ). Have a zone where PVE players are better protected from PVPers like High-Security space in EVE-Online, have easy means for people within those area to mount expeditions into wildland areas (places where the law is still in effect but is not enforced directly) for resources and allow PVPers the choice to jump on that group and try and take it down.
Bottom line is: We need more choices, we need more virtual world games where the players have the tools to do anything they can imagine within the limits of reason and the laws of suspension of disbelief within that Universe.
It is clear you don't understand gamers.
You use the word "some" in referring to the amount of people deterred because it is a ffa pvp game. The absolute truth is that it is more like 99% of MMORPG players who are deterred from the game.
If DF had a perfect UI, no bugs, plenty of content, etc., the game would likely never even hit 75k consistent subscribers let alone break the 6 figure mark. Companies are at the point of spending $100 million dollars on a new MMO. They need to get in lots of players. A FFA PvP game will not allow for that.
That is why no major company will release a new MMO that is ffa PvP. All you will see is server options at best or opt in opt out. As a FFA PvPer you may want to get used to that as it is all you are getting and you should be fine playing on a FFA PvP server while others are playing the same game on PvE servers.
That's a good point. I really wish I knew how UO would've turned out if they spent their resources on more sandbox mechanics and less on trammel and "content."It's hard to believe it would be in worse shape than it's in now.
You are describing a more PvP oriented game than a mutual PvP/PvE one. Why would a PvEr want to play here? Always at the risk of getting jumped even with the law in place? Won't stop the griefer who will enjoy that sort of thing even with the penalties.
So again, how is this mutually beneficial? It caters more towards the PvP player, and that's fine if the game were made. You just won't see many PvErs in it though.
If you're willing to share a game with them by putting them in a enclosed space far removed from you... you don't really grasp the notion of sharing now do you? I am a militant virtual world player and want both the good and the bad in a game because that makes a world real, give FFA PVP but have a strict law system in place which could be enforced by NPC or even players. Give people the choice and the tools and they will take a wild west world and colonize bits of it while the hordes of PVP purists strive for anarchy thus driving a system based on Darwin's laws ( the strong groups survive, decay eventually overtakes even the strong groups and power vacuums get filled by new groups, cities fall to ruin and new ones rise to take their place ). Have a zone where PVE players are better protected from PVPers like High-Security space in EVE-Online, have easy means for people within those area to mount expeditions into wildland areas (places where the law is still in effect but is not enforced directly) for resources and allow PVPers the choice to jump on that group and try and take it down.
Bottom line is: We need more choices, we need more virtual world games where the players have the tools to do anything they can imagine within the limits of reason and the laws of suspension of disbelief within that Universe.
You are describing a more PvP oriented game than a mutual PvP/PvE one. Why would a PvEr want to play here? Always at the risk of getting jumped even with the law in place? Won't stop the griefer who will enjoy that sort of thing even with the penalties.
So again, how is this mutually beneficial? It caters more towards the PvP player, and that's fine if the game were made. You just won't see many PvErs in it though.
Do you guys even play any "pvp" games? Threes a lot of pve and harvesting/crafting.Even in darkfall there are people in my clan who have maxed out characters solely from fishing and crafting.
It isn't the same as the real world and that is why it will never work.
Ok so you killed someone and if they manage to arrest you your character dies. Delete and reroll, who cares. You killed someone and now everyone can kill you without penalty. Ok, just play an alt for a while and you don't have to deal with the consequences.
In the real world you don't get to hit restart, do over, or jump on an alt. A video game doesn't have this and therefore you can never recreate a true virtual world with true "consequences" at best you have someone who ruined the game for someone else, possibly enough to make them quit, and now the consequences are enough that the other person doesn't want to deal with it and also quits. Not the best business for growing a player base and making money.
People play a game to be entertained. Being griefed or bullied doesn't provide that so people won't deal with it. If they read that it has open world ffa pvp, they just look over to another game and go play it instead.
People really need to realize it isn't something you can force on people and then also have a big player base and big profits. Companies want to make money, players want to have fun. So companies don't bother with FFA PvP games which aren't fun for most players and therefore don't make them money.
Nope never played a PvP game in my life.... oh wait, yes of course I have. Most people have at least tried it at some point. For many of them it didn't take them long to hate it.
I played UO from launch, played AC where I sometimes got into PvP, played a lot of DAoC. Played plenty of other genres that are nothing but PvP. As I grew up and had less time for gaming, I moved further and further from FFA PvP MMOs. If I have 1-2 hours to finally get in and play, then I want to do what I want. I don't want to log in to go do a quest and get ganked. I don't want to log in to harvest and get ganked, etc etc. And I don't want to log in to PvP and not be able to find anyone. So you know what I do? I play non-open world ffa pvp games and instead play PvE games with battlegrounds. If I want to do a quest I do it. If I want to PvP I hop in a battleground. I can always do what I want when I want which is what entertainment is meant to be.
The fact is you can't force what you like and want onto other people. The majority don't want ffa PvP, just give it up.
That's not really the point. The discussion is about how to implement the game with PvP and PvE in mind, which obviously seems cannot be done. In games EVE and DF1, yes you could craft/harvest/mine in secure locales/zones. But eventually you always have to venture forth into areas where PvP is allowed. Idk about the new DF, haven't played.
And if PvE to you is simply harvesting/crafting and going into small areas to grind goblins and such then of course you don't understand the point being made by the PvErs as well.
It isn't the same as the real world and that is why it will never work. Ok so you killed someone and if they manage to arrest you your character dies. Delete and reroll, who cares. You killed someone and now everyone can kill you without penalty. Ok, just play an alt for a while and you don't have to deal with the consequences. In the real world you don't get to hit restart, do over, or jump on an alt. A video game doesn't have this and therefore you can never recreate a true virtual world with true "consequences" at best you have someone who ruined the game for someone else, possibly enough to make them quit, and now the consequences are enough that the other person doesn't want to deal with it and also quits. Not the best business for growing a player base and making money. People play a game to be entertained. Being griefed or bullied doesn't provide that so people won't deal with it. If they read that it has open world ffa pvp, they just look over to another game and go play it instead. People really need to realize it isn't something you can force on people and then also have a big player base and big profits. Companies want to make money, players want to have fun. So companies don't bother with FFA PvP games which aren't fun for most players and therefore don't make them money.
Yeah, someone else who understands.
- Sandbox game with both FFA PvP and also PvE with "PvP on choice" servers = win win for everybody. Note that the switch on the PvE servers doesn't have to be a simple 5 minutes cooldown... AC1 got a quite good mechanic for it.
- Sandbox game with only FFA PvP everywhere = Darkfall or Mortal... = failure niche game.
As I said in the previous post, it's appalling that the FFA PvP players refuse to give people the choice. For them it would change nothing gameplay wise, they could just play on the FFA PvP part and enjoy ganking each other. But for the game as a whole and for content THEY can enjoy too, it's a world of difference, the difference between a niche game with crap content and an AAA game with regular content additions... because the developers have money!
That is really the only part I don't understand. I can understand not wanting to play a game that doesn't have FFA PvP. What I don't understand is the requirement for a game to not offer any alternatives.
I started a thread on this, and never really got a good answer. I got good answers for specific instances, like Darkfall and Eve being designed around PvP, so not having it removes half the game, but for a new game? Why not have two servers? It's like wanting FFA/Always On PvP means not allowing for any other type of game play to exist.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.