Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
FFA Open World PvP done right
YoungCaesar
Member UncommonPosts: 326
Most people when they think of FFA OW PVP, they instantly hate on it because they imagine it applied into one of their favorite themeparks (Wow, Swtor). They instantly think the max lvl players will grief the noobies killing them in one or two hits, or theyre gonna lose their uber leet sword of awesomeness they farmed for years....
But what they fail to see, is that open world pvp should have a game tailor made for it, a sandbox... There shouldnt be a big level gap (if there is any at a) so that players starting out stand a chance vs a veteran.... The ideal combat would be FPS (like age of chivalry) to make it pure skill based, but I doubt thats possible with current technology.
Also the advantage of the best items should be scaled back a bit, so they just give more margin for error but wont make you invincible. Full loot might be too harsh, so inventory only loot on death should be added to give more risk and meaning to pvp.
Comments
It is not about power differences .. it is about those who just want to pve cannot do it in peace.
If i don't want to fight some dude, and just want to down a boss, no amount of tweaking power differences will make FFA open world pvp work.
It is just a preference. You cannot design away what people like.
Nope. I don't like it because it has so far not entertained me as much as competitive PvP has. And I have experienced PvP servers in themeparks as well as sandboxes with open world PvP.
Few issues that arise with open world PvP:
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Just make the pvp/pk and clan war systems like Lineage and it is done. The best open world pvp game ever. Ultima online and similar games only dream to be as successful as Lineage 1 in eastern market.
FFA OP PVP
That triple acronym gets used around here so much that it should have it's own acronym. Maybe FOP?
And no, I don't think FOPs can be done right. They are inherently anti-cooperative and tend to attract the worst misanthropic elements of the online world. Their communities suck.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Instead of "FOP" it should be "FAIL".
There is a reason that there are very few PvP centric games. There are not as many PvP'ers as there are PvE'ers and even the PvP'ers don't have a specific rule-set that they can all be happy with.
Each time a new game comes out these same old tired arguments come up wanting to change everything that the developer has done to date. I swear, If they came out with a Tele-Tubby PvE game, the PvP'ers would cry and whine until the developers re-balance everything and put in some sort of PvP to keep the kiddies quiet.
If all the PvP'ers were so into PvP then go join the military and get your fill of PvP. I for one have been there, done that and would rather not do anything else remotely resembling it again.
Ratero.
Why pay players to do what you do not want them to do (kill other players)?
The same can be said with full loot pvp.
Most imagine it in the context of their favorite WOW like game.
But if the systems are designed around it and blah blah I think you get the point.
Some people like RPGs
Most FPS games are very different from RPGs.
There is a couple of assumptions in there that I just do not agree with:
People are predictable, but a person is not as predictable.
In for instance, a WOW battleground, you will in fact see many many normal (normal being a key word) predictable people. Then there is that one person who is a few standard deviations out that will have a 20:1 kill/death ratio and won't play quite like you expected. That one challenging individual who seems to "know what he/she is doing."
Those are the encounters that I will get a loss from when I am expecting them to be just another scrub and they catch me off guard. Those are the fights that I remember and enjoy that keep me playing the game.
That is the thing you don't find in PVE in any MMO i've ever played. You find that elite monster that has more hp and hits harder than the other mobs, but you don't find any real variance in behavior or skill level of monsters like you do players.
But ya, for the most part people are predictable. But you model the skill level of people with a curve that has many many average players in the center and on the far outside of that curve there are the individuals that make the PVP fun and unlike any PVE encounter. PVE mobs are typically created in a way such that much less variance in behavior is present.
I am aware there are many arseholes in the world, what I don't agree with is that in the MMO space they are only in PVP games. I've seen terrible things on global chats in almost every online game I've played at some point. I will however concede that PVP can be considered a breeding ground for hostility due to the play style but there are good and bad in all games even if not to the same extent.
Now I think the behavioural patterns for humans is more varied if the game permits. If there is a clear strategy to win and people know it than they will do it but likewise if someone know how to run around mobs in a PVE zone without attracting agro than they will do it too. Now that said I still would think it far easier to predict current AI than human behaviour.
As for the second assumption that you said I made. I didn't. The assumption I made was that some, not all but some PVE players find it easier to deal with risk coming from a machine or developer than another person on an equal playing field. I made the point that some of these people actually want more risk with their games and complain they are too easy.
Hey if you like to PvE so much, why dont you play a single player RPG?
An open world with FFA PvP feels so much more alive than a glorified game lobby like all themeparks... Thats just my preference tho, if you like pve go ahead Im not trying to change your game into a pvp game, but I think we pvpers need a game tailor made to our needs, not with pvp added as a alternative playstyle.
You really don't get it? Is it that difficult to understand?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
As always I see threads like this with dichotomy mentalities, either with or against the idea abosltely. Fortunately there are server rulesets like FFA PVP server, PVE server to please everyone within a game universe. Its still not as common practice as it should be though.
I personally am for FFA PVP in specific zones, and with most things risk should equal reward so the zones or ffa pvp servers should yield higher drop rates for great loot...also to entice fence sitters.
while i appreciate the sympathy shown PvE'rs and the attempt to help them understand more fully what OW FFA PvP should look like in a game, this misses the point.
PvE'rs are not looking for an even break or balanced chance at survival. they are looking for a game that doesn't require that kind of survival at all, under any circumstances, ever.
the best chance OW PvP'rs have of making converts is having a 3rd continent, or a flagging system. that way PvE'rs can adjust to the idea, get their interest perked, and then perhaps participate a bit on the side. if its fun enough for them, you might get a few converts.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
Why don't you try explaining it to him rather than making out like he is an idiot. Presumably you come here to discuss things rather than attempt to make people feel stupid so why not explain it to him?
If you really couldn't be bothered doing that than I suggest either quoting someone else or saying nothing.
Word, not sure about the FPS thing though.
PvP games really need very different mechanics than PvE games. The fact that you can't tank (at least not in the traditional way and body blocking just can be so effective) makes the trinity broken so it is clear that PvP focused games should use different mechanics.
I agree about the powergap with levels (if the game have them) and items. But I think that FPS mechanics are too crude and not tactical to feel really tactical.
Personally do I like how GW2 uses thieves (at least the attack skills), there you have initiative which always slowly refills and you balance attacks with initiative cost instead of cooldowns. I think a similar system would work for many classes, particularly mage classes or for that matter in a classless game (you specc which pools you want to use like initiative, mana, adrenaline and whatever your other type of skills uses).
Another thing is that I think combat should take longer in PvP focused games than PvE games. No one shotting but let the players be at it for a minute instead of a few seconds. Tactics should also be important, for instance should standing in certain places have advantages.
100% PvE:ers want PvE servers, nothing less.
But there are many people who actually like both and they are far more likely to enjoy a game were they actually have a chance of winning a fight.
In fact do I have hard to see what type of players beside griefers that actually enjoy a game were you can spot an opponent and be 100% sure to kill him. Where is the challenge in that?
At least I play PvP for the challenge and hopefully do most others the same.
Funny enough do most people talking about FFA PvP say that it is realistic but how realistic is a combat you can't loose no matter how bad you fight? Yeah, a peasant with a spear had the odds hard stacked against him if he fought an armored knight but then and again a knight actually died from a peasants spear (anyone heard of Bannockburn?).
"Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day!"
I can .. but why should i? It is an entertainment product .. is there any reason i should use one that i don't like? It is not like i cannot just choose a game without FFA open world pvp.
The point is that we are talking about entertainment preferences.
Sure, people can hire mercenary .. live with pvp, or do whatever to survive. But the point is why anyone want to do something that is not fun to enjoy a game? "I can" is not the same as "i want".
I just did. However, i am quite puzzled how he cannot understand a simple point .... why would anyone do anything they don't like in a game that is meant to entertain?
Sure people *can* survive (or at least try) but why should they? It is only entertainment.
But you're assuming people who hate the atmosphere of FOPs don't like to PvP...and you're wrong.
There's nothing wrong with PvP. Yes it is a greater challenge and that makes it fun. But no, I'm not in the mood for it every minute I want to play an MMO.
The best type of MMO is one where the PvP happens in a huge persistent zone and also has non-PvP zones to chill in when you want to do that. If the PVP zone is big enough, there's very little difference between that and having it everywhere. I question the motives of people who can't be satisfied with that compromise. I think most who don't like that type of MMO just can't stand the thought of not being able to gank unsuspecting low-level prey...and there is something very wrong with that.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED