Originally posted by nariusseldon those who just want to pve cannot do it in peace.
then they should play the games which do this, and not turn every freakin game into a PVE easymode themepark. Or destroy the game after release because of complainers.
I´d like to have just ONE triple A budget FFA Open World sandbox MMO, just ONE, besides EvE, is that too much to ask for? I just can´t swallow another themepark, sorry. I only play two theme parks that is Age of Conan on Blood and Glory server (quite the hardcore experience) and Secret World (because it´s cool and I like the puzzles)
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.
It could work, if the punishment for being a psycho-killer would be utterly harsh.
Focused PvP with a goal never destroyed games. It's the wild PvP, the mindless ganking "just because you can" and "just because it ruins someone else's day" that destroys games.
Punish psychos with time out of the game, or at least out of the main game world, and a PvP world will work.
It does not if i want 0% chance of pvp when i am downing the boss.
And if the punishment is so great that no one is doing it, you may as well declare that a pvp-free zone. Implementing a pvp switch is a lot easier and cheaper than putting in a punishment system.
So again, if it works so well that no one pvp, then why bother? If there is pvp, it does not work for those who do not want any.
We've seen an awful lot of titles chasing the will-o-wisp of "open world done Right".
Not a lot could be considered 'wins'.
Seems closer to "none of them" to me - except maybe EvE...
Actually I'd pick DAoC (since most people seem to favor high fantasy over spaceships)
In either case, one partial success in 16 years...
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by nariusseldon those who just want to pve cannot do it in peace.
then they should play the games which do this, and not turn every freakin game into a PVE easymode themepark. Or destroy the game after release because of complainers. I´d like to have just ONE triple A budget FFA Open World sandbox MMO, just ONE, besides EvE, is that too much to ask for? I just can´t swallow another themepark, sorry. I only play two theme parks that is Age of Conan on Blood and Glory server (quite the hardcore experience) and Secret World (because it´s cool and I like the puzzles)
Yes, and they *are* playing games without FFA open world pvp. That is why FFA open world pvp is not popular.
And no one is turning games into anything. Do you see a devs here? If devs (and the market) respond to their needs, well, you should vote with your wallet more.
Plus, people who don't want pvp has as much right as you to air their preferences.
"I´d like to have just ONE triple A budget FFA Open World sandbox MMO, just ONE, besides EvE, is that too much to ask for?"
Well, it is too much to ask for if the market decide there is not enough audience for one. I would love a big budget AAA movies based on some obscure Hong Kong fighting comics too. But i am not going to whine because no one is making it, and instead, i will just take Avengers, Iron man 3, ... and enjoy.
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.
For a FOP to be good, it needs a harsh penalty system for unlawful kills. But most FOPers don't want that, they just want to run around on a bloody murderous rampage with no consequences, and then claim that 'the people can police themselves' which is easier said than done when gear and level advantages come into play.
The only FOP that has done it well has been AoW.
Personally I prefer Faction Based OW PvP, which I will now refer to as F-BOP. I like to have a reason to be killing other players, and factional differences can provide that reason.
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.
It could work, if the punishment for being a psycho-killer would be utterly harsh.
Focused PvP with a goal never destroyed games. It's the wild PvP, the mindless ganking "just because you can" and "just because it ruins someone else's day" that destroys games.
Punish psychos with time out of the game, or at least out of the main game world, and a PvP world will work.
It does not if i want 0% chance of pvp when i am downing the boss.
And if the punishment is so great that no one is doing it, you may as well declare that a pvp-free zone. Implementing a pvp switch is a lot easier and cheaper than putting in a punishment system.
So again, if it works so well that no one pvp, then why bother? If there is pvp, it does not work for those who do not want any.
The logic is quite clear.
It should just work so well that very few are willing to take the risk and go through the pain of being a psycho-killer. When the risk is like 1%, it's no longer a problem... and even then, you can still get revenge from them, since the game mechanics allow it.
The main problem of FFA PvP games is that the risk for other activities is like 90%. If you go out for crafting/gathering, you have 90% chances you're going to be ganked by some bored teenager (or adult with a teenager brain). Reverse that by making being an asshat as painful as it is in "real" world, and the game will work... and only the most hardcore will become asshats, and they will remain in the places where the game favors them, because that's what those guys are all about, they don't look for fair fights, they look for cheap kills.
If i don't want it at all, why would i play a game even when the risk is 1%?
And if i am not interested in pvp, revenge does not matter.
You are still projecting your own preferences to others. What part of "want no pvp" you do not understand? Don't tell me you don't know there are players who want zero pvp in their games?
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.
For a FOP to be good, it needs a harsh penalty system for unlawful kills. But most FOPers don't want that, they just want to run around on a bloody murderous rampage with no consequences, and then claim that 'the people can police themselves' which is easier said than done when gear and level advantages come into play.
The only FOP that has done it well has been AoW.
Personally I prefer Faction Based OW PvP, which I will now refer to as F-BOP. I like to have a reason to be killing other players, and factional differences can provide that reason.
Seems like some people arent reading the OP, I said if there was almost no gear and level advantages.... Thats the main reason people think theyre just going to get ganked by a demi god, so why bother... but when a noob has a chance to fight back, it isnt that cheap...
I agree open pvp should have a meaning... Guilds should be able to build cities and fight for territory/resources... That way you can go raid an enemy guild town or something other than ganking noobs for fun.
I still think FPS or Action based combat would be better because its more skill based... The dice roll system is basically made so that higher level characters get the upper hand always...
For all those people that just DONT WANT pvp in their games, thats fine, go play in your single player lobby themepark and kill your monsters in peace... But I want a living world with risk vs reward, so theres some danger in going out to explore and I can actually build an empire and conquer real player cities... If you dont like that game, dont play it, just leave it alone dont ask for some "pvp switch" or other bullshit to be added so its appeals to everyone.. In fact, games shouldnt try to appeal to everyone.... everyone has his preferences so theyre gonna play different games IMO
For all those people that just DONT WANT pvp in their games, thats fine, go play in your single player lobby themepark and kill your monsters in peace... But I want a living world with risk vs reward, so theres some danger in going out to explore and I can actually build an empire and conquer real player cities... If you dont like that game, dont play it, just leave it alone dont ask for some "pvp switch" or other bullshit to be added so its appeals to everyone.. In fact, games shouldnt try to appeal to everyone.... everyone has his preferences so theyre gonna play different games IMO
Right .. so what is the problem if the devs want to put in a pvp switch for some players? Just don't play that game, as you advise the other group of players.
For a FOP to be good, it needs a harsh penalty system for unlawful kills. But most FOPers don't want that, they just want to run around on a bloody murderous rampage with no consequences, and then claim that 'the people can police themselves' which is easier said than done when gear and level advantages come into play.
The only FOP that has done it well has been AoW.
Personally I prefer Faction Based OW PvP, which I will now refer to as F-BOP. I like to have a reason to be killing other players, and factional differences can provide that reason.
I think a hybrid of FFA and Faction-based is possible and could produce some really interesting gameplay. From a design perspective, the system planned for Trials of Ascension is intriguing. It's ostensibly open-world, free-for-all pvp, but the reality is that it's actually more faction-based. While you can kill anyone anywhere at any time, you will lose standing with the settlement to which that individual belongs. Get a bad enough rep and members of that settlement (as well as hired npcs guards) will see you flagged as "kill-on-sight." So any persistent PK-er is not going to be welcome in too many settlements, nor will making a kill and escaping town be too easy, making the settlement and its immediate environs a relative safe-zone, without a hard-coding it with different rules. This gives it a more immersive and natural feel than having an area where you arbitrarily can't attack anyone, or having NPC guards that are unkillable and level X*2, where X is max character level.
For all those people that just DONT WANT pvp in their games, thats fine, go play in your single player lobby themepark and kill your monsters in peace... But I want a living world with risk vs reward, so theres some danger in going out to explore and I can actually build an empire and conquer real player cities... If you dont like that game, dont play it, just leave it alone dont ask for some "pvp switch" or other bullshit to be added so its appeals to everyone.. In fact, games shouldnt try to appeal to everyone.... everyone has his preferences so theyre gonna play different games IMO
Right .. so what is the problem if the devs want to put in a pvp switch for some players? Just don't play that game, as you advise the other group of players.
There is no problem, I wont play that game.. just dont call it FFA OW PvP sandbox then...
Theres tons of games like that on the market already, but none FFA OW PvP (aside from darkfall and buggy mortal online)
For a FOP to be good, it needs a harsh penalty system for unlawful kills. But most FOPers don't want that, they just want to run around on a bloody murderous rampage with no consequences, and then claim that 'the people can police themselves' which is easier said than done when gear and level advantages come into play.
The only FOP that has done it well has been AoW.
Personally I prefer Faction Based OW PvP, which I will now refer to as F-BOP. I like to have a reason to be killing other players, and factional differences can provide that reason.
I think a hybrid of FFA and Faction-based is possible and could produce some really interesting gameplay. From a design perspective, the system planned for Trials of Ascension is intriguing. It's ostensibly open-world, free-for-all pvp, but the reality is that it's actually more faction-based. While you can kill anyone anywhere at any time, you will lose standing with the settlement to which that individual belongs. Get a bad enough rep and members of that settlement (as well as hired npcs guards) will see you flagged as "kill-on-sight." So any persistent PK-er is not going to be welcome in too many settlements, nor will making a kill and escaping town be too easy, making the settlement and its immediate environs a relative safe-zone, without a hard-coding it with different rules. This gives it a more immersive and natural feel than having an area where you arbitrarily can't attack anyone, or having NPC guards that are unkillable and level X*2, where X is max character level.
This is exactly the system that should be in place to punish PKers... So you want to kill everyone on sight? Okay, now you're not welcome in town with all its perks and have to live in the wilderness... It would create a relative safe zone instead of a deathmatch arena.... But IMO It shouldnt just be NPC "factions", but guilds that can take over those NPC cities and make theyre own rules/collect taxes or theyre own cities... The flagging would be different for each city
For all those people that just DONT WANT pvp in their games, thats fine, go play in your single player lobby themepark and kill your monsters in peace... But I want a living world with risk vs reward, so theres some danger in going out to explore and I can actually build an empire and conquer real player cities... If you dont like that game, dont play it, just leave it alone dont ask for some "pvp switch" or other bullshit to be added so its appeals to everyone.. In fact, games shouldnt try to appeal to everyone.... everyone has his preferences so theyre gonna play different games IMO
Right .. so what is the problem if the devs want to put in a pvp switch for some players? Just don't play that game, as you advise the other group of players.
There is no problem, I wont play that game.. just dont call it FFA OW PvP sandbox then...
Theres tons of games like that on the market already, but none FFA OW PvP (aside from darkfall and buggy mortal online)
I don't think anyone is calling a game with a pvp switch FFA OW pvp. In fact, i doubt anyone is using that term at all. I have never seen it in any MMO marketing literature.
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.
Oh it is possible, but no AAA company wants to take that risk. Indie development company Aventurine made darkfall which has FFA combat with FSP/3rd person melee combat. The game could be great, but it has too many flaws.
For a FOP to be good, it needs a harsh penalty system for unlawful kills. But most FOPers don't want that, they just want to run around on a bloody murderous rampage with no consequences, and then claim that 'the people can police themselves' which is easier said than done when gear and level advantages come into play.
The only FOP that has done it well has been AoW.
Personally I prefer Faction Based OW PvP, which I will now refer to as F-BOP. I like to have a reason to be killing other players, and factional differences can provide that reason.
I think a hybrid of FFA and Faction-based is possible and could produce some really interesting gameplay. From a design perspective, the system planned for Trials of Ascension is intriguing. It's ostensibly open-world, free-for-all pvp, but the reality is that it's actually more faction-based. While you can kill anyone anywhere at any time, you will lose standing with the settlement to which that individual belongs. Get a bad enough rep and members of that settlement (as well as hired npcs guards) will see you flagged as "kill-on-sight." So any persistent PK-er is not going to be welcome in too many settlements, nor will making a kill and escaping town be too easy, making the settlement and its immediate environs a relative safe-zone, without a hard-coding it with different rules. This gives it a more immersive and natural feel than having an area where you arbitrarily can't attack anyone, or having NPC guards that are unkillable and level X*2, where X is max character level.
This is exactly the system that should be in place to punish PKers... So you want to kill everyone on sight? Okay, now you're not welcome in town with all its perks and have to live in the wilderness... It would create a relative safe zone instead of a deathmatch arena.... But IMO It shouldnt just be NPC "factions", but guilds that can take over those NPC cities and make theyre own rules/collect taxes or theyre own cities... The flagging would be different for each city
Well actually in the case of ToA they're player run cities. They just let you "hire" NPC guards to help make your settlement safer. But all other settlement functions are done by players. Your settlement can also be sieged and taken over, or new settlements founded. So the number of "factions" changes over time.
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.
cant you find a few mercenary players and pay to cover you while you fight the boss ?
Why pay players to do what you do not want them to do (kill other players)?
The reason is to hire them for protection, not necessarely to kill others. Their presence may be enough to deter any attacks from happening and thus any blood from being spilled. Think "Game of Thrones" but inside a game.
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.
cant you find a few mercenary players and pay to cover you while you fight the boss ?
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".
People don't know if they like it until they've actually tried it.
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.
cant you find a few mercenary players and pay to cover you while you fight the boss ?
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".
People don't know if they like it until they've actually tried it.
I am talking about a case where i know. If i don't, i can try. Plus, it is not like pvp is a mystery. many players know what it is like.
But if i don't like it after i try, why should i live with mercenaries when i can avoid it completely?
For all those people that just DONT WANT pvp in their games, thats fine, go play in your single player lobby themepark and kill your monsters in peace... But I want a living world with risk vs reward, so theres some danger in going out to explore and I can actually build an empire and conquer real player cities... If you dont like that game, dont play it, just leave it alone dont ask for some "pvp switch" or other bullshit to be added so its appeals to everyone.. In fact, games shouldnt try to appeal to everyone.... everyone has his preferences so theyre gonna play different games IMO
Right .. so what is the problem if the devs want to put in a pvp switch for some players? Just don't play that game, as you advise the other group of players.
There is no problem, I wont play that game.. just dont call it FFA OW PvP sandbox then...
Theres tons of games like that on the market already, but none FFA OW PvP (aside from darkfall and buggy mortal online)
I don't think anyone is calling a game with a pvp switch FFA OW pvp. In fact, i doubt anyone is using that term at all. I have never seen it in any MMO marketing literature.
Your fear is unfounded.
You have never heard the term open world pvp sandbox? With looting (can be full loot or inventory only) Where there is no switch, you can attack anyone anywhere, sure they might be some punishments like flagging so it isnt a deathmatch arena but no artificial restrictions...
Just like I dont tell you to "deal with it" and quit being a pussy carebear, dont think the crowd who likes that risk vs reward open world pvp gameplay will just be happy with a pvp switch "Whats the difference? The people who want to pvp just flip the switch, I can farm my uber boss and everyones happy".... No way, OW PVP adds a layer of depth that your themepark (more like a giant lobby based single player game) will never have...
People who love FFA OW PVP aren't content for it to just be an on/off switch. They want the game to be designed and balanced with that gameplay in mind. Without that, for some folks, PVP can't be done well because it's designed for a different purpose. I think that's what OP is saying.
I love how people mention mercenaries like it's some foolproof method.
Originally posted by YoungCaesar No way, OW PVP adds a layer of depth that your themepark (more like a giant lobby based single player game) will never have...
I wasn't aware DAoC was "open world", and I played it back then at release. I thought DAoC was "level to max in 100% safe zones grinding mob spawns, and then join PvP (or RvR)". Did that change? I don't think so
Huh, you mean people worship it religiously but it has...the evil instances? No...wai...gasp.
I am shocked and appalled. Call the inquisitors!
Ah...the little spaceships must have a reason for feeling superior to and more hardcore than the old classic. Yes, that does explain quite a lot.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I look much further into it than simply worrying about levels but yes you need to at least have the base to be fair/even.
I want pvp to revolve around everything,movement,thinking,map skills,various weapon choices,z-axis,cover,key points ect ect.
I have not seen one rpg pvp game come even remotely close to doing it well,they can't even get the BASE right to think beyond into variables.The main reason it will always be a fail is it takes too much work to do right,devs just want their game to cater to a broader audience that is why they have pvp.You know what they say about jack of all trades,master of none.
IMO all of these games are double a products or worse,they are just missing so many components to be called a triple a game.Sure they might look triple A compared to games 15-20 years ago,but this is now not 1990.
IDK if it is really bad people running these operations or just simple facts,it costs way too much money to make a triple a game.Even if a developer makes the pvp aspect really good you still need the rest of the game to support it and give pvp reason.We are still struggling to get the base PVE gaming done really well,so imo until they can get that down right,we shouldn't even be thinking about Pvp.We already have tons of pvp games in the market that focus ONLY on pvp,that is where it should stay until devs can afford to make the total package of Pve+pvp.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
OP is 100% right and it doesn't seem like very many reading the thread really understood the point. I can see how open PVP would be annoying for a player trying to grind mobs or kill bosses. I personally find grinding mobs and killing bosses extremely dull, though and prefer the added difficulty of needing to kill quickly or kill the target while fending off players. I don't think i am going to convince anyone though, so I won't bother.
OP is saying that a open world FFA PVP would work well for everyone if a game was designed around it. That has been discounted by players in this thread due to the above argument. However, that is not thinking outside the box. What about an open world FFA PVP game that didn't have mobs to grind or bosses to kill. Instead it had sandboxy stuff to do/create or steal/destroy. Games like DayZ, EVE, and Age of Wushu follow this concept and are doing quite well because they are designed ground up to include FFA PVP.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Comments
then they should play the games which do this, and not turn every freakin game into a PVE easymode themepark. Or destroy the game after release because of complainers.I´d like to have just ONE triple A budget FFA Open World sandbox MMO, just ONE, besides EvE, is that too much to ask for? I just can´t swallow another themepark, sorry. I only play two theme parks that is Age of Conan on Blood and Glory server (quite the hardcore experience) and Secret World (because it´s cool and I like the puzzles)
It does not if i want 0% chance of pvp when i am downing the boss.
And if the punishment is so great that no one is doing it, you may as well declare that a pvp-free zone. Implementing a pvp switch is a lot easier and cheaper than putting in a punishment system.
So again, if it works so well that no one pvp, then why bother? If there is pvp, it does not work for those who do not want any.
The logic is quite clear.
Actually I'd pick DAoC (since most people seem to favor high fantasy over spaceships)
In either case, one partial success in 16 years...
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Yes, and they *are* playing games without FFA open world pvp. That is why FFA open world pvp is not popular.
And no one is turning games into anything. Do you see a devs here? If devs (and the market) respond to their needs, well, you should vote with your wallet more.
Plus, people who don't want pvp has as much right as you to air their preferences.
"I´d like to have just ONE triple A budget FFA Open World sandbox MMO, just ONE, besides EvE, is that too much to ask for?"
Well, it is too much to ask for if the market decide there is not enough audience for one. I would love a big budget AAA movies based on some obscure Hong Kong fighting comics too. But i am not going to whine because no one is making it, and instead, i will just take Avengers, Iron man 3, ... and enjoy.
For a FOP to be good, it needs a harsh penalty system for unlawful kills. But most FOPers don't want that, they just want to run around on a bloody murderous rampage with no consequences, and then claim that 'the people can police themselves' which is easier said than done when gear and level advantages come into play.
The only FOP that has done it well has been AoW.
Personally I prefer Faction Based OW PvP, which I will now refer to as F-BOP. I like to have a reason to be killing other players, and factional differences can provide that reason.
If i don't want it at all, why would i play a game even when the risk is 1%?
And if i am not interested in pvp, revenge does not matter.
You are still projecting your own preferences to others. What part of "want no pvp" you do not understand? Don't tell me you don't know there are players who want zero pvp in their games?
Seems like some people arent reading the OP, I said if there was almost no gear and level advantages.... Thats the main reason people think theyre just going to get ganked by a demi god, so why bother... but when a noob has a chance to fight back, it isnt that cheap...
I agree open pvp should have a meaning... Guilds should be able to build cities and fight for territory/resources... That way you can go raid an enemy guild town or something other than ganking noobs for fun.
I still think FPS or Action based combat would be better because its more skill based... The dice roll system is basically made so that higher level characters get the upper hand always...
For all those people that just DONT WANT pvp in their games, thats fine, go play in your single player lobby themepark and kill your monsters in peace... But I want a living world with risk vs reward, so theres some danger in going out to explore and I can actually build an empire and conquer real player cities... If you dont like that game, dont play it, just leave it alone dont ask for some "pvp switch" or other bullshit to be added so its appeals to everyone.. In fact, games shouldnt try to appeal to everyone.... everyone has his preferences so theyre gonna play different games IMO
Right .. so what is the problem if the devs want to put in a pvp switch for some players? Just don't play that game, as you advise the other group of players.
I think a hybrid of FFA and Faction-based is possible and could produce some really interesting gameplay. From a design perspective, the system planned for Trials of Ascension is intriguing. It's ostensibly open-world, free-for-all pvp, but the reality is that it's actually more faction-based. While you can kill anyone anywhere at any time, you will lose standing with the settlement to which that individual belongs. Get a bad enough rep and members of that settlement (as well as hired npcs guards) will see you flagged as "kill-on-sight." So any persistent PK-er is not going to be welcome in too many settlements, nor will making a kill and escaping town be too easy, making the settlement and its immediate environs a relative safe-zone, without a hard-coding it with different rules. This gives it a more immersive and natural feel than having an area where you arbitrarily can't attack anyone, or having NPC guards that are unkillable and level X*2, where X is max character level.
There is no problem, I wont play that game.. just dont call it FFA OW PvP sandbox then...
Theres tons of games like that on the market already, but none FFA OW PvP (aside from darkfall and buggy mortal online)
This is exactly the system that should be in place to punish PKers... So you want to kill everyone on sight? Okay, now you're not welcome in town with all its perks and have to live in the wilderness... It would create a relative safe zone instead of a deathmatch arena.... But IMO It shouldnt just be NPC "factions", but guilds that can take over those NPC cities and make theyre own rules/collect taxes or theyre own cities... The flagging would be different for each city
I don't think anyone is calling a game with a pvp switch FFA OW pvp. In fact, i doubt anyone is using that term at all. I have never seen it in any MMO marketing literature.
Your fear is unfounded.
Oh it is possible, but no AAA company wants to take that risk. Indie development company Aventurine made darkfall which has FFA combat with FSP/3rd person melee combat. The game could be great, but it has too many flaws.
MurderHerd
Well actually in the case of ToA they're player run cities. They just let you "hire" NPC guards to help make your settlement safer. But all other settlement functions are done by players. Your settlement can also be sieged and taken over, or new settlements founded. So the number of "factions" changes over time.
There is something wrong with wanting to kill low-level newbs or sneek up on a miner and steal his ore?
or PK some guy in a dungeon?.. What is the bloody difference???
A PK, is a PK.
(Player Killer)
They exist, let us game.. Ultima Online for the win.
FFA Open World PVP Done Right - Ultima Online (the free servers, old-style UO)
*rides away on an emu*
The reason is to hire them for protection, not necessarely to kill others. Their presence may be enough to deter any attacks from happening and thus any blood from being spilled. Think "Game of Thrones" but inside a game.
People don't know if they like it until they've actually tried it.
I am talking about a case where i know. If i don't, i can try. Plus, it is not like pvp is a mystery. many players know what it is like.
But if i don't like it after i try, why should i live with mercenaries when i can avoid it completely?
You have never heard the term open world pvp sandbox? With looting (can be full loot or inventory only) Where there is no switch, you can attack anyone anywhere, sure they might be some punishments like flagging so it isnt a deathmatch arena but no artificial restrictions...
Just like I dont tell you to "deal with it" and quit being a pussy carebear, dont think the crowd who likes that risk vs reward open world pvp gameplay will just be happy with a pvp switch "Whats the difference? The people who want to pvp just flip the switch, I can farm my uber boss and everyones happy".... No way, OW PVP adds a layer of depth that your themepark (more like a giant lobby based single player game) will never have...
I love how people mention mercenaries like it's some foolproof method.
Where did you see a lobby in EQ1 or SWG?
Huh, you mean people worship it religiously but it has...the evil instances? No...wai...gasp.
I am shocked and appalled. Call the inquisitors!
Ah...the little spaceships must have a reason for feeling superior to and more hardcore than the old classic. Yes, that does explain quite a lot.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I look much further into it than simply worrying about levels but yes you need to at least have the base to be fair/even.
I want pvp to revolve around everything,movement,thinking,map skills,various weapon choices,z-axis,cover,key points ect ect.
I have not seen one rpg pvp game come even remotely close to doing it well,they can't even get the BASE right to think beyond into variables.The main reason it will always be a fail is it takes too much work to do right,devs just want their game to cater to a broader audience that is why they have pvp.You know what they say about jack of all trades,master of none.
IMO all of these games are double a products or worse,they are just missing so many components to be called a triple a game.Sure they might look triple A compared to games 15-20 years ago,but this is now not 1990.
IDK if it is really bad people running these operations or just simple facts,it costs way too much money to make a triple a game.Even if a developer makes the pvp aspect really good you still need the rest of the game to support it and give pvp reason.We are still struggling to get the base PVE gaming done really well,so imo until they can get that down right,we shouldn't even be thinking about Pvp.We already have tons of pvp games in the market that focus ONLY on pvp,that is where it should stay until devs can afford to make the total package of Pve+pvp.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
OP is 100% right and it doesn't seem like very many reading the thread really understood the point. I can see how open PVP would be annoying for a player trying to grind mobs or kill bosses. I personally find grinding mobs and killing bosses extremely dull, though and prefer the added difficulty of needing to kill quickly or kill the target while fending off players. I don't think i am going to convince anyone though, so I won't bother.
OP is saying that a open world FFA PVP would work well for everyone if a game was designed around it. That has been discounted by players in this thread due to the above argument. However, that is not thinking outside the box. What about an open world FFA PVP game that didn't have mobs to grind or bosses to kill. Instead it had sandboxy stuff to do/create or steal/destroy. Games like DayZ, EVE, and Age of Wushu follow this concept and are doing quite well because they are designed ground up to include FFA PVP.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!