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.
This doesn't make much sense, though. Regardless of how you design a game, there will always be people for whom it doesn't work. This has nothing to do with whether it's a good game or a bad game. Sometimes it's just personal preference. Perhaps you meant "It would work well for most people". But that's a hard statement to back up, and too many arguments from PvPers sound like: "I like it and so should you".
EVE has many issues for PvE players, it's a good example of what many PvE players do not want.
Same goes for DayZ.
Nobody says those games can't do well or are bad games, or whatever. All we're saying is that some of us didn't like many of the examples of FFA PvP, and EVE is often included in the list of games we don't like. If we liked it we'd be playing those games. Most people find EVE very forbidding and it has a tough learning curve, I am not sure why anyone would use it as an example for standard PvE folk?
FFA PvP is an interesting idea but pretty much all games that had it so far, that includes EVE, DFO, and DayZ, are very harsh and stressful games. DayZ has permadeath for crying out loud.
Originally posted by nariusseldon 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.
I can think of very few games that don't offer servers for people exactly like you.
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.
I doubt whether it will work for me.
The only open world pvp game that can work (for me) is one that has nothing BUT pvp (like PS2). If there is something else to do (crafting, pve, collecting pets, whatever), and i wouldn't want to do it with pvp on top of it. (And no, you can't convince anyone because that is just a preference).
And btw, FFA wouldn't work. Even open world pvp games like PS2 does not have FFA. You keep your stuff.
Either the stuff worth nothing, and in that case, you cannot have item progression. If the stuff worth anything, i certainly don't want to let other loot it.
Shadowbane pretty much validated the concerns of PvE minded people in regards to open world PvP.
Regardless of one-on-one balance, the super-guilds took over whole servers because they could and ran around marauding, ganking everyone not wearing their guild, or sub-guild tags. If any other guild tried to build a fortress it was instantly leveled and camped til players gave up on logging in.
Any game that lets players abuse an open PvP system like this will always fail it's playership. This is why PvP requires constraints and limitations.
Shadowbane pretty much validated the concerns of PvE minded people in regards to open world PvP.
Regardless of one-on-one balance, the super-guilds took over whole servers because they could and ran around marauding, ganking everyone not wearing their guild, or sub-guild tags. If any other guild tried to build a fortress it was instantly leveled and camped til players gave up on logging in.
Any game that lets players abuse an open PvP system like this will always fail it's playership. This is why PvP requires constraints and limitations.
Funny you mentioned shadowbane, because it was pretty much the epitome of open world pvp.... Sure there were some zerging, but smaller guilds could overcome being outnumbered if they were skilled enough playing on a team... Constantly rolling new team templates to figure out how to beat the other guilds...There were also plenty of small guilds with fortresses and they werent instantly camped/sieged unless they were close to a resource mine...
I still remember when the Chinease tried to take over the server with their zerg and every guild joined forces to stop them.. Epic battles, I felt like I was in middle earth or something lol
Shadowbane pretty much validated the concerns of PvE minded people in regards to open world PvP.
Regardless of one-on-one balance, the super-guilds took over whole servers because they could and ran around marauding, ganking everyone not wearing their guild, or sub-guild tags. If any other guild tried to build a fortress it was instantly leveled and camped til players gave up on logging in.
Any game that lets players abuse an open PvP system like this will always fail it's playership. This is why PvP requires constraints and limitations.
Funny you mentioned shadowbane, because it was pretty much the epitome of open world pvp.... Sure there were some zerging, but smaller guilds could overcome being outnumbered if they were skilled enough playing on a team... Constantly rolling new team templates to figure out how to beat the other guilds...There were also plenty of small guilds with fortresses and they werent instantly camped/sieged unless they were close to a resource mine...
I still remember when the Chinease tried to take over the server with their zerg and every guild joined forces to stop them.. Epic battles, I felt like I was in middle earth or something lol
Yeah .. the epitome of an open world pvp game .. and a huge failure.
That tells you something about open world pvp games ..
It doesn't matter what safeguards you put in or bonuses to areas that have PvP. It's like PvE players convincing you that you'll battlegrounds if they are a little bigger and you can gain PvP gear.
Shadowbane pretty much validated the concerns of PvE minded people in regards to open world PvP.
Regardless of one-on-one balance, the super-guilds took over whole servers because they could and ran around marauding, ganking everyone not wearing their guild, or sub-guild tags. If any other guild tried to build a fortress it was instantly leveled and camped til players gave up on logging in.
Any game that lets players abuse an open PvP system like this will always fail it's playership. This is why PvP requires constraints and limitations.
Funny you mentioned shadowbane, because it was pretty much the epitome of open world pvp.... Sure there were some zerging, but smaller guilds could overcome being outnumbered if they were skilled enough playing on a team... Constantly rolling new team templates to figure out how to beat the other guilds...There were also plenty of small guilds with fortresses and they werent instantly camped/sieged unless they were close to a resource mine...
I still remember when the Chinease tried to take over the server with their zerg and every guild joined forces to stop them.. Epic battles, I felt like I was in middle earth or something lol
Yeah .. the epitome of an open world pvp game .. and a huge failure.
That tells you something about open world pvp games ..
Yeah such failure that some players went as far as trying to recreate the game after it shutdown
It doesn't matter what safeguards you put in or bonuses to areas that have PvP. It's like PvE players convincing you that you'll battlegrounds if they are a little bigger and you can gain PvP gear.
Im not trying to convince you to play a game you dont like. Im just stating for those that have an innacurate view of FFA OW PVP where they think they will be ganked by a demi god or lose their precious epic loot
Yeah .. the epitome of an open world pvp game .. and a huge failure.
That tells you something about open world pvp games ..
Yeah such failure that some players went as far as trying to recreate the game after it shutdown
Yeh .. if "players" have to try (note it is try, not successful) to recreate the game, and no dev is interested .. it is a huge failure.
In your opinion dear lad. I've seen enough of you projecting opinions so hard you could level NORAD with them on this subject. Open World PVP Games need structure (not limitations), EVE is an example of such, it is truly Open World and unrestricted yet its structure gives enough order for people of a less ganky/zergy/pvpy persuasion to go about doing their things in relative safety and this system isn't perfect either. In time there will be games to bring out the true potential of OW PVP, Hell it could even be one of the ones that currently exists which finally gains the steam and traction required to show it has what it takes (most OW PVP games are zergfests because of small populations).
Open World PVP Games need structure (not limitations), EVE is an example of such, it is truly Open World and unrestricted yet its structure gives enough order for people of a less ganky/zergy/pvpy persuasion to go about doing their things in relative safety and this system isn't perfect either. In time there will be games to bring out the true potential of OW PVP, Hell it could even be one of the ones that currently exists which finally gains the steam and traction required to show it has what it takes (most OW PVP games are zergfests because of small populations).
The question is not what open world pvp (you miss the FFA) games need. It is whether the market need more FFA open world pvp games.
Comments
This doesn't make much sense, though. Regardless of how you design a game, there will always be people for whom it doesn't work. This has nothing to do with whether it's a good game or a bad game. Sometimes it's just personal preference. Perhaps you meant "It would work well for most people". But that's a hard statement to back up, and too many arguments from PvPers sound like: "I like it and so should you".
EVE has many issues for PvE players, it's a good example of what many PvE players do not want.
Same goes for DayZ.
Nobody says those games can't do well or are bad games, or whatever. All we're saying is that some of us didn't like many of the examples of FFA PvP, and EVE is often included in the list of games we don't like. If we liked it we'd be playing those games. Most people find EVE very forbidding and it has a tough learning curve, I am not sure why anyone would use it as an example for standard PvE folk?
FFA PvP is an interesting idea but pretty much all games that had it so far, that includes EVE, DFO, and DayZ, are very harsh and stressful games. DayZ has permadeath for crying out loud.
FFA OW PvP games always end up in the same place.
Gank
I can think of very few games that don't offer servers for people exactly like you.
Read the OP, it's about getting people like him into FFA OW PvP games.
I doubt whether it will work for me.
The only open world pvp game that can work (for me) is one that has nothing BUT pvp (like PS2). If there is something else to do (crafting, pve, collecting pets, whatever), and i wouldn't want to do it with pvp on top of it. (And no, you can't convince anyone because that is just a preference).
And btw, FFA wouldn't work. Even open world pvp games like PS2 does not have FFA. You keep your stuff.
Either the stuff worth nothing, and in that case, you cannot have item progression. If the stuff worth anything, i certainly don't want to let other loot it.
And it is a fool's errand trying to convince others to change their preferences.
I wouldn't even try to ask people who want FFA open world pvp to change their minds. Why would i? It is not like i have to play in a game they like.
Shadowbane pretty much validated the concerns of PvE minded people in regards to open world PvP.
Regardless of one-on-one balance, the super-guilds took over whole servers because they could and ran around marauding, ganking everyone not wearing their guild, or sub-guild tags. If any other guild tried to build a fortress it was instantly leveled and camped til players gave up on logging in.
Any game that lets players abuse an open PvP system like this will always fail it's playership. This is why PvP requires constraints and limitations.
Funny you mentioned shadowbane, because it was pretty much the epitome of open world pvp.... Sure there were some zerging, but smaller guilds could overcome being outnumbered if they were skilled enough playing on a team... Constantly rolling new team templates to figure out how to beat the other guilds...There were also plenty of small guilds with fortresses and they werent instantly camped/sieged unless they were close to a resource mine...
I still remember when the Chinease tried to take over the server with their zerg and every guild joined forces to stop them.. Epic battles, I felt like I was in middle earth or something lol
Yeah .. the epitome of an open world pvp game .. and a huge failure.
That tells you something about open world pvp games ..
Some
People
Don't
Like
PvP
....
At
All
It doesn't matter what safeguards you put in or bonuses to areas that have PvP. It's like PvE players convincing you that you'll battlegrounds if they are a little bigger and you can gain PvP gear.
Yeah such failure that some players went as far as trying to recreate the game after it shutdown
Im not trying to convince you to play a game you dont like. Im just stating for those that have an innacurate view of FFA OW PVP where they think they will be ganked by a demi god or lose their precious epic loot
Yeh .. if "players" have to try (note it is try, not successful) to recreate the game, and no dev is interested .. it is a huge failure.
In your opinion dear lad. I've seen enough of you projecting opinions so hard you could level NORAD with them on this subject. Open World PVP Games need structure (not limitations), EVE is an example of such, it is truly Open World and unrestricted yet its structure gives enough order for people of a less ganky/zergy/pvpy persuasion to go about doing their things in relative safety and this system isn't perfect either. In time there will be games to bring out the true potential of OW PVP, Hell it could even be one of the ones that currently exists which finally gains the steam and traction required to show it has what it takes (most OW PVP games are zergfests because of small populations).
The question is not what open world pvp (you miss the FFA) games need. It is whether the market need more FFA open world pvp games.
I doubt the demand is there.