I still wonder why some people get all butthurt the moment the words 'full pvp' are mentioned anywhere.
only the ones who always lose and never win in PvP... I´d be butthurt too and go kill easy trash mobs if I woulnd´t stand a chance by facing a real player.
It's ironic you should describe it this way. I feel like a significant portion of full PVP playerbases are players who couldn't cut it in real (skill-centric) PVP games. So they ragequit and play "full PVP" games where skill isn't the only factor.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
or some of them like both types. I still dont understand why you dont want a game because you dont like what it offers to others. There are tons of popular games out there with a similar approach, some with low skillcaps (lol) or higher (wot, dota2) and they are quite popular already having the same principle of nonconsensual pvp, so why is that?
*Wanders into thread supporting full pvp worlds....
... commences to tell the OP how he wants the thread to change to fit HIS play style...
... Finally understands why the MMO market is all but dead*
I mean really, EVE did it, mostly, and the full on pvp had 'risks' and it really did add to the game when you had to watch your back. Was plenty of only pve'ers in the game, but even their actions, in the end, affected pvp.
Look at other games, where it tosses out ANY sense of realism, and just promotes trolling by loud mouthed turds, who feel they can say, or do anything and have absolutely no risk of any coincidences.
Most full on pvp worlds, even when I choose not to participate, were more alive, the danger was real, and it made me seek out 'safe zones' and made said zones more important.
In 'let me push this button, ok now we can hit each other' games, it felt fake, i was repeatedly reminded how I was 'playing a game' and all it ended up as was feeling the need to uncheck the 'accept dual request' button for constant dual request popups. - In a pvp game, he would attack, I would defend, if we were in a 'safe zone' he would be 'punished' by either the NPC's or other players. Done deal.
But in the end, if you do NOT support the idea of a full pvp game, why the heck do you bother to come to this thread? The only reason you do is to tell 'those nasty gankers' how you want THEIR game to be YOUR game.
Originally posted by uplink4242 or some of them like both types. I still dont understand why you dont want a game because you dont like what it offers. There are tons of popular games out there with a similar approach, some with low skillcaps (lol) or higher (wot, dota2) and they are quite popular already having the same principle of nonconsensual pvp, so why is that?
Did you just call LoL, WoT, and DOTA2 nonconsensual PVP?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by uplink4242 or some of them like both types. I still dont understand why you dont want a game because you dont like what it offers. There are tons of popular games out there with a similar approach, some with low skillcaps (lol) or higher (wot, dota2) and they are quite popular already having the same principle of nonconsensual pvp, so why is that?
Did you just call LoL, WoT, and DOTA2 nonconsensual PVP?
Yes I did. By starting any of those games you are consenting to be attacked virtually anywhere, with various levels of "safety" across the map. The goal of those games are to acquire resources and kills (witouth dying) that lead to a strategic advantage over the other team, taking tactical decisions on how and wether to engage someone when the sittuation is the most convenient for you. I don't remember asking anyone in dota if they want to be ganked, and I can remember a lot of fights in wot that were not 'fair' because my team decided to engage the other team when they had a key element down. You can be bullied, farmed and griefed just as much in dota when facing someone with better skill, and better items and levels - but when this happens in an MMO, we are all phychopaths for some reason.
Those games are exactly what a ffa pvp game is: a game of survival where decisions and risk accessment determine who wins. Levels, gold, heroes and items are all there to provide an advantage to whoever can manipulate them the most to overcome the other team, and that's where creative and smart play comes in (because the result of combined forces is larger than the sum of its parts). Do you venture alone into enemy territory witouth some sort of advantage in those games? No. And neither do you in EVE for example. The difference is that you must make or join your own team there instead of being assigned to one in the previous games.
The only difference between those games and a ffa pvp MMO is persistense - and this element alone can introduce many more tactical options that a session based game is unable to (long term alliances, more depht of resource management, larger battles, more choice of item progression, etc), and ultimately freedom (because you fight who you want, and not someone that happens to be assigned to the other team).
Originally posted by uplink4242 or some of them like both types. I still dont understand why you dont want a game because you dont like what it offers. There are tons of popular games out there with a similar approach, some with low skillcaps (lol) or higher (wot, dota2) and they are quite popular already having the same principle of nonconsensual pvp, so why is that?
Did you just call LoL, WoT, and DOTA2 nonconsensual PVP?
They are. The term refers to the lack of requirement for explicit consent for combat. In each of those games, you are in an open PVP environment. No one has ever had to /duel someone to fight them in WoT.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by uplink4242 or some of them like both types. I still dont understand why you dont want a game because you dont like what it offers. There are tons of popular games out there with a similar approach, some with low skillcaps (lol) or higher (wot, dota2) and they are quite popular already having the same principle of nonconsensual pvp, so why is that?
Did you just call LoL, WoT, and DOTA2 nonconsensual PVP?
They are. The term refers to the lack of requirement for explicit consent for combat. In each of those games, you are in an open PVP environment. No one has ever had to /duel someone to fight them in WoT.
thats ofc not true - when i come to e.g. LoL pvp fight, i enter with intention of pvp (ok, you can be a jungler, but you know that you have to help your team in pvp eventually), so the pvp is consensual. when you log into a sandbox mmorpg, you often do so with intentions to do other things then pvp, so in that case pvp is nonconsensual.
OP: problem is not that i (aka person who dont like pvp, especially the ffa kind) am saying "you cannt have ffa pvp game" or "we want you to play our way." problem is, that it is you (aka ffa pvp fans) who insist that every sandbox mmorpg HAS TO HAVE ffa pvp and as a result we have now already 10+ existing or in-development ffa pvp sandbox games, and not a single one which would be pve focused. I want to have at least 1 sandbox game i can play without having to pvp.
Originally posted by uplink4242 or some of them like both types. I still dont understand why you dont want a game because you dont like what it offers. There are tons of popular games out there with a similar approach, some with low skillcaps (lol) or higher (wot, dota2) and they are quite popular already having the same principle of nonconsensual pvp, so why is that?
Did you just call LoL, WoT, and DOTA2 nonconsensual PVP?
They are. The term refers to the lack of requirement for explicit consent for combat. In each of those games, you are in an open PVP environment. No one has ever had to /duel someone to fight them in WoT.
thats ofc not true - when i come to e.g. LoL pvp fight, i enter with intention of pvp (ok, you can be a jungler, but you know that you have to help your team in pvp eventually), so the pvp is consensual. when you log into a sandbox mmorpg, you often do so with intentions to do other things then pvp, so in that case pvp is nonconsensual.
So, you say that LoL crowd is more responsible than the general sandbox crowd? Because in my opinion, the moment you enter a game you have given your consent to play by the rules provided by that game; if those rules happen to include a "FFA PVP" and you didn't want to have anything to do with it, then perhaps you should have been responsible and not given your consent in the first place.
Originally posted by uplink4242 or some of them like both types. I still dont understand why you dont want a game because you dont like what it offers. There are tons of popular games out there with a similar approach, some with low skillcaps (lol) or higher (wot, dota2) and they are quite popular already having the same principle of nonconsensual pvp, so why is that?
Did you just call LoL, WoT, and DOTA2 nonconsensual PVP?
They are. The term refers to the lack of requirement for explicit consent for combat. In each of those games, you are in an open PVP environment. No one has ever had to /duel someone to fight them in WoT.
thats ofc not true - when i come to e.g. LoL pvp fight, i enter with intention of pvp (ok, you can be a jungler, but you know that you have to help your team in pvp eventually), so the pvp is consensual. when you log into a sandbox mmorpg, you often do so with intentions to do other things then pvp, so in that case pvp is nonconsensual.
And since when sandbox == ffa pvp? Nobody is implying that but you. This topic is (barring a few pointless anecdotes) is strictly about ffa pvp games. You do not enter one of those games unless you're looking for PVP, does that make sense to you?
Nobody is implying a sucessful sandbox game NEEDS FFA PVP. It is merely an option that can be present in some games. This is exactly the kind of myth people can't get outside their heads, and the grand majority of gibberish that results from this thread comes fromt the inability of reading the OP. Hint: it's not enforcing any playstyle on anyone, and it's definetly not saying FFA PVP is something you randomly throw at every mmo in existance and expect it to become good.
Originally posted by uplink4242 or some of them like both types. I still dont understand why you dont want a game because you dont like what it offers. There are tons of popular games out there with a similar approach, some with low skillcaps (lol) or higher (wot, dota2) and they are quite popular already having the same principle of nonconsensual pvp, so why is that?
Did you just call LoL, WoT, and DOTA2 nonconsensual PVP?
They are. The term refers to the lack of requirement for explicit consent for combat. In each of those games, you are in an open PVP environment. No one has ever had to /duel someone to fight them in WoT.
thats ofc not true - when i come to e.g. LoL pvp fight, i enter with intention of pvp (ok, you can be a jungler, but you know that you have to help your team in pvp eventually), so the pvp is consensual. when you log into a sandbox mmorpg, you often do so with intentions to do other things then pvp, so in that case pvp is nonconsensual.
And since when sandbox == ffa pvp? Nobody is implying that but you. This topic is (barring a few pointless anecdotes) is strictly about ffa pvp games. You do not enter one of those games unless you're looking for PVP, does that make sense to you?
Nobody is implying a sucessful sandbox game NEEDS FFA PVP. It is merely an option that can be present in some games. This is exactly the kind of myth people can't get outside their heads.
This.
I´ve never read a book where Conan was adventuring at forest with friendly flag and noone could never attack him.
or any fantasy book or saw any fantasy movie like that actually.
But there is this crowd who thinks that when all kind of pvp is removed from the game,then it is fantasy world.
its weird.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Originally posted by uplink4242 or some of them like both types. I still dont understand why you dont want a game because you dont like what it offers. There are tons of popular games out there with a similar approach, some with low skillcaps (lol) or higher (wot, dota2) and they are quite popular already having the same principle of nonconsensual pvp, so why is that?
Did you just call LoL, WoT, and DOTA2 nonconsensual PVP?
They are. The term refers to the lack of requirement for explicit consent for combat. In each of those games, you are in an open PVP environment. No one has ever had to /duel someone to fight them in WoT.
thats ofc not true - when i come to e.g. LoL pvp fight, i enter with intention of pvp (ok, you can be a jungler, but you know that you have to help your team in pvp eventually), so the pvp is consensual. when you log into a sandbox mmorpg, you often do so with intentions to do other things then pvp, so in that case pvp is nonconsensual.
I agree with Benedikt - those game's only activity is PvP. It's like saying "Quake 3 arena has non-consensual PvP", it's kinda obvious since it's the only possible activity.
A MMORPG is a complex game with many activities, even more if it's waving the "sandbox" flag. If you let a single activity, PvP, take over and control every other aspects of the game, you've failed in creating a sandbox in my opinion.
The problem isn't really with "open PvP", the problem is that when badly designed, it will take over the whole game crushing all the other activities with its iron fist.
@Benedict, you're not even reading, just disagreeing, as usual.
@JLP, Uplink wrote"the same principle of nonconsensual pvp". I confused the issue by writing 'They are' when I meant 'They are the same'. Sorry about that. It is definitely the same principle, however in other online games such as MUDs and MMOs, the term 'non-consensual PVP' came about to differentiate it from consensual PVP in an otherwise PvE environment.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
But there is this crowd who thinks that when all kind of pvp is removed from the game,then it is fantasy world.
its weird.
And there is that crowd which thinks that ganking players at a disadvantage, either with a superior character (level/skill/gear wise) or with a zerg group, without any consequences, means being some kind of superior player, more skilled than those "carebears" who do PvP against groups of equal power.
There are "weird" people on both sides of this debate.
yes there is that "ganker" crowd also but you think those are pvp´rs ?
PvP without any consequences is not pvp anyways.
and in the end im not talking about PvPrs ,just role playing gamers who want fantasy games which are like fantasy literature and movies and such.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
I am not going to go into some long diatribe about why you are wrong because you're probably not interested in reading my rebuttal anyway so all I am going to say is I disagree with every point in your post because I have 14+ years of experience that prove otherwise. So quit trying to pass your preferred and biased playstyle off on someone like me who doesn't want it.
"TL; DR"? Admit it...
He didn't read it at all. There are some points you CANNOT disagree with because there is nothing to disagree with. Such as a new PvP game coming not taking anything away from you.
And seeing as he points out his longevity in the genre, I'd like to point out that I have 15+ years of experience to prove contrary to his beliefs as well.
Not sure why the PvE crowed wants all the games to be the same yet is tired of all the current games... No logic at all.
Whenever this topic comes up, people like to play the DayZ card, completely forgetting that DayZ works because most players don't give a flying crap about their character. Saying "But look at DayZ!" is like saying "But look at Quake!"
Or Planetside 2.
I highly doubt a FFA world pvp can work in a game with heavy progression and pve content. WoW took open world pvp away because it wasn't popular. What make people think that it will be if you add FFA?
All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
Arenanet disagrees, that's why they didn't open a PvP server. If you are going to open a PvP server or PvE server, you should do it right, not just half-assed.
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
Arenanet disagrees, that's why they didn't open a PvP server. If you are going to open a PvP server or PvE server, you should do it right, not just half-assed.
Arenanet and a lot of other devs are picking up the ball where UO left off with Trammel. Now, I realize it's fun to hate on Trammel, but it accidentally revealed a player preference which over a decade later other devs are figuring out - players might want to dabble in "the other side" now and then but don't want to have to reroll, grind and farm for a whole new character to do it.
Servers where people can bounce between the PVP and PVE section offer more choice and more options for a lot of players.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Whenever this topic comes up, people like to play the DayZ card, completely forgetting that DayZ works because most players don't give a flying crap about their character. Saying "But look at DayZ!" is like saying "But look at Quake!"
Or Planetside 2.
I highly doubt a FFA world pvp can work in a game with heavy progression and pve content. WoW took open world pvp away because it wasn't popular. What make people think that it will be if you add FFA?
I actually agree (maybe the first time) with nariusseldon. PvP and heavy vertical progression don't work, and it doesn't matter if it is ffa pvp or any other kind of pvp. All those stupid low level ganking stories would never happen, if you have a very flat vertical progression. Because if theoretically 3 newbies could beat a veteran the complete "low level arguement" couldn't hold anymore.. and i personally never saw the advantage, or even more the fun of it.
That does not mean that there can't be vertical progression at all.. even in straight forward FPS multiplayer games like BF series do nowdays have some sort of vertical progression, or as it was with DAoC (at lvl50, the RR progression) and that much vertical progression is all good and nice.. but you should always have somewhat a chance.
And yes.. WoW was/is a horrid pvp game. And the extreme vertical progression and extremely gear dependence is one reason for it.. the other is that they have no whatsoever purpose to pvp, or got no objectives(in the beginning) for pvp.
But PvE and PvP do work.. it just depends what kind of PvE. Hell even in LoL/DoTA you have to pve to level up. And crafting, resource gathering, building stuff is as much favored from pvp people as it is from pve people. PvP player usually do like to fight real players, and only do fight against Mobs for training purpose, or to test a new build or whatever.. but not for the challenge in most cases. So clearly a MMORPG with pvp as main focus have to be different as your usual pve game, and with that said, usually no pve only player should be interested anyways, because in such a game you will not find your typically pve content, like raids with big item drops, or some other pve only activities.
With other words.. for that matter pve only and pvp player should never conflict, because we do like different things. The problem is we don't have a lot of quality, persistent, pvp MMOs..
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
nope, the choice is made at the shelve of your local Gamestop, or before you hit "download"
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
nope, the choice is made at the shelve of your local Gamestop, or before you hit "download"
I want a game with a specific target audience.
So sick of the "please everyone" trash MMOs.
Why can't we have a choice of choices? Have some pvp-only games, have some pve-only games, have some games with pvp and pve servers.
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
nope, the choice is made at the shelve of your local Gamestop, or before you hit "download"
I want a game with a specific target audience.
So sick of the "please everyone" trash MMOs.
Why can't we have a choice of choices? Have some pvp-only games, have some pve-only games, have some games with pvp and pve servers.
We have those choices already.
The big pro-PvP folks are just butthurt because there are a LOT more games that are not PvP-only, and the ones that are PvP-only have tended (besides EvE, which is a wierd pseudo pvp/pve mix kind of) have been really low budget indie games.
I understand their frustration, but you don't add choice by taking away other choices.
I hope there are some good PvP games made for ya'll in the future.
But don't take away game styles that are obviously popular.
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
nope, the choice is made at the shelve of your local Gamestop, or before you hit "download"
I want a game with a specific target audience.
So sick of the "please everyone" trash MMOs.
Why can't we have a choice of choices? Have some pvp-only games, have some pve-only games, have some games with pvp and pve servers.
We have those choices already.
The big pro-PvP folks are just butthurt because there are a LOT more games that are not PvP-only, and the ones that are PvP-only have tended (besides EvE, which is a wierd pseudo pvp/pve mix kind of) have been really low budget indie games.
I understand their frustration, but you don't add choice by taking away other choices.
I hope there are some good PvP games made for ya'll in the future.
But don't take away game styles that are obviously popular.
Well, no one owes the pro-pvp folks a game. The market decides. There is no one to blame, but themselves, that their group does not spend enough money for the dev to notice.
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
nope, the choice is made at the shelve of your local Gamestop, or before you hit "download"
I want a game with a specific target audience.
So sick of the "please everyone" trash MMOs.
Can we agree that the game you want is a niche product? The ultra hardcore PvP player definitely seems to be a minority of the MMO marketplace, and based on previous history with various PvP options (dedicated servers, etc.), the market for these games does not seem to support the prior efforts to accommodate this marketplace..
Since this is a niche market, let's compare it to other niche markets, high-end cars, luxury homes or the like. Is the ultra hardcore PvP advocate willing to pay a similar inflated price for the game manufacturers to cater specifically to this market? Historically, a standard monthly subscription is $15. Could a niche market, such as a PvP focused MMORPG game, survive with a typical niche mark-up, say 20 times that $15 a month charge ($300 / month)? A typical basic car costs around $20,000, a high-end Lamborghini costs around $400,000. The game companies do not feel this is the case. The market would not support this, therefore they don't make them.
The MMORPG game is based on role-playing traditions, for good or bad. May I suggest that the game you want to play is based on FPS games? I think the idea of changing what an MMORPG is all about is a losing battle. And asking companies to provide a niche product at economy prices is equally futile.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comments
It's ironic you should describe it this way. I feel like a significant portion of full PVP playerbases are players who couldn't cut it in real (skill-centric) PVP games. So they ragequit and play "full PVP" games where skill isn't the only factor.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
*Wanders into thread supporting full pvp worlds....
... commences to tell the OP how he wants the thread to change to fit HIS play style...
... Finally understands why the MMO market is all but dead*
I mean really, EVE did it, mostly, and the full on pvp had 'risks' and it really did add to the game when you had to watch your back. Was plenty of only pve'ers in the game, but even their actions, in the end, affected pvp.
Look at other games, where it tosses out ANY sense of realism, and just promotes trolling by loud mouthed turds, who feel they can say, or do anything and have absolutely no risk of any coincidences.
Most full on pvp worlds, even when I choose not to participate, were more alive, the danger was real, and it made me seek out 'safe zones' and made said zones more important.
In 'let me push this button, ok now we can hit each other' games, it felt fake, i was repeatedly reminded how I was 'playing a game' and all it ended up as was feeling the need to uncheck the 'accept dual request' button for constant dual request popups. - In a pvp game, he would attack, I would defend, if we were in a 'safe zone' he would be 'punished' by either the NPC's or other players. Done deal.
But in the end, if you do NOT support the idea of a full pvp game, why the heck do you bother to come to this thread? The only reason you do is to tell 'those nasty gankers' how you want THEIR game to be YOUR game.
Did you just call LoL, WoT, and DOTA2 nonconsensual PVP?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What's the risk for high level players ganking low level players? What's the risk for a group running around griefing solo players?
Yes I did. By starting any of those games you are consenting to be attacked virtually anywhere, with various levels of "safety" across the map. The goal of those games are to acquire resources and kills (witouth dying) that lead to a strategic advantage over the other team, taking tactical decisions on how and wether to engage someone when the sittuation is the most convenient for you. I don't remember asking anyone in dota if they want to be ganked, and I can remember a lot of fights in wot that were not 'fair' because my team decided to engage the other team when they had a key element down. You can be bullied, farmed and griefed just as much in dota when facing someone with better skill, and better items and levels - but when this happens in an MMO, we are all phychopaths for some reason.
Those games are exactly what a ffa pvp game is: a game of survival where decisions and risk accessment determine who wins. Levels, gold, heroes and items are all there to provide an advantage to whoever can manipulate them the most to overcome the other team, and that's where creative and smart play comes in (because the result of combined forces is larger than the sum of its parts). Do you venture alone into enemy territory witouth some sort of advantage in those games? No. And neither do you in EVE for example. The difference is that you must make or join your own team there instead of being assigned to one in the previous games.
The only difference between those games and a ffa pvp MMO is persistense - and this element alone can introduce many more tactical options that a session based game is unable to (long term alliances, more depht of resource management, larger battles, more choice of item progression, etc), and ultimately freedom (because you fight who you want, and not someone that happens to be assigned to the other team).
They are. The term refers to the lack of requirement for explicit consent for combat. In each of those games, you are in an open PVP environment. No one has ever had to /duel someone to fight them in WoT.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
thats ofc not true - when i come to e.g. LoL pvp fight, i enter with intention of pvp (ok, you can be a jungler, but you know that you have to help your team in pvp eventually), so the pvp is consensual. when you log into a sandbox mmorpg, you often do so with intentions to do other things then pvp, so in that case pvp is nonconsensual.
So, you say that LoL crowd is more responsible than the general sandbox crowd? Because in my opinion, the moment you enter a game you have given your consent to play by the rules provided by that game; if those rules happen to include a "FFA PVP" and you didn't want to have anything to do with it, then perhaps you should have been responsible and not given your consent in the first place.
And since when sandbox == ffa pvp? Nobody is implying that but you. This topic is (barring a few pointless anecdotes) is strictly about ffa pvp games. You do not enter one of those games unless you're looking for PVP, does that make sense to you?
Nobody is implying a sucessful sandbox game NEEDS FFA PVP. It is merely an option that can be present in some games. This is exactly the kind of myth people can't get outside their heads, and the grand majority of gibberish that results from this thread comes fromt the inability of reading the OP. Hint: it's not enforcing any playstyle on anyone, and it's definetly not saying FFA PVP is something you randomly throw at every mmo in existance and expect it to become good.
This.
I´ve never read a book where Conan was adventuring at forest with friendly flag and noone could never attack him.
or any fantasy book or saw any fantasy movie like that actually.
But there is this crowd who thinks that when all kind of pvp is removed from the game,then it is fantasy world.
its weird.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
@Benedict, you're not even reading, just disagreeing, as usual.
@JLP, Uplink wrote"the same principle of nonconsensual pvp". I confused the issue by writing 'They are' when I meant 'They are the same'. Sorry about that. It is definitely the same principle, however in other online games such as MUDs and MMOs, the term 'non-consensual PVP' came about to differentiate it from consensual PVP in an otherwise PvE environment.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
yes there is that "ganker" crowd also but you think those are pvp´rs ?
PvP without any consequences is not pvp anyways.
and in the end im not talking about PvPrs ,just role playing gamers who want fantasy games which are like fantasy literature and movies and such.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
He didn't read it at all. There are some points you CANNOT disagree with because there is nothing to disagree with. Such as a new PvP game coming not taking anything away from you.
And seeing as he points out his longevity in the genre, I'd like to point out that I have 15+ years of experience to prove contrary to his beliefs as well.
Not sure why the PvE crowed wants all the games to be the same yet is tired of all the current games... No logic at all.
Or Planetside 2.
I highly doubt a FFA world pvp can work in a game with heavy progression and pve content. WoW took open world pvp away because it wasn't popular. What make people think that it will be if you add FFA?
Arenanet disagrees, that's why they didn't open a PvP server. If you are going to open a PvP server or PvE server, you should do it right, not just half-assed.
Arenanet and a lot of other devs are picking up the ball where UO left off with Trammel. Now, I realize it's fun to hate on Trammel, but it accidentally revealed a player preference which over a decade later other devs are figuring out - players might want to dabble in "the other side" now and then but don't want to have to reroll, grind and farm for a whole new character to do it.
Servers where people can bounce between the PVP and PVE section offer more choice and more options for a lot of players.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I actually agree (maybe the first time) with nariusseldon. PvP and heavy vertical progression don't work, and it doesn't matter if it is ffa pvp or any other kind of pvp. All those stupid low level ganking stories would never happen, if you have a very flat vertical progression. Because if theoretically 3 newbies could beat a veteran the complete "low level arguement" couldn't hold anymore.. and i personally never saw the advantage, or even more the fun of it.
That does not mean that there can't be vertical progression at all.. even in straight forward FPS multiplayer games like BF series do nowdays have some sort of vertical progression, or as it was with DAoC (at lvl50, the RR progression) and that much vertical progression is all good and nice.. but you should always have somewhat a chance.
And yes.. WoW was/is a horrid pvp game. And the extreme vertical progression and extremely gear dependence is one reason for it.. the other is that they have no whatsoever purpose to pvp, or got no objectives(in the beginning) for pvp.
But PvE and PvP do work.. it just depends what kind of PvE. Hell even in LoL/DoTA you have to pve to level up. And crafting, resource gathering, building stuff is as much favored from pvp people as it is from pve people. PvP player usually do like to fight real players, and only do fight against Mobs for training purpose, or to test a new build or whatever.. but not for the challenge in most cases. So clearly a MMORPG with pvp as main focus have to be different as your usual pve game, and with that said, usually no pve only player should be interested anyways, because in such a game you will not find your typically pve content, like raids with big item drops, or some other pve only activities.
With other words.. for that matter pve only and pvp player should never conflict, because we do like different things. The problem is we don't have a lot of quality, persistent, pvp MMOs..
nope, the choice is made at the shelve of your local Gamestop, or before you hit "download"
I want a game with a specific target audience.
So sick of the "please everyone" trash MMOs.
Why can't we have a choice of choices? Have some pvp-only games, have some pve-only games, have some games with pvp and pve servers.
We have those choices already.
The big pro-PvP folks are just butthurt because there are a LOT more games that are not PvP-only, and the ones that are PvP-only have tended (besides EvE, which is a wierd pseudo pvp/pve mix kind of) have been really low budget indie games.
I understand their frustration, but you don't add choice by taking away other choices.
I hope there are some good PvP games made for ya'll in the future.
But don't take away game styles that are obviously popular.
Well, no one owes the pro-pvp folks a game. The market decides. There is no one to blame, but themselves, that their group does not spend enough money for the dev to notice.
Can we agree that the game you want is a niche product? The ultra hardcore PvP player definitely seems to be a minority of the MMO marketplace, and based on previous history with various PvP options (dedicated servers, etc.), the market for these games does not seem to support the prior efforts to accommodate this marketplace..
Since this is a niche market, let's compare it to other niche markets, high-end cars, luxury homes or the like. Is the ultra hardcore PvP advocate willing to pay a similar inflated price for the game manufacturers to cater specifically to this market? Historically, a standard monthly subscription is $15. Could a niche market, such as a PvP focused MMORPG game, survive with a typical niche mark-up, say 20 times that $15 a month charge ($300 / month)? A typical basic car costs around $20,000, a high-end Lamborghini costs around $400,000. The game companies do not feel this is the case. The market would not support this, therefore they don't make them.
The MMORPG game is based on role-playing traditions, for good or bad. May I suggest that the game you want to play is based on FPS games? I think the idea of changing what an MMORPG is all about is a losing battle. And asking companies to provide a niche product at economy prices is equally futile.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.