I agree with the OP. There has been 0 FFA PVP AAA games ever except maybe Eve and it is successful. UO was FFA PvP but was not designed with the realities of FFA PvP. As an early beta tester they obviously were clueless to how players to react. Shadowbane, Darkfall, Mortal Online were all horrible games not because of FFA PvP because they were just bad games. No different then a PvE MMORPG that just sucks.
But some of you guys are like FFA PVP hunters. You try to squelch and destroy the idea of having a FFA PVP games anytime its discussed like the OP said like you guys are already paying customers that have been griefed. PVP is not for everyone so if you're not really down with it there's no point in trying to make every game uniformed by dissuading any developer from even trying.
Separate servers has never worked because the game needs to be specially designed. Its just like having all FFA PVP game and then having a PVE server slapped onto it. Likely the PVE is not going to come close to a PVE focused game.
PVP needs accountability, interdependency, and direction to make it work.
7. Look around at the limited number of PVP servers on popular games. This is proof that the market for open-world PVP games is niche.
The only thing this proves is that gamers don’t like a server where a core game mechanic has been merely “turned on” as an afterthought to the game’s design. The PVP is often meaningless in these games because it isn’t “full” PVP and is essentially in its own vaccuum.
This right here, I can't remember the last AAA game that was designed around full pvp. Its always an afterthought or an optional server and of course some instanced crap, can't have pvp in the open world. The problem with these games is pvp is just that, an afterthought with no real meaning. Give me territory and resource control, cities that can be sieged or destroyed, a meaningful death penalty (like full loot) and a game at its core designed around pvp. Give us meaningful objectives and real reasons to fight.
Nothings worse than trying to pvp in any of these AAA pve games where they added a pvp server, its just not fun.
P.S. Darkfall UW is the closest thing to this out atm, it needs alot more work and still doesn't come close to the first game, but they are working on it. It is also not a AAA title but an indie title, if darkfall had the money that a AAA company has it would be amazaing, but they don't. Give it a try if you want something new, its definitely worth the box price if only for its uniqueness there really isn't any other game like it.
UO is the only AAA game to be FFA PVP and it wasn't prepared for unfiltered player interactions.
You're doing it wrong. If it's wrong to attack unsuspecting and weaker opponents you're reducing the risks for them. Which for instance would break many gameplay mechanics in games like EVE online where hauling and mining ships are almost totally defenseless. According to you that would mean no one should be able to attack them and that would make their jobs risk free. What you need in a full PVP game are good mechanics not simple blanket rules which can be incompatible with gameplay mechanics. For instance in EVE online the bulk of your force stems from your ships and equipment. Which the better it is the more it costs. So while your risks of dying are dropping the potential loss when you do is increasing. This is why only the spacerich people or cowards who only engage in battles with 99.9% odds of winning use pimped up fancy ships.
You call them cowards yourself but you defend the system that allows them play right along with the majority of non-cowards? EVE is actually a good example of how not to do it - it's a simulation of anarchy where the only solution to bullying is to bully them back. How about they lose their ships AND get a "sentence." What's wrong with them running that risk?
Yes, why not? If they wanna be cowards that's their right. Personally I pitty them because nothing beats PVP with even odds. (do mind i also attack defenseless targets because PewPew is fun, but unlike cowards I don't run away from fair fights).
And you seem to not know EVE. EVE actually has consequences for gankers besides the other player being able to return the favor. It is limited to High sec and low sec, sure but they exist. And that's also why there is less PVP in high sec, because of the consequences. I never said that there should be no consequences to PVP in any way and regardless of the situation. However your solution was way too simplistic and would break more than it would fix.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Anyone who wants to promote "full PVP" needs to first answer this question:
Should full PVP games have severe consequences for ganking unsuspecting weaker players who don't have a fighting chance against you?
If you can't answer "yes - up to permanent bans for repeat offenders" to that, you have no business promoting full PVP. That's the one "risk vs. reward" detail that's usually avoided.
I haven't seen many full PVP evangelists who are ok with the concept that repeat griefers are bad for the game and should be booted. The just like to preach about an idealized PVP system where this type of griefing doesn't happen or, if they're honest enough to admit that it's a frequent occurrence, that it's somehow the victim's fault because "they knew what they were signing up for" or "it's stupid for a low level player to be alone" or another equally idiotic rationalization.
1) To ban someone for killing a other player in a pvp game is just wrong. And
2) in a full pvp game there should not even a weaker player not having a chance fighting against the attacker.. with other words a huge vertical progression, a huge vertical difference is just not a good idea in any full pvp game.
and then we can talk about consequence systems, or about different zones with different security status or all other things to restrict(not avoid) certain pvp aspects, or give some safety at some places to some players.
And.. if you want to design a mmo based on full pvp it is not really a good idea to also design that game for pve only players.. because they will never fit in. This does not say, that you can't have heavy crafting, heavy trading or other aspects... especially those elements often benefit from pvp, and a lot of pvp player enjoy that part, too. PvE Raids, Item grinds and stuff like that on the other side is usually stuff, which in most parts only enjoy pve players.
You're doing it wrong. If it's wrong to attack unsuspecting and weaker opponents you're reducing the risks for them. Which for instance would break many gameplay mechanics in games like EVE online where hauling and mining ships are almost totally defenseless. According to you that would mean no one should be able to attack them and that would make their jobs risk free. What you need in a full PVP game are good mechanics not simple blanket rules which can be incompatible with gameplay mechanics. For instance in EVE online the bulk of your force stems from your ships and equipment. Which the better it is the more it costs. So while your risks of dying are dropping the potential loss when you do is increasing. This is why only the spacerich people or cowards who only engage in battles with 99.9% odds of winning use pimped up fancy ships.
You call them cowards yourself but you defend the system that allows them play right along with the majority of non-cowards? EVE is actually a good example of how not to do it - it's a simulation of anarchy where the only solution to bullying is to bully them back. How about they lose their ships AND get a "sentence." What's wrong with them running that risk?
Yes, why not? If they wannabe cowards that's their prerogative. Personally I pitty them because nothing beats PVP with even odds. (do mind i also attack defenseless targets because PewPew is fun, but unlike cowards I don't run away from fair fights).
And you seem to not know EVE. EVE actually has consequences for gankers besides the other player being able to return the favor. It is limited to High sec and low sec, sure but they exist. And that's also why there is less PVP in high sec, because of the consequences. I never said that there should be no consequences to PVP in any way and regardless of the situation. However your solution was way too simplistic and would break more than it would fix.
In real life, if you break the law there are consequences. It really is a simple concept. Nothing simplistic about adopting the same system in a simulation. EVE still has that "if it happened in null sec it didn't happen" nonsense. Mind you, if they had permadeath and you left no witnesses, fair enough - otherwise it's just a kludge to lose no status for your actions there.
Besides you miss my point: it's the acceptance of the possibility of negative consequences, up to and including banning, that gives credibility to a pro-full PVP argument. It's an "acid test" for poster credibility.
Until there is a system with harsh credible consequences for criminal in-game behavior, full PVP, as nice as it would be to have a good AAA fantasy game with it, will continue to be a small niche market. I'm a PVPer and I avoid lawless gankfests like DF-UW just because of the environment it creates and the people it attracts. Imagine how the bulk of the MMO public who is lukewarm about PVP in the first place feels.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
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.
What an extremely lazy and useless post. Your length of experience isn't a substitute for intelligent discussion.
First of all kodus on comparing attacking a weakened character in a game to rapists. Insulting to both rape victims and pvp'ers.
He has a point though. Both actions are basically being violent towards another person who you know is unable to defend herself because weaker than you.
While the comparison may be exaggerated, the similitudes remain. Both are "bully actions", if you prefer.
And secondly, my original post was pointing out how perpetrators of those crimes defended their own actions (or a lawyer acting on their behalf defended their actions).
And, yes, JLP, both are bully actions. I still am convinced that the video game bullying will be addressed someday soon by an over-litigious parent who sees their baby get ganked repeatedly in some video game.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Originally posted by Gaeluian Simply put FFA PVP = gank fest = only fun for the gankers. Keep it on a separate server, away from PVE and, I'm ok with it.
Simply put, you didn't read the post and you are blindly replying.
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.
What an extremely lazy and useless post. Your length of experience isn't a substitute for intelligent discussion.
Agree Dean, what's more, I've played mmo's for at least 10 years, and simply put, my experience has shown me that pvp isn't the devil...
Originally posted by generals3 First of all kodus on comparing attacking a weakened character in a game to rapists. Insulting to both rape victims and pvp'ers.Many PVP'ers who like full pvp do not because of "easy targets". What you need to realize is that making the game full pvp unlocks a lot of gameplay possibilities. Take EVE online, without full pvp and ships blowing up everywhere the economy would crash and industry/mining would crash as well. On top of that full pvp makes things much spicier. I live in low sec and the existence of constant threat makes PVE more exciting. "Will someone try to disrupt me while i'm clearing this complex? Will I be able to handle him? etc.". On top of that it also adds value to PVE'ing in dangerous zones. Considering there is more danger less people dare do it and those who do are rewarded for their risks.And you also talk about PVP basically becoming an interruption to all other elements. Well that's also a great thing about it. It adds a level of complexity and challenge. No longer is PVE only about mindlessly hitting dumb NPC's, no now it's also about mitigating risks of other players interrupting you and how to keep yourself safe from them.
Agree with your first statement to some extent. Outside of fiction, people suck at analogies and really shouldn't use them.
However, OW PvP by itself doesn't unlock anything except PvP. If that were true, then the OW PvP in WoW would unlock something. It doesn't. The game on a PvP server is nearly the same as the game on a PvE server. In Eve, the PvP is dependent upon the Economy. Without the economy to drive it, far fewer people would engage in the PvP. They currently do so for the potential economic rewards. Eve could be restructured without the PvP element, substituting a risk/reward system centered around PvE*, but Eve could not be restructured without the economic element.
OW PvP by itself doesn't add any inherent value to a game. It adds value for people who enjoy it, but not for people who don't. For people who enjoy OW PvP, it adds excitement. For people who do not enjoy it, it only adds aggravation or interruptions. It's all based on personal preference, nothing more.
* This wouldn't make a good game. That's not what I'm saying.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and can’t move on. We actually don’t care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you don’t play
this is where i stopped reading as this is hardly an argument...
based on your argument id say its more of a fact as you are telling the readers to dont play the game if they dont like it
For my two cents, because I been at this a while, I don't see FFA PvP doing well. It didn't do well in EQ, Talon Zek did well, but it was rules based PvP. Sullon and Ralos didn't do so hot because they were FFA PvP. Also I find it funny they blame the whining on PvE players, seeing as how Creature Handlers were nerfed in SWG pre NGE, when a bunch of PvPers tried to gank a PvE CH and got stomped into the floor. Ten minutes later they were on the forums screaming for the nerf bat. In my experience PvPers whine more, especially when they lose because their little plans fall apart.
With that said, I'm personally looking forward to how Star Citizen is handling full time, open world pvp. Meaning you can pk anyone anywhere, however. If you do it in U.E.E. or some other governments space then guess what. They issue a warrant for you. All military and law enforcement npc's are after you, you can't dock at any law abiding planet or station, and all players can kill you for the bounty on your head.
So in a way you get your FFA PvP, but you grief in a safe zone then your going to be booking it for neutral space to unload your spoils ASAP. Which won't work for you to well seeing as how you have to go the back ways, and guess where the players will be camped out waiting on you. Yep, the back way.
Now to help mitigate the loss from PK's the game does have insurance, so you don't lose all your crap when you die. This allows PvE players to play without the pain from being ganked. To me this was a good compromise to the PvE/PvP system. However, some PvP people did seem to dislike the idea.
In real life, if you break the law there are consequences. It really is a simple concept. Nothing simplistic about adopting the same system in a simulation. EVE still has that "if it happened in null sec it didn't happen" nonsense. Mind you, if they had permadeath and you left no witnesses, fair enough - otherwise it's just a kludge to lose no status for your actions there.
Besides you miss my point: it's the acceptance of the possibility of negative consequences, up to and including banning, that gives credibility to a pro-full PVP argument. It's an "acid test" for poster credibility.
Until there is a system with harsh credible consequences for criminal in-game behavior, full PVP, as nice as it would be to have a good AAA fantasy game with it, will continue to be a small niche market. I'm a PVPer and I avoid lawless gankfests like DF-UW just because of the environment it creates and the people it attracts. Imagine how the bulk of the MMO public who is lukewarm about PVP in the first place feels.
I don't care about real life logic when i play games. If i did i'd play 0 games. In real life death is permanent, in real life magic doesn't exist, etc.
Secondly your concept was broken due to how it worked. I've explained it. In EVE for instance it would break more than it would fix. Besides, null sec is an outlaw zone. It would be like committing a crime in a country without any government nor laws. High sec and to an extend low sec is where Concord operates. No one is forced to go into null or WH space. Consequently if one doesn't like the lawlessness of those regions one can easily avoid them.
And there is no reason to go up to "banning". That's just the most simplistic and broken way to add accountability. And the idea one has to agree with such a system to be credible is laughable.
I don't believe harsh consequences is the answer. It's a tad more complicated than that if you ask me.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
However, OW PvP by itself doesn't unlock anything except PvP. If that were true, then the OW PvP in WoW would unlock something. It doesn't. The game on a PvP server is nearly the same as the game on a PvE server. In Eve, the PvP is dependent upon the Economy. Without the economy to drive it, far fewer people would engage in the PvP. They currently do so for the potential economic rewards. Eve could be restructured without the PvP element, substituting a risk/reward system centered around PvE*, but Eve could not be restructured without the economic element.
OW PvP by itself doesn't add any inherent value to a game. It adds value for people who enjoy it, but not for people who don't. For people who enjoy OW PvP, it adds excitement. For people who do not enjoy it, it only adds aggravation or interruptions. It's all based on personal preference, nothing more.
* This wouldn't make a good game. That's not what I'm saying.
I think we have a simple semantics issue here. It opens doors if you will. Doors a game will only take if it's Full PVP and not with PVE servers nonsense (because otherwise the PVE servers would probably suck due to the PVP server centrict gameplay mechanics). As you said a PVE centric EVE would probably suck. Hence the game and its gameplay only work thanks to FFA PVP.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
I stopped reading the original post after "Myth #1" because you basically stopped trying to convince everybody who has a negative view of PvP by discounting any complaints they might have by saying that you hope they stay away. Pretty rude on your part.
In real life, if you break the law there are consequences. It really is a simple concept. Nothing simplistic about adopting the same system in a simulation. EVE still has that "if it happened in null sec it didn't happen" nonsense. Mind you, if they had permadeath and you left no witnesses, fair enough - otherwise it's just a kludge to lose no status for your actions there.
Besides you miss my point: it's the acceptance of the possibility of negative consequences, up to and including banning, that gives credibility to a pro-full PVP argument. It's an "acid test" for poster credibility.
Until there is a system with harsh credible consequences for criminal in-game behavior, full PVP, as nice as it would be to have a good AAA fantasy game with it, will continue to be a small niche market. I'm a PVPer and I avoid lawless gankfests like DF-UW just because of the environment it creates and the people it attracts. Imagine how the bulk of the MMO public who is lukewarm about PVP in the first place feels.
I don't care about real life logic when i play games. If i did i'd play 0 games. In real life death is permanent, in real life magic doesn't exist, etc.
I see. Because it's fantasy there should be no attempt to simulate RL..nice meaningless cop-out.
Secondly your concept was broken due to how it worked. I've explained it. In EVE for instance it would break more than it would fix. Besides, null sec is an outlaw zone. It would be like committing a crime in a country without any government nor laws. High sec and to an extend low sec is where Concord operates. No one is forced to go into null or WH space. Consequently if one doesn't like the lawlessness of those regions one can easily avoid them.
Yeah. Just how like murder in international waters isn't murder...oh wait. And you have explained nothing that convinces me that null sec offenses shouldn't be treated like offenses anywhere else. All you're doing is defending the EVE system as perfection itself.
And there is no reason to go up to "banning". That's just the most simplistic and broken way to add accountability. And the idea one has to agree with such a system to be credible is laughable.
Yes. Banning should be reserved for gold selling and macro botting - because those are really, really bad. Being a caustic, anti-social asshat who annoys everyone is just fine.
I don't believe harsh consequences is the answer. It's a tad more complicated than that if you ask me.
It's pretty damn simple. So long as you don't have a stake in defending a current beloved game that is.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
No its more like we want to fly a Boeing 747 with all the bells and whistles but the airline keeps giving us non powered gliders instead. DFUW is not a good option. Game reminds me of Unreal Tourny/Quake/Doom with swords and magic.Also being mainly a PVE player in MMOs with the small exceptions of Eve, DF1, and Warhammer I like the idea of full loot open world pvp in games designed for it. What is the point of reward when there is no risk? In my opinion, I think it lessens the value of the reward if you do not have something to lose.
Griefers...I got ganked last week in Eve while I was mining during cleaning house. It was completely my fault for not paying attention. Did I go into a rage because I got caught slipping? Hell no! I told the guy good job on the gank since it was my fault for not paying attention. In other OW Pvp games I have played, if you are paying attention you are very likely able to avoid the gank. I am not talking about the WoW inspired mmos either. Pvp is just an afterthought and hastily tacked on in many of those games. Warhammer was alright though I think it funneled too many people into the warfronts which hurt the open world PvP system. Pvp gear progression in some of those games was also modeled too much after the Pve gear treadmill. You end up grinding Pvp points for gear instead of having objectives in the world that matter strategically.
There are several decent Pve themed Mmos and really only a couple decent Pvp mmo out there to choose from. Again Darkfall UW doesn't belong in this list since many of the systems are poorly developed and do not mesh well. Mortal Online is complete trash. Darkfall 1.0 that would have been on the list if they had some control over botting and exploits and didn't had to design a new game with less features. Still indy devs. Where is the AAA pvp mmo?
Present: Current offerings are low quality or soloable
Past:AoC, DCUO, FFXI,FFXIV 1.0 and ARR,WoW,Fallen Earth, Tabula Rasa, TSW, SWTOR, Rift, Aion, WAR, Darkfall, STO, CoH/CoV, GW2, Diaspora, EQ2, DDO, and a bunch of forgettable ftp games
I don't care about real life logic when i play games. If i did i'd play 0 games. In real life death is permanent, in real life magic doesn't exist, etc.
I see. Because it's fantasy there should be no attempt to simulate RL..nice meaningless cop-out.
Secondly your concept was broken due to how it worked. I've explained it. In EVE for instance it would break more than it would fix. Besides, null sec is an outlaw zone. It would be like committing a crime in a country without any government nor laws. High sec and to an extend low sec is where Concord operates. No one is forced to go into null or WH space. Consequently if one doesn't like the lawlessness of those regions one can easily avoid them.
Yeah. Just how like murder in international waters isn't murder...oh wait. And you have explained nothing that convinces me that null sec offenses shouldn't be treated like offenses anywhere else. All you're doing is defending the EVE system as perfection itself.
And there is no reason to go up to "banning". That's just the most simplistic and broken way to add accountability. And the idea one has to agree with such a system to be credible is laughable.
Yes. Banning should be reserved for gold selling and macro botting - because those are really, really bad. Being a caustic, anti-social asshat who annoys everyone is just fine.
I don't believe harsh consequences is the answer. It's a tad more complicated than that if you ask me.
It's pretty damn simple. So long as you don't have a stake in defending a current beloved game that is.
It's not a matter of "there should be no attempt to...". It's a matter of realism not being an argument in itself unless you are a realism-fan. Which is than a totally different issue. It's not longer about FFA PVP but about people's preferences when it comes to realism. I play games exactly because it's NOT real life. So for me "but in real life..." is a non-argument.
And than we get an other real-life comparison... Nothing says that CONCORD is supposed to act everywhere. Actually they're pretty clear about it.
And here we go with armchair pseudo psychology. Enjoying PVP in an MMO =/= being an anti-social asshat. There are some people who do indeed "hunt for tears" but others just enjoy the fighting and than the loot awaiting at the end (or in the case of EVE a lot seem to enjoy the E-peen factor with the Kill Board system).
And no it's not simple. It's only simple if you're not willing to see the doors FFA PVP can open. You seem to not enjoy risk. Fine. Many others do. And by implementing FFA PVP you can actively use risk as a gameplay aspect like EVE.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Lol, but seriously, unless the full PvP has a easy cash flow like EVE online, it will never work. Yes EVE online is full PvP, with high risk / reward, but making ISK (Cash) in EVE-Online is way easy which makes PvP a lot of fun and making the risks look like nothing at all. I played EVE for 8 years, and was at a point where I was making 200mil ISK a day, so yea I can go PvP like it's nobodies business and I won some and lost some. Now, if you're making a MMORPG full PvP with swords and armors, you better not have to grind epic bosses for epic gear to PvP and to then lose it all to a bunch of gankers. That's where your facts fall flat on their backs. Because I know for a fact, where there is full PvP there are rage quitters, and that's why EVE-Online will never have 200K players online at once. A full PvP needs easy cash flow and no epic gear grind. Just smart people with smart tactics and of course no cash shop. Besides EVE-Online and MMOSCI-FI , I don't see how a MMOFantasy/RPG can survive with full PvP. Unless Devs think way outside of the box. Also, like I mentioned above, if you're planning on doing a full PvP MMO, don't plan on having a few million players playing at once, because you'll barely get a 100K to sign up.
Originally posted by generals3 Originally posted by lizardbones However, OW PvP by itself doesn't unlock anything except PvP. If that were true, then the OW PvP in WoW would unlock something. It doesn't. The game on a PvP server is nearly the same as the game on a PvE server. In Eve, the PvP is dependent upon the Economy. Without the economy to drive it, far fewer people would engage in the PvP. They currently do so for the potential economic rewards. Eve could be restructured without the PvP element, substituting a risk/reward system centered around PvE*, but Eve could not be restructured without the economic element. OW PvP by itself doesn't add any inherent value to a game. It adds value for people who enjoy it, but not for people who don't. For people who enjoy OW PvP, it adds excitement. For people who do not enjoy it, it only adds aggravation or interruptions. It's all based on personal preference, nothing more. * This wouldn't make a good game. That's not what I'm saying.
I think we have a simple semantics issue here. It opens doors if you will. Doors a game will only take if it's Full PVP and not with PVE servers nonsense (because otherwise the PVE servers would probably suck due to the PVP server centrict gameplay mechanics). As you said a PVE centric EVE would probably suck. Hence the game and its gameplay only work thanks to FFA PVP.
It's not semantics. Any game mechanics that work with PvP can be structured without PvP. PvP isn't necessary and it doesn't have some inherent quality that makes it 'good'. It just adds a type of game play that some people like and some people don't. It's only necessary for the people who like it. It is something that needs to be limited for people who do not like it. It doesn't matter what flowery language you try to throw in there, it's a preference, nothing more.
If PvP had some inherent quality that made games better, then there would be more people playing OW PvP games, or there would be more people on OW PvP servers. There are fewer people playing OW PvP games than not, and there are far fewer people on OW PvP servers than on PvE servers.
My comment on Eve was specifically about Eve. Eve was built from the beginning with PvP in mind. This could be said about the mechanics is most MMORPGs. Remove the primary mechanic of any game and the rest of the game will suffer. Removing the primary mechanic of Eve (OW PvP) would result in a game of lesser quality because the rest of the mechanics are built with the idea of that primary mechanic in mind.
If OW PvP has some inherent quality that makes games 'better', then it should be possible to describe or quantify it in some way. If you can, describe the way that OW PvP makes a game better, without resorting to personal opinions. Also describe the way in which OW PvP differentiates itself from other challenges present in MMORPGs without resorting to personal opinions. If the description of OW PvP depends on personal opinions, then it's just a preference. Something that some people like and some people don't, but which doesn't have an inherently 'better' nature.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by bigbudz No its more like we want to fly a Boeing 747 with all the bells and whistles but the airline keeps giving us non powered gliders instead. DFUW is not a good option. Game reminds me of Unreal Tourny/Quake/Doom with swords and magic.Also being mainly a PVE player in MMOs with the small exceptions of Eve, DF1, and Warhammer I like the idea of full loot open world pvp in games designed for it. What is the point of reward when there is no risk? In my opinion, I think it lessens the value of the reward if you do not have something to lose.
Griefers...I got ganked last week in Eve while I was mining during cleaning house. It was completely my fault for not paying attention. Did I go into a rage because I got caught slipping? Hell no! I told the guy good job on the gank since it was my fault for not paying attention. In other OW Pvp games I have played, if you are paying attention you are very likely able to avoid the gank. I am not talking about the WoW inspired mmos either. Pvp is just an afterthought and hastily tacked on in many of those games. Warhammer was alright though I think it funneled too many people into the warfronts which hurt the open world PvP system. Pvp gear progression in some of those games was also modeled too much after the Pve gear treadmill. You end up grinding Pvp points for gear instead of having objectives in the world that matter strategically.
There are several decent Pve themed Mmos and really only a couple decent Pvp mmo out there to choose from. Again Darkfall UW doesn't belong in this list since many of the systems are poorly developed and do not mesh well. Mortal Online is complete trash. Darkfall 1.0 that would have been on the list if they had some control over botting and exploits and didn't had to design a new game with less features. Still indy devs. Where is the AAA pvp mmo?
A AAA PvP MMO will come along when developers think there are enough people to play them.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It's not semantics. Any game mechanics that work with PvP can be structured without PvP. PvP isn't necessary and it doesn't have some inherent quality that makes it 'good'. It just adds a type of game play that some people like and some people don't. It's only necessary for the people who like it. It is something that needs to be limited for people who do not like it. It doesn't matter what flowery language you try to throw in there, it's a preference, nothing more.
If PvP had some inherent quality that made games better, then there would be more people playing OW PvP games, or there would be more people on OW PvP servers. There are fewer people playing OW PvP games than not, and there are far fewer people on OW PvP servers than on PvE servers.
My comment on Eve was specifically about Eve. Eve was built from the beginning with PvP in mind. This could be said about the mechanics is most MMORPGs. Remove the primary mechanic of any game and the rest of the game will suffer. Removing the primary mechanic of Eve (OW PvP) would result in a game of lesser quality because the rest of the mechanics are built with the idea of that primary mechanic in mind.
If OW PvP has some inherent quality that makes games 'better', then it should be possible to describe or quantify it in some way. If you can, describe the way that OW PvP makes a game better, without resorting to personal opinions. Also describe the way in which OW PvP differentiates itself from other challenges present in MMORPGs without resorting to personal opinions. If the description of OW PvP depends on personal opinions, then it's just a preference. Something that some people like and some people don't, but which doesn't have an inherently 'better' nature.
Maybe you need to read what i write. I never said PVP had an inherent quality. I said it opened doors. It allows gameplay which wouldn't work without it. If that were false than EVE would still work 100% fine if CCP removed PVP. Which i think you and i both know to be false.
Some people may not value that type of gameplay, sure. There is afteral no such thing as objectively better gameplay mechanics.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
I don't care about real life logic when i play games. If i did i'd play 0 games. In real life death is permanent, in real life magic doesn't exist, etc.
I see. Because it's fantasy there should be no attempt to simulate RL..nice meaningless cop-out.
Secondly your concept was broken due to how it worked. I've explained it. In EVE for instance it would break more than it would fix. Besides, null sec is an outlaw zone. It would be like committing a crime in a country without any government nor laws. High sec and to an extend low sec is where Concord operates. No one is forced to go into null or WH space. Consequently if one doesn't like the lawlessness of those regions one can easily avoid them.
Yeah. Just how like murder in international waters isn't murder...oh wait. And you have explained nothing that convinces me that null sec offenses shouldn't be treated like offenses anywhere else. All you're doing is defending the EVE system as perfection itself.
And there is no reason to go up to "banning". That's just the most simplistic and broken way to add accountability. And the idea one has to agree with such a system to be credible is laughable.
Yes. Banning should be reserved for gold selling and macro botting - because those are really, really bad. Being a caustic, anti-social asshat who annoys everyone is just fine.
I don't believe harsh consequences is the answer. It's a tad more complicated than that if you ask me.
It's pretty damn simple. So long as you don't have a stake in defending a current beloved game that is.
It's not a matter of "there should be no attempt to...". It's a matter of realism not being an argument in itself unless you are a realism-fan. Which is than a totally different issue. It's not longer about FFA PVP but about people's preferences when it comes to realism. I play games exactly because it's NOT real life. So for me "but in real life..." is a non-argument.
And than we get an other real-life comparison... Nothing says that CONCORD is supposed to act everywhere. Actually they're pretty clear about it.
And here we go with armchair pseudo psychology. Enjoying PVP in an MMO =/= being an anti-social asshat. There are some people who do indeed "hunt for tears" but others just enjoy the fighting and than the loot awaiting at the end (or in the case of EVE a lot seem to enjoy the E-peen factor with the Kill Board system).
And no it's not simple. It's only simple if you're not willing to see the doors FFA PVP can open. You seem to not enjoy risk. Fine. Many others do. And by implementing FFA PVP you can actively use risk as a gameplay aspect like EVE.
And where did I say that enjoying PVP = being an anti-social asshat? I'm talking about a particular type of bottom-feeding scum who uses PVP games to be a bully, who is an asshat not because he PVPs but because he is. And he gets a free pass despite being the person who is giving PVP a bad name and preventing wider acceptance of it.
And you know damn well who they are, that they exists in numbers and that they only get slaps on the wrist. I and most PVPers want to enjoy a good fair PVP fight - win or lose.-- that's what it's all about. And most of us are also willing to forgive the occasional unfair gank.
I'm talking about banning the habitual dedicated ganker who gets his jollies out of repeatedly doing it. They are more harmful to games than gold sellers or botters. But they get a free pass out of some silly misguided sense that PVP should be either totally unregulated or just have some token half-assed regulation.
Your attitude of tolerance toward them is a typical example of why FFA PVP isn't mainstream. Unless they get serious about regulating it, it never will be.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
I agree with the OP. There has been 0 FFA PVP AAA games ever except maybe Eve and it is successful. UO was FFA PvP but was not designed with the realities of FFA PvP. As an early beta tester they obviously were clueless to how players to react. Shadowbane, Darkfall, Mortal Online were all horrible games not because of FFA PvP because they were just bad games. No different then a PvE MMORPG that just sucks.
But some of you guys are like FFA PVP hunters. You try to squelch and destroy the idea of having a FFA PVP games anytime its discussed like the OP said like you guys are already paying customers that have been griefed. PVP is not for everyone so if you're not really down with it there's no point in trying to make every game uniformed by dissuading any developer from even trying.
Separate servers has never worked because the game needs to be specially designed. Its just like having all FFA PVP game and then having a PVE server slapped onto it. Likely the PVE is not going to come close to a PVE focused game.
PVP needs accountability, interdependency, and direction to make it work.
UO is the only AAA game to be FFA PVP and it wasn't prepared for unfiltered player interactions.
Yes, why not? If they wanna be cowards that's their right. Personally I pitty them because nothing beats PVP with even odds. (do mind i also attack defenseless targets because PewPew is fun, but unlike cowards I don't run away from fair fights).
And you seem to not know EVE. EVE actually has consequences for gankers besides the other player being able to return the favor. It is limited to High sec and low sec, sure but they exist. And that's also why there is less PVP in high sec, because of the consequences. I never said that there should be no consequences to PVP in any way and regardless of the situation. However your solution was way too simplistic and would break more than it would fix.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
1) To ban someone for killing a other player in a pvp game is just wrong. And
2) in a full pvp game there should not even a weaker player not having a chance fighting against the attacker.. with other words a huge vertical progression, a huge vertical difference is just not a good idea in any full pvp game.
and then we can talk about consequence systems, or about different zones with different security status or all other things to restrict(not avoid) certain pvp aspects, or give some safety at some places to some players.
And.. if you want to design a mmo based on full pvp it is not really a good idea to also design that game for pve only players.. because they will never fit in. This does not say, that you can't have heavy crafting, heavy trading or other aspects... especially those elements often benefit from pvp, and a lot of pvp player enjoy that part, too. PvE Raids, Item grinds and stuff like that on the other side is usually stuff, which in most parts only enjoy pve players.
In real life, if you break the law there are consequences. It really is a simple concept. Nothing simplistic about adopting the same system in a simulation. EVE still has that "if it happened in null sec it didn't happen" nonsense. Mind you, if they had permadeath and you left no witnesses, fair enough - otherwise it's just a kludge to lose no status for your actions there.
Besides you miss my point: it's the acceptance of the possibility of negative consequences, up to and including banning, that gives credibility to a pro-full PVP argument. It's an "acid test" for poster credibility.
Until there is a system with harsh credible consequences for criminal in-game behavior, full PVP, as nice as it would be to have a good AAA fantasy game with it, will continue to be a small niche market. I'm a PVPer and I avoid lawless gankfests like DF-UW just because of the environment it creates and the people it attracts. Imagine how the bulk of the MMO public who is lukewarm about PVP in the first place feels.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
What an extremely lazy and useless post. Your length of experience isn't a substitute for intelligent discussion.
And secondly, my original post was pointing out how perpetrators of those crimes defended their own actions (or a lawyer acting on their behalf defended their actions).
And, yes, JLP, both are bully actions. I still am convinced that the video game bullying will be addressed someday soon by an over-litigious parent who sees their baby get ganked repeatedly in some video game.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Simply put, you didn't read the post and you are blindly replying.
Why did you even bother.
Agree Dean, what's more, I've played mmo's for at least 10 years, and simply put, my experience has shown me that pvp isn't the devil...
Agree with your first statement to some extent. Outside of fiction, people suck at analogies and really shouldn't use them.
However, OW PvP by itself doesn't unlock anything except PvP. If that were true, then the OW PvP in WoW would unlock something. It doesn't. The game on a PvP server is nearly the same as the game on a PvE server. In Eve, the PvP is dependent upon the Economy. Without the economy to drive it, far fewer people would engage in the PvP. They currently do so for the potential economic rewards. Eve could be restructured without the PvP element, substituting a risk/reward system centered around PvE*, but Eve could not be restructured without the economic element.
OW PvP by itself doesn't add any inherent value to a game. It adds value for people who enjoy it, but not for people who don't. For people who enjoy OW PvP, it adds excitement. For people who do not enjoy it, it only adds aggravation or interruptions. It's all based on personal preference, nothing more.
* This wouldn't make a good game. That's not what I'm saying.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
this is where i stopped reading as this is hardly an argument...
based on your argument id say its more of a fact as you are telling the readers to dont play the game if they dont like it
For my two cents, because I been at this a while, I don't see FFA PvP doing well. It didn't do well in EQ, Talon Zek did well, but it was rules based PvP. Sullon and Ralos didn't do so hot because they were FFA PvP. Also I find it funny they blame the whining on PvE players, seeing as how Creature Handlers were nerfed in SWG pre NGE, when a bunch of PvPers tried to gank a PvE CH and got stomped into the floor. Ten minutes later they were on the forums screaming for the nerf bat. In my experience PvPers whine more, especially when they lose because their little plans fall apart.
With that said, I'm personally looking forward to how Star Citizen is handling full time, open world pvp. Meaning you can pk anyone anywhere, however. If you do it in U.E.E. or some other governments space then guess what. They issue a warrant for you. All military and law enforcement npc's are after you, you can't dock at any law abiding planet or station, and all players can kill you for the bounty on your head.
So in a way you get your FFA PvP, but you grief in a safe zone then your going to be booking it for neutral space to unload your spoils ASAP. Which won't work for you to well seeing as how you have to go the back ways, and guess where the players will be camped out waiting on you. Yep, the back way.
Now to help mitigate the loss from PK's the game does have insurance, so you don't lose all your crap when you die. This allows PvE players to play without the pain from being ganked. To me this was a good compromise to the PvE/PvP system. However, some PvP people did seem to dislike the idea.
I don't care about real life logic when i play games. If i did i'd play 0 games. In real life death is permanent, in real life magic doesn't exist, etc.
Secondly your concept was broken due to how it worked. I've explained it. In EVE for instance it would break more than it would fix. Besides, null sec is an outlaw zone. It would be like committing a crime in a country without any government nor laws. High sec and to an extend low sec is where Concord operates. No one is forced to go into null or WH space. Consequently if one doesn't like the lawlessness of those regions one can easily avoid them.
And there is no reason to go up to "banning". That's just the most simplistic and broken way to add accountability. And the idea one has to agree with such a system to be credible is laughable.
I don't believe harsh consequences is the answer. It's a tad more complicated than that if you ask me.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
I think we have a simple semantics issue here. It opens doors if you will. Doors a game will only take if it's Full PVP and not with PVE servers nonsense (because otherwise the PVE servers would probably suck due to the PVP server centrict gameplay mechanics). As you said a PVE centric EVE would probably suck. Hence the game and its gameplay only work thanks to FFA PVP.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
No its more like we want to fly a Boeing 747 with all the bells and whistles but the airline keeps giving us non powered gliders instead. DFUW is not a good option. Game reminds me of Unreal Tourny/Quake/Doom with swords and magic.Also being mainly a PVE player in MMOs with the small exceptions of Eve, DF1, and Warhammer I like the idea of full loot open world pvp in games designed for it. What is the point of reward when there is no risk? In my opinion, I think it lessens the value of the reward if you do not have something to lose.
Griefers...I got ganked last week in Eve while I was mining during cleaning house. It was completely my fault for not paying attention. Did I go into a rage because I got caught slipping? Hell no! I told the guy good job on the gank since it was my fault for not paying attention. In other OW Pvp games I have played, if you are paying attention you are very likely able to avoid the gank. I am not talking about the WoW inspired mmos either. Pvp is just an afterthought and hastily tacked on in many of those games. Warhammer was alright though I think it funneled too many people into the warfronts which hurt the open world PvP system. Pvp gear progression in some of those games was also modeled too much after the Pve gear treadmill. You end up grinding Pvp points for gear instead of having objectives in the world that matter strategically.
There are several decent Pve themed Mmos and really only a couple decent Pvp mmo out there to choose from. Again Darkfall UW doesn't belong in this list since many of the systems are poorly developed and do not mesh well. Mortal Online is complete trash. Darkfall 1.0 that would have been on the list if they had some control over botting and exploits and didn't had to design a new game with less features. Still indy devs. Where is the AAA pvp mmo?
Current PC Build
http://pcpartpicker.com/b/p8RBD3
Present: Current offerings are low quality or soloable
Past:AoC, DCUO, FFXI,FFXIV 1.0 and ARR,WoW,Fallen Earth, Tabula Rasa, TSW, SWTOR, Rift, Aion, WAR, Darkfall, STO, CoH/CoV, GW2, Diaspora, EQ2, DDO, and a bunch of forgettable ftp games
Herald of innovation, Vanquisher of the old! - Awake a few hours almost everyday!
It's not a matter of "there should be no attempt to...". It's a matter of realism not being an argument in itself unless you are a realism-fan. Which is than a totally different issue. It's not longer about FFA PVP but about people's preferences when it comes to realism. I play games exactly because it's NOT real life. So for me "but in real life..." is a non-argument.
And than we get an other real-life comparison... Nothing says that CONCORD is supposed to act everywhere. Actually they're pretty clear about it.
And here we go with armchair pseudo psychology. Enjoying PVP in an MMO =/= being an anti-social asshat. There are some people who do indeed "hunt for tears" but others just enjoy the fighting and than the loot awaiting at the end (or in the case of EVE a lot seem to enjoy the E-peen factor with the Kill Board system).
And no it's not simple. It's only simple if you're not willing to see the doors FFA PVP can open. You seem to not enjoy risk. Fine. Many others do. And by implementing FFA PVP you can actively use risk as a gameplay aspect like EVE.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
It's not semantics. Any game mechanics that work with PvP can be structured without PvP. PvP isn't necessary and it doesn't have some inherent quality that makes it 'good'. It just adds a type of game play that some people like and some people don't. It's only necessary for the people who like it. It is something that needs to be limited for people who do not like it. It doesn't matter what flowery language you try to throw in there, it's a preference, nothing more.
If PvP had some inherent quality that made games better, then there would be more people playing OW PvP games, or there would be more people on OW PvP servers. There are fewer people playing OW PvP games than not, and there are far fewer people on OW PvP servers than on PvE servers.
My comment on Eve was specifically about Eve. Eve was built from the beginning with PvP in mind. This could be said about the mechanics is most MMORPGs. Remove the primary mechanic of any game and the rest of the game will suffer. Removing the primary mechanic of Eve (OW PvP) would result in a game of lesser quality because the rest of the mechanics are built with the idea of that primary mechanic in mind.
If OW PvP has some inherent quality that makes games 'better', then it should be possible to describe or quantify it in some way. If you can, describe the way that OW PvP makes a game better, without resorting to personal opinions. Also describe the way in which OW PvP differentiates itself from other challenges present in MMORPGs without resorting to personal opinions. If the description of OW PvP depends on personal opinions, then it's just a preference. Something that some people like and some people don't, but which doesn't have an inherently 'better' nature.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
A AAA PvP MMO will come along when developers think there are enough people to play them.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Maybe you need to read what i write. I never said PVP had an inherent quality. I said it opened doors. It allows gameplay which wouldn't work without it. If that were false than EVE would still work 100% fine if CCP removed PVP. Which i think you and i both know to be false.
Some people may not value that type of gameplay, sure. There is afteral no such thing as objectively better gameplay mechanics.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
And where did I say that enjoying PVP = being an anti-social asshat? I'm talking about a particular type of bottom-feeding scum who uses PVP games to be a bully, who is an asshat not because he PVPs but because he is. And he gets a free pass despite being the person who is giving PVP a bad name and preventing wider acceptance of it.
And you know damn well who they are, that they exists in numbers and that they only get slaps on the wrist. I and most PVPers want to enjoy a good fair PVP fight - win or lose.-- that's what it's all about. And most of us are also willing to forgive the occasional unfair gank.
I'm talking about banning the habitual dedicated ganker who gets his jollies out of repeatedly doing it. They are more harmful to games than gold sellers or botters. But they get a free pass out of some silly misguided sense that PVP should be either totally unregulated or just have some token half-assed regulation.
Your attitude of tolerance toward them is a typical example of why FFA PVP isn't mainstream. Unless they get serious about regulating it, it never will be.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED