Yeah but the idea of might is right basically means I'm stronger so do what I say. What I'm saying is people band together against people they don't like.
Which is the very definition of anarchy, aka a state ruled by the strongest bullies.
Right. I'd rather have gameplay that is determined by the most vocal community members.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.
I didn't say "meaningful PK" did I? I said gankers. As in jerks who find joy in killing people that are way below their level. I don't understand what's wrong with having a flag system where people that want open world PvP flag themselves for PvP and people that are 100% PvE players don't flag themselves for PvP.
Sorry but no you just said death penalty as a repercussion, not a repercussion only against gankers, whatever you think that term means. My point is that a death penalty as repercussion to killing people would deter more than meaningless mindless killing.
And the reason you think flagging systems have no downside is because you think the ow pvp crowd only want ow pvp because we like fighting people. Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
Telling someone not to be arrogant (when I wasn't being arrogant at all in the first place) and then you make an arrogant comment... Makes sense.
From every comment I've seen of yours what I'm getting is basically "Screw PvE players. I want open world PvP and if the people who are 100% PvE players don't like it, well they better just go find another game."
I don't get what is unfair about that.
I mean, you worded it in kind of a hostile way, but the notion that someone doesn't like what you do and there really isn't a compromise so you guys need to just play different games seems reasonable.
Originally posted by Holophonist It's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response.
Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
Why is turning off PvP not a stylistic choice the reason for implementing it or not depends on the target players' preferences? Having dragons or not depends on the target players' preferences as well and it's a stylistic choice.
Because it wasn't born from imagination or style. It's not stylistic because it's not a style. Fantasy is a style, and along with it comes unrealistic things like magic and monsters. Sci-fi is a style and along with it comes unrealistic things like space exploration and aliens. Turning off pvp is a lazy solution to a problem. It's not stylistic.
From every comment I've seen of yours what I'm getting is basically "Screw PvE players. I want open world PvP and if the people who are 100% PvE players don't like it, well they better just go find another game." Really, I've seen a lot of people provide solutions and you just shoot down every solution provided..
Solutions to WHAT exactly? Why does every game have to be for "everybody"? Maybe I don't want some watered down compromise of a game.
I've never said screw you to pve players, you can have whatever game you want. As I've said before, I'm not particularly emotionally invested in whether EQN or any other game has ow pvp. But that's not going to stop me from correcting people when they say things like "just have pvp and pve servers! everybody wins!" or "the only reason people want ow pvp is because they're psychopaths!" Both of those things and much more are said on these forums quite often.
Originally posted by Holophonist It's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response.
Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
Why is turning off PvP not a stylistic choice the reason for implementing it or not depends on the target players' preferences? Having dragons or not depends on the target players' preferences as well and it's a stylistic choice.
Because it wasn't born from imagination or style. It's not stylistic because it's not a style. Fantasy is a style, and along with it comes unrealistic things like magic and monsters. Sci-fi is a style and along with it comes unrealistic things like space exploration and aliens. Turning off pvp is a lazy solution to a problem. It's not stylistic.
From every comment I've seen of yours what I'm getting is basically "Screw PvE players. I want open world PvP and if the people who are 100% PvE players don't like it, well they better just go find another game." Really, I've seen a lot of people provide solutions and you just shoot down every solution provided..
Solutions to WHAT exactly? Why does every game have to be for "everybody"? Maybe I don't want some watered down compromise of a game.
I've never said screw you to pve players, you can have whatever game you want. As I've said before, I'm not particularly emotionally invested in whether EQN or any other game has ow pvp. But that's not going to stop me from correcting people when they say things like "just have pvp and pve servers! everybody wins!" or "the only reason people want ow pvp is because they're psychopaths!" Both of those things and much more are said on these forums quite often.
Well from the comments I've read from you, you are the very kind of person PvE players hate when they think about the horrors of OW PvP. You come off as a bully and that's what people don't want in their MMOs.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by HolophonistIt's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response.Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
Why is turning off PvP not a stylistic choice the reason for implementing it or not depends on the target players' preferences? Having dragons or not depends on the target players' preferences as well and it's a stylistic choice.Because it wasn't born from imagination or style. It's not stylistic because it's not a style. Fantasy is a style, and along with it comes unrealistic things like magic and monsters. Sci-fi is a style and along with it comes unrealistic things like space exploration and aliens. Turning off pvp is a lazy solution to a problem. It's not stylistic.
What's the problem that turning PvP off is the solution for? From what I can see, the problem is players not enjoying OW PvP. If the target demographic for a game would prefer not having OW PvP, then not implementing it in the first place is the only solution.
I'll ask the question in a different way since you responded to my post, but didn't answer the question. If having Dragons instead of Zombies is driven by players preferring Dragons and that's the correct choice, why is implementing flagging PvP the wrong choice when it's driven by players preferring flagging PvP over OW PvP?
To put the question a third way, "Why do you believe that OW PvP has intrinsic value, when the value of all game mechanics is driven by player preferences?"
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
We all know that themeparks post-WoW have a problem with the retention rate of players (the already discussed "themepark trap"), that they start with a big burst in subscriptions and after some months (when the people reach the "endgame") the playerbase falls fast.
Well, i think sandboxes without ow meaningful pvp can have a even worse fall in the playerbase than these themeparks, since:
1- Themeparks can put their "carrots" in instanced areas, which allow them multiply by hundreds or thousands the real in-game "content" available to the players. Sandboxes in the other hand will have to provide all their pve content (at least the best) in the open world, which restricts dramatically the amount of "pve content" (that works as "tools" to pursue the "carrots") available to players.
2- Outside the structured and "dramatized" challenges provided in instanced dungeons or raids, there are not many alternatives left to provide the players with funny and cool combat challenges without pvp. The openess of epic bosses to the world without the possibility of players dispute it through fights between them would preclude the tactical and challenging aspect of fighting bosses. These fights would be a zerg of thousand of players trying to tag or take the most credit from a easy boss kill. With open pvp the players can at least have the challenge of expelling others players, keeping them away while a minor group kill the boss.
3- Without instanced content, the gathering of itens, farming of mobs and killing of elites/bosses would occur through a zerg of players in a crowded open world area. The whole thing would be to decide who "tags" the itens first or who can hit more the targets, earning more credits. Even if the developers make the respawn rate very high (or instant respawns), the whole proccess would be far dumber and boring than themepark instances.
4- Without ow pvp, many metagame content arised from players disputes that originate political, diplomatic, social, moral and economical complexities (e.g: carismatic power or leadership, spying, sabotage, betrayals, big rivalries and fellowships, reputations with real consequences, etc) would be damaged or even wouldn't exists. The mmo would be only a bunch of players gathering itens and building stuff that would have little or none use besides the cosmetic, without challenges and still jammed by the crowd in the proccess. Anyway, this would be way less fun than themepark instanced stuff and the created things (buildings, gear, etc) would have little use and meaning.
In principle I agree but alot of the scenarios you mention are not sandbox, or at least true sandbox. Using words like instances, boss's, zergs, and such are all realated to games like wow, swtor, and that whole line of worn out formats that have failed for the last 7 years consistantly. Even the all mighty WOW are hemmoraging players in the 100k's every month. True sand box is you dropped in on your head and you figure it out how to survive.
I totally agree that OW PVP is a must but it has to be in a map where there are no borders, plenty of islands and nooks to get a foot hold and only invite people you trust. Right now I am participating in the Divergence Online pre alpha testing and its everything you mentioned thats true sandbox and more. It's true sandbox style is OWPVP 24/7 if you want it to be. Not only do you build everything you have you and your team are the masters of your own destiny. This game is a real sandbox game, not an imitation or partially. Please go register on their website and try it out.
as a side note:
even though these games are ow pvp that doesnt mean pve are left out of this game. As a matter of fact you will have to have non fighting alts to survive. They are as valuable in Divergence Online as the best fighter and in most cases you will need crafters more in this game than a good fighter. The crafters will be make the cities safer because of their ability to build defenses, offenses, housing, cloners, and the gathering of resources. Never think that sandbox means you are always going to be pvpvpvpvpvpvpvpvpvpvpvpvvp.... With no end of a map means you can hide just about forever or at least until you are ready to fight.
Well from the comments I've read from you, you are the very kind of person PvE players hate when they think about the horrors of OW PvP. You come off as a bully and that's what people don't want in their MMOs.
Actually i don't mind him in my MMOs since i only play those with consensual pvp. There is almost nothing he can do to me in a game. Heck, he probably can't even get into the same instance with me.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
While I agree that problem is a major hurdle to implementing pvp effectively, truly effective pvp systems can do a lot for a game's depth, so pvp cannot be entirely written off.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.
I didn't say "meaningful PK" did I? I said gankers. As in jerks who find joy in killing people that are way below their level. I don't understand what's wrong with having a flag system where people that want open world PvP flag themselves for PvP and people that are 100% PvE players don't flag themselves for PvP.
Sorry but no you just said death penalty as a repercussion, not a repercussion only against gankers, whatever you think that term means. My point is that a death penalty as repercussion to killing people would deter more than meaningless mindless killing.
And the reason you think flagging systems have no downside is because you think the ow pvp crowd only want ow pvp because we like fighting people. Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
Telling someone not to be arrogant (when I wasn't being arrogant at all in the first place) and then you make an arrogant comment... Makes sense.
What on earth are you talking about? You were being sarcastic, hostile and arrogant. It's arrogant of you to only talk about pvp players killing pve players "who want nothing to do with pvp." If you're playing an ow pvp game, how can you not consider yourself a willing participant to the system? Hmm? I'm not talking about turning some pve game into a pvp game.
I'm saying that ow pvp games have deeper and more meaningful gameplay. It's incredibly arrogant to answer that with this:
"Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
Seriously, once again the pve crowd showing how reasonable and tolerant they all are.
Well from the comments I've read from you, you are the very kind of person PvE players hate when they think about the horrors of OW PvP. You come off as a bully and that's what people don't want in their MMOs.
Actually i don't mind him in my MMOs since i only play those with consensual pvp. There is almost nothing he can do to me in a game. Heck, he probably can't even get into the same instance with me.
Well, I sort of meant more like that's what people wouldn't want in an OW PvP MMORPG.
Originally posted by Holophonist It's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response.
Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
Why is turning off PvP not a stylistic choice the reason for implementing it or not depends on the target players' preferences? Having dragons or not depends on the target players' preferences as well and it's a stylistic choice.
Because it wasn't born from imagination or style. It's not stylistic because it's not a style. Fantasy is a style, and along with it comes unrealistic things like magic and monsters. Sci-fi is a style and along with it comes unrealistic things like space exploration and aliens. Turning off pvp is a lazy solution to a problem. It's not stylistic.
From every comment I've seen of yours what I'm getting is basically "Screw PvE players. I want open world PvP and if the people who are 100% PvE players don't like it, well they better just go find another game." Really, I've seen a lot of people provide solutions and you just shoot down every solution provided..
Solutions to WHAT exactly? Why does every game have to be for "everybody"? Maybe I don't want some watered down compromise of a game.
I've never said screw you to pve players, you can have whatever game you want. As I've said before, I'm not particularly emotionally invested in whether EQN or any other game has ow pvp. But that's not going to stop me from correcting people when they say things like "just have pvp and pve servers! everybody wins!" or "the only reason people want ow pvp is because they're psychopaths!" Both of those things and much more are said on these forums quite often.
Well from the comments I've read from you, you are the very kind of person PvE players hate when they think about the horrors of OW PvP. You come off as a bully and that's what people don't want in their MMOs.
So after I point out that you misrepresented my position rudely, you decide to double down and insult me further? Get this, you have no idea how I play games. I'm the good guy in games. I just happen to enjoy the depth and organic gameplay that ow pvp offers.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.
I didn't say "meaningful PK" did I? I said gankers. As in jerks who find joy in killing people that are way below their level. I don't understand what's wrong with having a flag system where people that want open world PvP flag themselves for PvP and people that are 100% PvE players don't flag themselves for PvP.
Sorry but no you just said death penalty as a repercussion, not a repercussion only against gankers, whatever you think that term means. My point is that a death penalty as repercussion to killing people would deter more than meaningless mindless killing.
And the reason you think flagging systems have no downside is because you think the ow pvp crowd only want ow pvp because we like fighting people. Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
Telling someone not to be arrogant (when I wasn't being arrogant at all in the first place) and then you make an arrogant comment... Makes sense.
What on earth are you talking about? You were being sarcastic, hostile and arrogant. It's arrogant of you to only talk about pvp players killing pve players "who want nothing to do with pvp." If you're playing an ow pvp game, how can you not consider yourself a willing participant to the system? Hmm? I'm not talking about turning some pve game into a pvp game.
I'm saying that ow pvp games have deeper and more meaningful gameplay. It's incredibly arrogant to answer that with this:
"Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
Seriously, once again the pve crowd showing how reasonable and tolerant they all are.
Are you for real? You're telling me that your comments such as "Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay...." and, "Maybe I don't want some watered down compromise of a game..." in reference to games that aren't OW PvP. I'm sorry, but your comments come off as extremely arrogant.
Not sure why we cant have meaningful open world pvp and have a place for people to pve in safely. It worked in DAOC and some other games.
I think the only real arguments is from the people on on the extremes on both sides. The FFA pvp people definitely wont get what they want. And the "I dont want to pvp at all and only pve" people will hopefully not get what you want.
To put the question a third way, "Why do you believe that OW PvP has intrinsic value, when the value of all game mechanics is driven by player preferences?"
Because players don't always know what they want, and most don't feel like taking the time to explore other options that may end up being even more fun without being given reason to do so. Properly implemented, OW PvP gives them that reason in ways that pretty much nothing else can. While people don't like being flat out pushed out of their comfort zone, more often than not, a nudge or two every now and again actually is a good thing, which is where the proper implementation comes in. It doesn't have to be OW PvP, but in a sandbox, that is the solution that makes the most sense most of the time to accomplish this goal.
Originally posted by HolophonistIt's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response.Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
Why is turning off PvP not a stylistic choice the reason for implementing it or not depends on the target players' preferences? Having dragons or not depends on the target players' preferences as well and it's a stylistic choice.
Because it wasn't born from imagination or style. It's not stylistic because it's not a style. Fantasy is a style, and along with it comes unrealistic things like magic and monsters. Sci-fi is a style and along with it comes unrealistic things like space exploration and aliens. Turning off pvp is a lazy solution to a problem. It's not stylistic.
What's the problem that turning PvP off is the solution for? From what I can see, the problem is players not enjoying OW PvP. If the target demographic for a game would prefer not having OW PvP, then not implementing it in the first place is the only solution.
I'll ask the question in a different way since you responded to my post, but didn't answer the question. If having Dragons instead of Zombies is driven by players preferring Dragons and that's the correct choice, why is implementing flagging PvP the wrong choice when it's driven by players preferring flagging PvP over OW PvP?
To put the question a third way, "Why do you believe that OW PvP has intrinsic value, when the value of all game mechanics is driven by player preferences?"
Why are you talking about the "problems" that come along with ow pvp? We were talking about why turning off pvp isn't the same as unrealistic things like magic or monsters or whatever else. You're trying to say "who cares if it's unrealistic, lots of things in games are unrealistic!" And my point is that the unrealistic things in games are either stylistic or due to the technical limitations. Turning off pvp is an unrealistic feature that's only implemented to solve a problem.
Because the "problem" of griefers or mindless killing has multiple solutions. Turning off pvp to me is the least interesting and least organic. The least immersive and the laziest. I don't want OW PvP because I like it when people grief, I want OW PvP because it opens up more opportunities for community involvement and more interesting stories of villains, heroes, revenge, espionage, etc.
To put the question a third way, "Why do you believe that OW PvP has intrinsic value, when the value of all game mechanics is driven by player preferences?"
Because players don't always know what they want, and most don't feel like taking the time to explore other options that may end up being even more fun without being given reason to do so. Properly implemented, OW PvP gives them that reason in ways that pretty much nothing else can. While people don't like being flat out pushed out of their comfort zone, more often than not, a nudge or two every now and again actually is a good thing, which is where the proper implementation comes in. It doesn't have to be OW PvP, but in a sandbox, that is the solution that makes the most sense most of the time to accomplish this goal.
I kind of agree and disagree. When I first played DAOC i didnt pvp at all. After months and months of play I reached level 50 and finally ran out of pve things to do. I was nudged out to the RvR frontiers via some pve class quests. I pvp'ed a little. Won a little and lost a little. Then found a guild and bam, I was hooked on pvp.
To this day I still prefer pve over pvp but now enjoy both because DAOC "nudged" me into it. Thanks DAOC.
Of course like you said, this should be just a nudge. If every server and the only choice you had was FFA open world pvp, anywhere anytime. That nudge will turn into a plunge and you will lose at lot of players and probable have players that wont even attempt to play the game at all.
And there is no reason this needs to be in a game. In a game, just flip a switch and ignore those you don't like. Simple solution and it works.
But as years worth of threads like this one show, it's not quite that simple. Coexistance of incompatable visions comes at a price. Sometimes that price is worth paying, sometimes it is not.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.
I didn't say "meaningful PK" did I? I said gankers. As in jerks who find joy in killing people that are way below their level. I don't understand what's wrong with having a flag system where people that want open world PvP flag themselves for PvP and people that are 100% PvE players don't flag themselves for PvP.
Sorry but no you just said death penalty as a repercussion, not a repercussion only against gankers, whatever you think that term means. My point is that a death penalty as repercussion to killing people would deter more than meaningless mindless killing.
And the reason you think flagging systems have no downside is because you think the ow pvp crowd only want ow pvp because we like fighting people. Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
Telling someone not to be arrogant (when I wasn't being arrogant at all in the first place) and then you make an arrogant comment... Makes sense.
What on earth are you talking about? You were being sarcastic, hostile and arrogant. It's arrogant of you to only talk about pvp players killing pve players "who want nothing to do with pvp." If you're playing an ow pvp game, how can you not consider yourself a willing participant to the system? Hmm? I'm not talking about turning some pve game into a pvp game.
I'm saying that ow pvp games have deeper and more meaningful gameplay. It's incredibly arrogant to answer that with this:
"Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
Seriously, once again the pve crowd showing how reasonable and tolerant they all are.
Are you for real? You're telling me that your comments such as "Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay...." and, "Maybe I don't want some watered down compromise of a game..." in reference to games that aren't OW PvP. I'm sorry, but your comments come off as extremely arrogant.
No, compromises by their very nature make for watered down results. Taking a pure pve game and implementing some kind of compromise to "appease" pvp players is watering down the game as well. I'm not sure how that's arrogant.
Why do I HAVE to play the game that you want me to play? Why can't I have my own game that I want while you have your game that you want? The PvE players are the ones coming in to these discussions with arrogant claims about people's character and assumptions about our playstyles.
Originally posted by HolophonistIt's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response.Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
Why is turning off PvP not a stylistic choice the reason for implementing it or not depends on the target players' preferences? Having dragons or not depends on the target players' preferences as well and it's a stylistic choice.
Because it wasn't born from imagination or style. It's not stylistic because it's not a style. Fantasy is a style, and along with it comes unrealistic things like magic and monsters. Sci-fi is a style and along with it comes unrealistic things like space exploration and aliens. Turning off pvp is a lazy solution to a problem. It's not stylistic.
What's the problem that turning PvP off is the solution for? From what I can see, the problem is players not enjoying OW PvP. If the target demographic for a game would prefer not having OW PvP, then not implementing it in the first place is the only solution.
I'll ask the question in a different way since you responded to my post, but didn't answer the question. If having Dragons instead of Zombies is driven by players preferring Dragons and that's the correct choice, why is implementing flagging PvP the wrong choice when it's driven by players preferring flagging PvP over OW PvP?
To put the question a third way, "Why do you believe that OW PvP has intrinsic value, when the value of all game mechanics is driven by player preferences?"
Why are you talking about the "problems" that come along with ow pvp? We were talking about why turning off pvp isn't the same as unrealistic things like magic or monsters or whatever else. You're trying to say "who cares if it's unrealistic, lots of things in games are unrealistic!" And my point is that the unrealistic things in games are either stylistic or due to the technical limitations. Turning off pvp is an unrealistic feature that's only implemented to solve a problem.
Because the "problem" of griefers or mindless killing has multiple solutions. Turning off pvp to me is the least interesting and least organic. The least immersive and the laziest. I don't want OW PvP because I like it when people grief, I want OW PvP because it opens up more opportunities for community involvement and more interesting stories of villains, heroes, revenge, espionage, etc.
Community involvement can be had without annoying others. Go play Darkages to see what I mean.
Why do I HAVE to play the game that you want me to play? Why can't I have my own game that I want while you have your game that you want? The PvE players are the ones coming in to these discussions with arrogant claims about people's character and assumptions about our playstyles.
Because no dev owes you a game that you like. The market decides and will only produce games that have enough of an audience.
Oh, you can like whatever playstyle, and i have no problem with it. But i would like to point out that it is wishful thinking that if you like something, someone needs to produce it for you.
To put the question a third way, "Why do you believe that OW PvP has intrinsic value, when the value of all game mechanics is driven by player preferences?"
Because players don't always know what they want, and most don't feel like taking the time to explore other options that may end up being even more fun without being given reason to do so.
I wish more people would realize delivering a product customers want is not always equivalent to delivering a product customers say they want.
I see it so often here, the argument that "most of us want X so if it doesn't have X or if it has Y instead its a failure and a company isn't going to make a failure."
Fortunately though for us consumers - when actual money is involved companies don't always operate under knee-jerk common sense business models.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.
I didn't say "meaningful PK" did I? I said gankers. As in jerks who find joy in killing people that are way below their level. I don't understand what's wrong with having a flag system where people that want open world PvP flag themselves for PvP and people that are 100% PvE players don't flag themselves for PvP.
Sorry but no you just said death penalty as a repercussion, not a repercussion only against gankers, whatever you think that term means. My point is that a death penalty as repercussion to killing people would deter more than meaningless mindless killing.
And the reason you think flagging systems have no downside is because you think the ow pvp crowd only want ow pvp because we like fighting people. Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
Telling someone not to be arrogant (when I wasn't being arrogant at all in the first place) and then you make an arrogant comment... Makes sense.
What on earth are you talking about? You were being sarcastic, hostile and arrogant. It's arrogant of you to only talk about pvp players killing pve players "who want nothing to do with pvp." If you're playing an ow pvp game, how can you not consider yourself a willing participant to the system? Hmm? I'm not talking about turning some pve game into a pvp game.
I'm saying that ow pvp games have deeper and more meaningful gameplay. It's incredibly arrogant to answer that with this:
"Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
Seriously, once again the pve crowd showing how reasonable and tolerant they all are.
Are you for real? You're telling me that your comments such as "Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay...." and, "Maybe I don't want some watered down compromise of a game..." in reference to games that aren't OW PvP. I'm sorry, but your comments come off as extremely arrogant.
No, compromises by their very nature make for watered down results. Taking a pure pve game and implementing some kind of compromise to "appease" pvp players is watering down the game as well. I'm not sure how that's arrogant.
Why do I HAVE to play the game that you want me to play? Why can't I have my own game that I want while you have your game that you want? The PvE players are the ones coming in to these discussions with arrogant claims about people's character and assumptions about our playstyles.
Assumptions are made based off the way you present yourself. When you present yourself in a loud, rude manner, people are going to assume you're the kind of player who is one of the griefers in OW PvP and think that must be the only reason why you want it.
Also your first paragraph is your opinion. That doesn't deem it a fact. When you make comments that are solely based off your opinions as if they were facts, I'm sorry, it makes you seem arrogant.
Comments
Right. I'd rather have gameplay that is determined by the most vocal community members.
Telling someone not to be arrogant (when I wasn't being arrogant at all in the first place) and then you make an arrogant comment... Makes sense.
Smile
I don't get what is unfair about that.
I mean, you worded it in kind of a hostile way, but the notion that someone doesn't like what you do and there really isn't a compromise so you guys need to just play different games seems reasonable.
Solutions to WHAT exactly? Why does every game have to be for "everybody"? Maybe I don't want some watered down compromise of a game.
I've never said screw you to pve players, you can have whatever game you want. As I've said before, I'm not particularly emotionally invested in whether EQN or any other game has ow pvp. But that's not going to stop me from correcting people when they say things like "just have pvp and pve servers! everybody wins!" or "the only reason people want ow pvp is because they're psychopaths!" Both of those things and much more are said on these forums quite often.
EQ was a sandbox by many definitions that people have spouted on this site.... it was not PVP designed.
Well from the comments I've read from you, you are the very kind of person PvE players hate when they think about the horrors of OW PvP. You come off as a bully and that's what people don't want in their MMOs.
Smile
So is WOW by many definitions i've seen here.
And therein lies the problem with a thread of this sort imo.
Because it wasn't born from imagination or style. It's not stylistic because it's not a style. Fantasy is a style, and along with it comes unrealistic things like magic and monsters. Sci-fi is a style and along with it comes unrealistic things like space exploration and aliens. Turning off pvp is a lazy solution to a problem. It's not stylistic.
What's the problem that turning PvP off is the solution for? From what I can see, the problem is players not enjoying OW PvP. If the target demographic for a game would prefer not having OW PvP, then not implementing it in the first place is the only solution.
I'll ask the question in a different way since you responded to my post, but didn't answer the question. If having Dragons instead of Zombies is driven by players preferring Dragons and that's the correct choice, why is implementing flagging PvP the wrong choice when it's driven by players preferring flagging PvP over OW PvP?
To put the question a third way, "Why do you believe that OW PvP has intrinsic value, when the value of all game mechanics is driven by player preferences?"
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
as a side note:
even though these games are ow pvp that doesnt mean pve are left out of this game. As a matter of fact you will have to have non fighting alts to survive. They are as valuable in Divergence Online as the best fighter and in most cases you will need crafters more in this game than a good fighter. The crafters will be make the cities safer because of their ability to build defenses, offenses, housing, cloners, and the gathering of resources. Never think that sandbox means you are always going to be pvpvpvpvpvpvpvpvpvpvpvpvvp.... With no end of a map means you can hide just about forever or at least until you are ready to fight.
Actually i don't mind him in my MMOs since i only play those with consensual pvp. There is almost nothing he can do to me in a game. Heck, he probably can't even get into the same instance with me.
While I agree that problem is a major hurdle to implementing pvp effectively, truly effective pvp systems can do a lot for a game's depth, so pvp cannot be entirely written off.
What on earth are you talking about? You were being sarcastic, hostile and arrogant. It's arrogant of you to only talk about pvp players killing pve players "who want nothing to do with pvp." If you're playing an ow pvp game, how can you not consider yourself a willing participant to the system? Hmm? I'm not talking about turning some pve game into a pvp game.
I'm saying that ow pvp games have deeper and more meaningful gameplay. It's incredibly arrogant to answer that with this:
"Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
Seriously, once again the pve crowd showing how reasonable and tolerant they all are.
Well, I sort of meant more like that's what people wouldn't want in an OW PvP MMORPG.
Smile
So after I point out that you misrepresented my position rudely, you decide to double down and insult me further? Get this, you have no idea how I play games. I'm the good guy in games. I just happen to enjoy the depth and organic gameplay that ow pvp offers.
Are you for real? You're telling me that your comments such as "Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay...." and, "Maybe I don't want some watered down compromise of a game..." in reference to games that aren't OW PvP. I'm sorry, but your comments come off as extremely arrogant.
Smile
Not sure why we cant have meaningful open world pvp and have a place for people to pve in safely. It worked in DAOC and some other games.
I think the only real arguments is from the people on on the extremes on both sides. The FFA pvp people definitely wont get what they want. And the "I dont want to pvp at all and only pve" people will hopefully not get what you want.
Because players don't always know what they want, and most don't feel like taking the time to explore other options that may end up being even more fun without being given reason to do so. Properly implemented, OW PvP gives them that reason in ways that pretty much nothing else can. While people don't like being flat out pushed out of their comfort zone, more often than not, a nudge or two every now and again actually is a good thing, which is where the proper implementation comes in. It doesn't have to be OW PvP, but in a sandbox, that is the solution that makes the most sense most of the time to accomplish this goal.
Why are you talking about the "problems" that come along with ow pvp? We were talking about why turning off pvp isn't the same as unrealistic things like magic or monsters or whatever else. You're trying to say "who cares if it's unrealistic, lots of things in games are unrealistic!" And my point is that the unrealistic things in games are either stylistic or due to the technical limitations. Turning off pvp is an unrealistic feature that's only implemented to solve a problem.
Because the "problem" of griefers or mindless killing has multiple solutions. Turning off pvp to me is the least interesting and least organic. The least immersive and the laziest. I don't want OW PvP because I like it when people grief, I want OW PvP because it opens up more opportunities for community involvement and more interesting stories of villains, heroes, revenge, espionage, etc.
I kind of agree and disagree. When I first played DAOC i didnt pvp at all. After months and months of play I reached level 50 and finally ran out of pve things to do. I was nudged out to the RvR frontiers via some pve class quests. I pvp'ed a little. Won a little and lost a little. Then found a guild and bam, I was hooked on pvp.
To this day I still prefer pve over pvp but now enjoy both because DAOC "nudged" me into it. Thanks DAOC.
Of course like you said, this should be just a nudge. If every server and the only choice you had was FFA open world pvp, anywhere anytime. That nudge will turn into a plunge and you will lose at lot of players and probable have players that wont even attempt to play the game at all.
But as years worth of threads like this one show, it's not quite that simple. Coexistance of incompatable visions comes at a price. Sometimes that price is worth paying, sometimes it is not.
No, compromises by their very nature make for watered down results. Taking a pure pve game and implementing some kind of compromise to "appease" pvp players is watering down the game as well. I'm not sure how that's arrogant.
Why do I HAVE to play the game that you want me to play? Why can't I have my own game that I want while you have your game that you want? The PvE players are the ones coming in to these discussions with arrogant claims about people's character and assumptions about our playstyles.
Community involvement can be had without annoying others. Go play Darkages to see what I mean.
Smile
Because no dev owes you a game that you like. The market decides and will only produce games that have enough of an audience.
Oh, you can like whatever playstyle, and i have no problem with it. But i would like to point out that it is wishful thinking that if you like something, someone needs to produce it for you.
I wish more people would realize delivering a product customers want is not always equivalent to delivering a product customers say they want.
I see it so often here, the argument that "most of us want X so if it doesn't have X or if it has Y instead its a failure and a company isn't going to make a failure."
Fortunately though for us consumers - when actual money is involved companies don't always operate under knee-jerk common sense business models.
Assumptions are made based off the way you present yourself. When you present yourself in a loud, rude manner, people are going to assume you're the kind of player who is one of the griefers in OW PvP and think that must be the only reason why you want it.
Also your first paragraph is your opinion. That doesn't deem it a fact. When you make comments that are solely based off your opinions as if they were facts, I'm sorry, it makes you seem arrogant.
Smile