I'm on board with the goal: make PKing a viable option, but it should be a somewhat difficult path. You don't want the DEFAULT to be just attack everybody for no apparent reason. I loved the fact that in UO you had actual recognizable names of players/clans that were... bad guys essentially. You had actual villains in the game. And the reason you could have villains is because the vast majority of the people you'd run into in dungeons were blues. For the most part blue players would stick together if PK's were around. That's not really the case in a game like Darkfall because everybody just attacks everybody else for the most part.
However, while I like the IDEA of a jail system, I'm not sure it's a great thing to put in a game. I love the sound of it, and how deliciously organic and sandbox it is, but I just don't know how I feel about a mechanic that stops you from playing the game. It's a game, and it's meant to be played. I don't think it would be all that difficult to deter mindless killing without something that stops you from playing, considering UO was pretty close and they didn't even really do that much. A big thing is not letting murderers allowed in towns, and possibly other restrictions regarding player-run merchants or quests (if the game has any).
Pretty much my contention, as well. UO and EVE allow the Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the undeniably Ugly places to flourish. Both games allow players to become complete outcasts if they want, although UO's flaw early on was in making that the most profitable path in the entire game. As long as the path is on par with other paths, you'll naturally curb PKing as the ones that will choose it are the ones that prefer that particular playstyle.
The problem with this thread is that it focuses on an unknown, and that unknown is the appropriate threshold for number and frequency of PKing in the game world. The variable that fluctuates the most is the community's acceptance level of that playstyle which, as we have already seen from AC, WOW and several other MMOs, varies from server to server as each one develops its own identity and its own community.
One of the many neat PVP-related features of UO was Buccaneer's Den. It was a town/island without NPC guards that provided a place for the PKs to congregate, still access a bank, and have some basic NPCs they can interact with. More importantly, it gave a place where the PK community could interact on relatively neutral ground.
I'm completely in favor of mechanics that channel a playstyle rather than create abrupt obstacles to it based on arbitrary impositions.
PKing wasn't the most profitable path though, not by a long shot. PvE builds like tamers and bards were by far the most profitable, followed by crafters, particularly smiths and alchemists.
In my experience a lot of the non-pvp crowd don't have a side of the story. The vast majority of the mmo market today came about AFTER the watering down of the genre with games like WoW and haven't given any game with ow pvp a proper chance.
What is a "proper" chance? I played UO beta a while and hated PK .. so i quit. Is that a "proper" or an "improper" chance?
And it is moot anyway. If the audience decide not to give it a chance, proper or not, fair or not, no sane devs is going to try to go against the demand.
Personally i have tried enough, and like it or not, ow ffa pvp (in a pve game, i do play PS2 from time to time) has no chance from me. I doubt you will miss me anyway.
I don't know if you gave it a fair shot or not, to be honest. It doesn't really matter. OO PvP advocates have tried both types of games, while most of the non-pvp players haven't.
Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
Yeh lots of games do it, I've had people kidnap me before in Dayz and it's just a laugh. Now though everyone shoots on sight and there isn't really any of that going on and the game has become boring but back in the day I had a great laugh.
Same with games the GTA:SA multiplayer mods, you have modes where you can be put in prison. I played a server on ARMA 3 and I just ran around causing trouble and a cop put me in prison lol.
It's fun.
People have just become way too attached to the idea that their stuff is theirs forever. I wish that would go because it makes a game very static.
Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
How many modern artist were inspired by classical. Even if its not turning massive profit, surely they can see it's bad for future business to not have the creative types of games in an Industry that so desperately needs it.
Creativity inspires the future, popularity can only clone itself for so long.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I'm on board with the goal: make PKing a viable option, but it should be a somewhat difficult path. You don't want the DEFAULT to be just attack everybody for no apparent reason. I loved the fact that in UO you had actual recognizable names of players/clans that were... bad guys essentially. You had actual villains in the game. And the reason you could have villains is because the vast majority of the people you'd run into in dungeons were blues. For the most part blue players would stick together if PK's were around. That's not really the case in a game like Darkfall because everybody just attacks everybody else for the most part.
However, while I like the IDEA of a jail system, I'm not sure it's a great thing to put in a game. I love the sound of it, and how deliciously organic and sandbox it is, but I just don't know how I feel about a mechanic that stops you from playing the game. It's a game, and it's meant to be played. I don't think it would be all that difficult to deter mindless killing without something that stops you from playing, considering UO was pretty close and they didn't even really do that much. A big thing is not letting murderers allowed in towns, and possibly other restrictions regarding player-run merchants or quests (if the game has any).
Pretty much my contention, as well. UO and EVE allow the Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the undeniably Ugly places to flourish. Both games allow players to become complete outcasts if they want, although UO's flaw early on was in making that the most profitable path in the entire game. As long as the path is on par with other paths, you'll naturally curb PKing as the ones that will choose it are the ones that prefer that particular playstyle.
The problem with this thread is that it focuses on an unknown, and that unknown is the appropriate threshold for number and frequency of PKing in the game world. The variable that fluctuates the most is the community's acceptance level of that playstyle which, as we have already seen from AC, WOW and several other MMOs, varies from server to server as each one develops its own identity and its own community.
One of the many neat PVP-related features of UO was Buccaneer's Den. It was a town/island without NPC guards that provided a place for the PKs to congregate, still access a bank, and have some basic NPCs they can interact with. More importantly, it gave a place where the PK community could interact on relatively neutral ground.
I'm completely in favor of mechanics that channel a playstyle rather than create abrupt obstacles to it based on arbitrary impositions.
PKing wasn't the most profitable path though, not by a long shot. PvE builds like tamers and bards were by far the most profitable, followed by crafters, particularly smiths and alchemists.
"early on"
All of those were far more profitable later on, however initially, when spellbooks dropped on death, homes had the old key system, and other painful mechanics existed, it was far more profitable to be a killer. So much so that there was an entire WIRED article about it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Yeh lots of games do it, I've had people kidnap me before in Dayz and it's just a laugh. Now though everyone shoots on sight and there isn't really any of that going on and the game has become boring but back in the day I had a great laugh.
Same with games the GTA:SA multiplayer mods, you have modes where you can be put in prison. I played a server on ARMA 3 and I just ran around causing trouble and a cop put me in prison lol.
It's fun.
People have just become way too attached to the idea that their stuff is theirs forever. I wish that would go because it makes a game very static.
Very good point. No matter what kind of mechanics a dev wants to create, if the players aren't playing in a way that supports it, they end up unused or misused. The msot amazing "citizen's arrest" system or "player police force" system would be pointless if your players all shoot first and ask questions later.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
How many modern artist were inspired by classical. Even if its not turning massive profit, surely they can see it's bad for future business to not have the creative types of games in an Industry that so desperately needs it.
Creativity inspires the future, popularity can only clone itself for so long.
Yeah mainstream music has been cloning itself for decades. Sure the genre changes but the idea of less thinking for the listener and less time invested for the listener is a staple in mainstream music. Everything is just watered down verses with a "hook" thrown in somewhere.
Yeh lots of games do it, I've had people kidnap me before in Dayz and it's just a laugh. Now though everyone shoots on sight and there isn't really any of that going on and the game has become boring but back in the day I had a great laugh.
Same with games the GTA:SA multiplayer mods, you have modes where you can be put in prison. I played a server on ARMA 3 and I just ran around causing trouble and a cop put me in prison lol.
It's fun.
People have just become way too attached to the idea that their stuff is theirs forever. I wish that would go because it makes a game very static.
Very good point. No matter what kind of mechanics a dev wants to create, if the players aren't playing in a way that supports it, they end up unused or misused. The msot amazing "citizen's arrest" system or "player police force" system would be pointless if your players all shoot first and ask questions later.
That's why you give people incentives for locking other player's up. And trust me, enough people will participate even if it just means fighting PK's. There were guilds in UO that were totally designed to fight off PK's and there wasn't even a mechanic in place for them to do it.
Yeh lots of games do it, I've had people kidnap me before in Dayz and it's just a laugh. Now though everyone shoots on sight and there isn't really any of that going on and the game has become boring but back in the day I had a great laugh.
Same with games the GTA:SA multiplayer mods, you have modes where you can be put in prison. I played a server on ARMA 3 and I just ran around causing trouble and a cop put me in prison lol.
It's fun.
People have just become way too attached to the idea that their stuff is theirs forever. I wish that would go because it makes a game very static.
Very good point. No matter what kind of mechanics a dev wants to create, if the players aren't playing in a way that supports it, they end up unused or misused. The msot amazing "citizen's arrest" system or "player police force" system would be pointless if your players all shoot first and ask questions later.
The Pk gameplay should be how long can you last from the non pk's. Not the pvp rules for the game. It has already proven itself in popularity. Regardless of the death penalty, the immersion based gameplay hooks people in. This is only for the PK part of the game so please don't apply it to everything else in order to negate it.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I'm on board with the goal: make PKing a viable option, but it should be a somewhat difficult path. You don't want the DEFAULT to be just attack everybody for no apparent reason. I loved the fact that in UO you had actual recognizable names of players/clans that were... bad guys essentially. You had actual villains in the game. And the reason you could have villains is because the vast majority of the people you'd run into in dungeons were blues. For the most part blue players would stick together if PK's were around. That's not really the case in a game like Darkfall because everybody just attacks everybody else for the most part.
However, while I like the IDEA of a jail system, I'm not sure it's a great thing to put in a game. I love the sound of it, and how deliciously organic and sandbox it is, but I just don't know how I feel about a mechanic that stops you from playing the game. It's a game, and it's meant to be played. I don't think it would be all that difficult to deter mindless killing without something that stops you from playing, considering UO was pretty close and they didn't even really do that much. A big thing is not letting murderers allowed in towns, and possibly other restrictions regarding player-run merchants or quests (if the game has any).
Pretty much my contention, as well. UO and EVE allow the Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the undeniably Ugly places to flourish. Both games allow players to become complete outcasts if they want, although UO's flaw early on was in making that the most profitable path in the entire game. As long as the path is on par with other paths, you'll naturally curb PKing as the ones that will choose it are the ones that prefer that particular playstyle.
The problem with this thread is that it focuses on an unknown, and that unknown is the appropriate threshold for number and frequency of PKing in the game world. The variable that fluctuates the most is the community's acceptance level of that playstyle which, as we have already seen from AC, WOW and several other MMOs, varies from server to server as each one develops its own identity and its own community.
One of the many neat PVP-related features of UO was Buccaneer's Den. It was a town/island without NPC guards that provided a place for the PKs to congregate, still access a bank, and have some basic NPCs they can interact with. More importantly, it gave a place where the PK community could interact on relatively neutral ground.
I'm completely in favor of mechanics that channel a playstyle rather than create abrupt obstacles to it based on arbitrary impositions.
PKing wasn't the most profitable path though, not by a long shot. PvE builds like tamers and bards were by far the most profitable, followed by crafters, particularly smiths and alchemists.
"early on"
All of those were far more profitable later on, however initially, when spellbooks dropped on death, homes had the old key system, and other painful mechanics existed, it was far more profitable to be a killer. So much so that there was an entire WIRED article about it.
Fair enough. The game has been around forever so I wasn't sure what you meant by "early on".
I have only seen before posts before but this prison system i think has been done good enough in Age of Wushu/Wulin. In Wsuhu/ Wulin there is no loot from person so u don't get anything by killing a person except infamy. When this infamy reaches high enough NPCs called captors spawn in Citys when u are in the city to catch u u can try to fight them or u can run away. If u lose u are sent to prison. these captors are by no means easy to beat. Another way is u can kill a person till they can't be healed by other person when u kill someone to his extent the victim has a option to whether put a bounty on the killer or not. If u put a bounty on him, in game players who have payed some ingame money and become captors have a chance to kill and thus capture the killers. They are then sent prisons. And in Wushu there is a time limit to how long u can be afk it is about 1hour and a normal prison time is 5hrs of ingame time it doesn't reduce when u are logged out. I think this is a good prison system. Also i am not a avid supporter of this game I used to play Wushu couldn't play anymore because i couldn't login with a ny of my accounts. Then i played WULIN from the end of cbt and now obt. I have now stopped playing this game for a little bit because it has not released a patch that lets me increase my skill lvl more.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by Holophonist
In my experience a lot of the non-pvp crowd don't have a side of the story. The vast majority of the mmo market today came about AFTER the watering down of the genre with games like WoW and haven't given any game with ow pvp a proper chance. What is a "proper" chance? I played UO beta a while and hated PK .. so i quit. Is that a "proper" or an "improper" chance?And it is moot anyway. If the audience decide not to give it a chance, proper or not, fair or not, no sane devs is going to try to go against the demand.Personally i have tried enough, and like it or not, ow ffa pvp (in a pve game, i do play PS2 from time to time) has no chance from me. I doubt you will miss me anyway.I don't know if you gave it a fair shot or not, to be honest. It doesn't really matter. OO PvP advocates have tried both types of games, while most of the non-pvp players haven't.
Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
So you've interviewed a representative sample of all the people who aren't into OW PvP and have determined this? Or did you just make an assumption?
Most gamers have tried many types of games, usually starting with single player games. Even my wife, who isn't a gamer has played several different types of games, including games with PvP. She doesn't like PvP in general, and she knows this because she tried it. My wife's friend has tried games with and without PvP and she likes PvP. She's horrible at it, but she likes it. She's not a gamer either.
My point is that your wrong about the whole "people who don't like OW PvP haven't tried it", implying that they don't know what they are talking about when they say they don't like it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In my experience a lot of the non-pvp crowd don't have a side of the story. The vast majority of the mmo market today came about AFTER the watering down of the genre with games like WoW and haven't given any game with ow pvp a proper chance.
What is a "proper" chance? I played UO beta a while and hated PK .. so i quit. Is that a "proper" or an "improper" chance?And it is moot anyway. If the audience decide not to give it a chance, proper or not, fair or not, no sane devs is going to try to go against the demand.Personally i have tried enough, and like it or not, ow ffa pvp (in a pve game, i do play PS2 from time to time) has no chance from me. I doubt you will miss me anyway.
I don't know if you gave it a fair shot or not, to be honest. It doesn't really matter. OO PvP advocates have tried both types of games, while most of the non-pvp players haven't.Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
So you've interviewed a representative sample of all the people who aren't into OW PvP and have determined this? Or did you just make an assumption?
The vast majority of MMO's are non-ow pvp games. Not to mention the huge influx of players came about specifically because of games like WoW which are essentially non-ow pvp. The huge emphasis on instancing and the fact that dying has little or no consequences means the ow pvp in WoW is completely insignificant. So it's hardly an assumption, even if I didn't interview a large sample of the population. Implying that it's either one or the other is just a shitty way of arguing. It's called deductive reasoning.
Most gamers have tried many types of games, usually starting with single player games. Even my wife, who isn't a gamer has played several different types of games, including games with PvP. She doesn't like PvP in general, and she knows this because she tried it. My wife's friend has tried games with and without PvP and she likes PvP. She's horrible at it, but she likes it. She's not a gamer either.
I'm not talking about games with "pvp." I'm talking about games with meaningful, ow-pvp with consequences for death, etc. The type of game that has more barriers to entry than a typical carebear themepark, but is ultimately more rewarding. Like I've pointed out, this is true for almost everything in life. The more barriers to entry to a given area of interest, the more rewarding it is.
My point is that your wrong about the whole "people who don't like OW PvP haven't tried it", implying that they don't know what they are talking about when they say they don't like it.
So how do you know I'm wrong? Did YOU interview a representative sample of the MMO community and determine me to be wrong? I'm using reasoning to come to my conclusion. How are you coming to yours?
Here's a simple question: In the discussions on these forums over this topic in its many forms, do you think the ow pvp crowd has more experience in non-ow pvp games than the non-ow pvp crowd has in ow pvp games?
In a sandbox game where players police themselves could you accept the risk of imprisonment for breaking laws by stealing, killing or harming another player inside their territory if defeated?
I ask this because I know one of the biggest things about FFA PvP is that even when players band together to stop gankers they just return. Eventually this leads to apathy of stopping the random killer.
With rule of law given to the community the ability to lock up player killers up I think you might have a lot less random killings. This of course does not stop wars and the like but focus on the random killers.
Or just remove open world PvP, the Devs that create these lame concepts of open world PvP had the bright idea of actually letting random people kill whoever they want and get away with it. I've said it countless times, I don't mind a open world PvP game, but remove the PvE / grinding factor. Cannot mix both and have a successful MMORPG. Unless your EVE-Online, but EVE isn't really a RPG, more like a 3rd shooter where making cash is easy and skills are based over time. Anyways I might be going over my head with EVE being a 3rd shooter but I've played it for 7-8 years and that's how it felt for me. Was a lot of fun while it lasted.
I love how the FFA crowd is always regurgitating the tired old mantra, "Realism! Realism! Realism!" and when someone offers a suggestion describing a realistic mechanic, the other tired old mantra rears its ugly head: "That doesn't sound fun".
I'm starting to think FFA proponents are not only blind, but have a healthy dose of deaf and dumb to go along with it.
I love how the FFA crowd is always regurgitating the tired old mantra, "Realism! Realism! Realism!" and when someone offers a suggestion describing a realistic mechanic, the other tired old mantra rears its ugly head: "That doesn't sound fun".
I'm starting to think FFA proponents are not only blind, but have a healthy dose of deaf and dumb to go along with it.
How you managed to set up so many straw men in such a small post is amazing! Well done!
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Yeh lots of games do it, I've had people kidnap me before in Dayz and it's just a laugh. Now though everyone shoots on sight and there isn't really any of that going on and the game has become boring but back in the day I had a great laugh.
Same with games the GTA:SA multiplayer mods, you have modes where you can be put in prison. I played a server on ARMA 3 and I just ran around causing trouble and a cop put me in prison lol.
It's fun.
People have just become way too attached to the idea that their stuff is theirs forever. I wish that would go because it makes a game very static.
Very good point. No matter what kind of mechanics a dev wants to create, if the players aren't playing in a way that supports it, they end up unused or misused. The msot amazing "citizen's arrest" system or "player police force" system would be pointless if your players all shoot first and ask questions later.
The Pk gameplay should be how long can you last from the non pk's. Not the pvp rules for the game. It has already proven itself in popularity. Regardless of the death penalty, the immersion based gameplay hooks people in. This is only for the PK part of the game so please don't apply it to everything else in order to negate it.
You'd need to explain what you're talking about because that genuinely made no sense at all.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
In my experience a lot of the non-pvp crowd don't have a side of the story. The vast majority of the mmo market today came about AFTER the watering down of the genre with games like WoW and haven't given any game with ow pvp a proper chance.
What is a "proper" chance? I played UO beta a while and hated PK .. so i quit. Is that a "proper" or an "improper" chance?And it is moot anyway. If the audience decide not to give it a chance, proper or not, fair or not, no sane devs is going to try to go against the demand.Personally i have tried enough, and like it or not, ow ffa pvp (in a pve game, i do play PS2 from time to time) has no chance from me. I doubt you will miss me anyway.
I don't know if you gave it a fair shot or not, to be honest. It doesn't really matter. OO PvP advocates have tried both types of games, while most of the non-pvp players haven't.
Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
So you've interviewed a representative sample of all the people who aren't into OW PvP and have determined this? Or did you just make an assumption?
Most gamers have tried many types of games, usually starting with single player games. Even my wife, who isn't a gamer has played several different types of games, including games with PvP. She doesn't like PvP in general, and she knows this because she tried it. My wife's friend has tried games with and without PvP and she likes PvP. She's horrible at it, but she likes it. She's not a gamer either.
My point is that your wrong about the whole "people who don't like OW PvP haven't tried it", implying that they don't know what they are talking about when they say they don't like it.
"Much of the questioning seems to be coming from a place of lack of understanding of FFA PvP games. I'm coming from the view of a person who was a random killer and now interested in a more balanced world building experience." -Verm
It seems the conversation has devolved to several people taking similar stances, which pretty much ends the conversation. Was fun while it lasted.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I love how the FFA crowd is always regurgitating the tired old mantra, "Realism! Realism! Realism!" and when someone offers a suggestion describing a realistic mechanic, the other tired old mantra rears its ugly head: "That doesn't sound fun".
I'm starting to think FFA proponents are not only blind, but have a healthy dose of deaf and dumb to go along with it.
How you managed to set up so many straw men in such a small post is amazing! Well done!
You obviously need help with your definitions: Here you go.
Hint: Stop using Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. It will rot your brain.
The straw man in this instance is the "ffa proponent." Almost nobody wants ffa pvp with 0 restrictions. Also, there are a lot more reasons for not wanting a jail system other than "it's not fun" and a lot more reasons for wanting ow pvp other than "realism."
I have always liked the thought of a Prison system in a game. I disagree with the people that say it is limiting. I think it would add a great deal of Risk vs. Reward for players.
If you gank someone and go to jail because you were sloppy your character is out for a while.
You don't need to punish the player. If he wants to log off and onto an alt let him. You are in a virtual world. Punish the virtual character not the actual player.
Prison does not need to be a "punishment" per se.
? You can have things to do. Wait your time and be released. Try to get your guild (or other players in the prison) to try to organize a prison break. Maybe there are "Mob" boss npc's that you can get missions or quests for when you are out. These could lead to better outlawed weapons, or enhancements that can only be gotten from gaining rep with a criminal faction.
Prison should be a way to add a level of safety. Adding bullshit limitations like "oh you can flag no pvp in a city". Well that makes that safe zone artificial. There should be no safe zone, but a prison would add "safer" areas. If you have 100 characters in jail. Well those characters are not out ganking. If the player logs out or afks his character is not out ganking is it? (Which is the point of prison) If he decides to log onto another character OK who's to say that character is as strong as his other. After all he would have to try to "Level" another character in a dangerous world.
Allowing everyone to kill anyone, anywhere at anytime is totally freeing. However that does not mean it should be without great risk. Making artificial safe zones takes away the anywhere. It is no longer Open world. It is everywhere PVP is allowed.
People would cry there are not enough safe zones, and devs would give in adding more PVP forbidden zones.
It could also be for things other than just Pk.
Smuggling
Illegal drugs or weapons could land you in jail (but could pay out huge if you get them where they need to go).
Hit man
A crime lord gives you a mission to kill a narc (NPC) that could get you arrested (but there would be Huge rep gains with that faction for it.)
Edit: It could also add "Bounty hunting" You get paid for getting criminals to jail.
In my experience a lot of the non-pvp crowd don't have a side of the story. The vast majority of the mmo market today came about AFTER the watering down of the genre with games like WoW and haven't given any game with ow pvp a proper chance.
What is a "proper" chance? I played UO beta a while and hated PK .. so i quit. Is that a "proper" or an "improper" chance?And it is moot anyway. If the audience decide not to give it a chance, proper or not, fair or not, no sane devs is going to try to go against the demand.Personally i have tried enough, and like it or not, ow ffa pvp (in a pve game, i do play PS2 from time to time) has no chance from me. I doubt you will miss me anyway.
I don't know if you gave it a fair shot or not, to be honest. It doesn't really matter. OO PvP advocates have tried both types of games, while most of the non-pvp players haven't.
Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
So you've interviewed a representative sample of all the people who aren't into OW PvP and have determined this? Or did you just make an assumption?
Most gamers have tried many types of games, usually starting with single player games. Even my wife, who isn't a gamer has played several different types of games, including games with PvP. She doesn't like PvP in general, and she knows this because she tried it. My wife's friend has tried games with and without PvP and she likes PvP. She's horrible at it, but she likes it. She's not a gamer either.
My point is that your wrong about the whole "people who don't like OW PvP haven't tried it", implying that they don't know what they are talking about when they say they don't like it.
"Much of the questioning seems to be coming from a place of lack of understanding of FFA PvP games. I'm coming from the view of a person who was a random killer and now interested in a more balanced world building experience." -Verm
It seems the conversation has devolved to several people taking similar stances, which pretty much ends the conversation. Was fun while it lasted.
Right before you devolved the conversation into a stance of "This is what I'm saying" and you saying "No this what your really saying" regarding if this is punishment or whatever. It's was all a pointless because it was both. It's a deterrent and punishment but it's done by game play. You're not magically warped into a dungeon as soon as you kill anyone. You have to be beaten down to be captured by the city guards or citizens. You could just as easily declare war and attack the town and don't have to risk being captured. That means you need a clan and town of your own to risk retaliation as well and the other player will recognize you as an enemy from the start and have to deal with guards from the start. But again you devolved this into look he's pushing for a punishment only despite me stating otherwise multiple times. The obvious assumption is your don't have an understanding.
You don't need to punish the player. If he wants to log off and onto an alt let him. You are in a virtual world. Punish the virtual character not the actual player.
Now that is just silly.
A virtual character has no mind, and would not respond to punishment. It is the player, who is controlling the toon's behavior who needs to be punished.
If you imprison my toon for a year, i will just play my alt for a year. Don't tell me the toon is feeling boredom in prison.
You don't need to punish the player. If he wants to log off and onto an alt let him. You are in a virtual world. Punish the virtual character not the actual player.
Now that is just silly.
A virtual character has no mind, and would not respond to punishment. It is the player, who is controlling the toon's behavior who needs to be punished.
If you imprison my toon for a year, i will just play my alt for a year. Don't tell me the toon is feeling boredom in prison.
No but that toon, his gear, his rep, his skills are out for the time. If you put a year into your toon well that time you spent on him is out of commission for a while.
Edit: You are not trying to 100% deter PK, just make it a little more risky. If you and your guild are playing an awesome raid, but your an ass on a homicidal spree then your character can not help out on the raid. You will have to use potentially a lesser alt.
I don't think prison needs to be in the terms of years. That would be stupid. It's a game
Comments
PKing wasn't the most profitable path though, not by a long shot. PvE builds like tamers and bards were by far the most profitable, followed by crafters, particularly smiths and alchemists.
I don't know if you gave it a fair shot or not, to be honest. It doesn't really matter. OO PvP advocates have tried both types of games, while most of the non-pvp players haven't.
Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
Yeh lots of games do it, I've had people kidnap me before in Dayz and it's just a laugh. Now though everyone shoots on sight and there isn't really any of that going on and the game has become boring but back in the day I had a great laugh.
Same with games the GTA:SA multiplayer mods, you have modes where you can be put in prison. I played a server on ARMA 3 and I just ran around causing trouble and a cop put me in prison lol.
It's fun.
People have just become way too attached to the idea that their stuff is theirs forever. I wish that would go because it makes a game very static.
How many modern artist were inspired by classical. Even if its not turning massive profit, surely they can see it's bad for future business to not have the creative types of games in an Industry that so desperately needs it.
Creativity inspires the future, popularity can only clone itself for so long.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
"early on"
All of those were far more profitable later on, however initially, when spellbooks dropped on death, homes had the old key system, and other painful mechanics existed, it was far more profitable to be a killer. So much so that there was an entire WIRED article about it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Very good point. No matter what kind of mechanics a dev wants to create, if the players aren't playing in a way that supports it, they end up unused or misused. The msot amazing "citizen's arrest" system or "player police force" system would be pointless if your players all shoot first and ask questions later.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Yeah mainstream music has been cloning itself for decades. Sure the genre changes but the idea of less thinking for the listener and less time invested for the listener is a staple in mainstream music. Everything is just watered down verses with a "hook" thrown in somewhere.
That's why you give people incentives for locking other player's up. And trust me, enough people will participate even if it just means fighting PK's. There were guilds in UO that were totally designed to fight off PK's and there wasn't even a mechanic in place for them to do it.
The Pk gameplay should be how long can you last from the non pk's. Not the pvp rules for the game. It has already proven itself in popularity. Regardless of the death penalty, the immersion based gameplay hooks people in. This is only for the PK part of the game so please don't apply it to everything else in order to negate it.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Fair enough. The game has been around forever so I wasn't sure what you meant by "early on".
to OP
only if i had multiple alts i could play. if it was a one character game like DF then nope.
What is a "proper" chance? I played UO beta a while and hated PK .. so i quit. Is that a "proper" or an "improper" chance? And it is moot anyway. If the audience decide not to give it a chance, proper or not, fair or not, no sane devs is going to try to go against the demand. Personally i have tried enough, and like it or not, ow ffa pvp (in a pve game, i do play PS2 from time to time) has no chance from me. I doubt you will miss me anyway.
I don't know if you gave it a fair shot or not, to be honest. It doesn't really matter. OO PvP advocates have tried both types of games, while most of the non-pvp players haven't.
Also, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY who gives classical music will like it, but the vast majority of the people who claim they don't like it, really haven't tried it.
So you've interviewed a representative sample of all the people who aren't into OW PvP and have determined this? Or did you just make an assumption?
Most gamers have tried many types of games, usually starting with single player games. Even my wife, who isn't a gamer has played several different types of games, including games with PvP. She doesn't like PvP in general, and she knows this because she tried it. My wife's friend has tried games with and without PvP and she likes PvP. She's horrible at it, but she likes it. She's not a gamer either.
My point is that your wrong about the whole "people who don't like OW PvP haven't tried it", implying that they don't know what they are talking about when they say they don't like it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The vast majority of MMO's are non-ow pvp games. Not to mention the huge influx of players came about specifically because of games like WoW which are essentially non-ow pvp. The huge emphasis on instancing and the fact that dying has little or no consequences means the ow pvp in WoW is completely insignificant. So it's hardly an assumption, even if I didn't interview a large sample of the population. Implying that it's either one or the other is just a shitty way of arguing. It's called deductive reasoning.
I'm not talking about games with "pvp." I'm talking about games with meaningful, ow-pvp with consequences for death, etc. The type of game that has more barriers to entry than a typical carebear themepark, but is ultimately more rewarding. Like I've pointed out, this is true for almost everything in life. The more barriers to entry to a given area of interest, the more rewarding it is.
So how do you know I'm wrong? Did YOU interview a representative sample of the MMO community and determine me to be wrong? I'm using reasoning to come to my conclusion. How are you coming to yours?
Here's a simple question: In the discussions on these forums over this topic in its many forms, do you think the ow pvp crowd has more experience in non-ow pvp games than the non-ow pvp crowd has in ow pvp games?
Or just remove open world PvP, the Devs that create these lame concepts of open world PvP had the bright idea of actually letting random people kill whoever they want and get away with it. I've said it countless times, I don't mind a open world PvP game, but remove the PvE / grinding factor. Cannot mix both and have a successful MMORPG. Unless your EVE-Online, but EVE isn't really a RPG, more like a 3rd shooter where making cash is easy and skills are based over time. Anyways I might be going over my head with EVE being a 3rd shooter but I've played it for 7-8 years and that's how it felt for me. Was a lot of fun while it lasted.
I love how the FFA crowd is always regurgitating the tired old mantra, "Realism! Realism! Realism!" and when someone offers a suggestion describing a realistic mechanic, the other tired old mantra rears its ugly head: "That doesn't sound fun".
I'm starting to think FFA proponents are not only blind, but have a healthy dose of deaf and dumb to go along with it.
How you managed to set up so many straw men in such a small post is amazing! Well done!
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You'd need to explain what you're talking about because that genuinely made no sense at all.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
"Much of the questioning seems to be coming from a place of lack of understanding of FFA PvP games. I'm coming from the view of a person who was a random killer and now interested in a more balanced world building experience." -Verm
It seems the conversation has devolved to several people taking similar stances, which pretty much ends the conversation. Was fun while it lasted.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You obviously need help with your definitions: Here you go.
Hint: Stop using Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. It will rot your brain.
his post is just a waste of time.
I have always liked the thought of a Prison system in a game. I disagree with the people that say it is limiting. I think it would add a great deal of Risk vs. Reward for players.
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
Right before you devolved the conversation into a stance of "This is what I'm saying" and you saying "No this what your really saying" regarding if this is punishment or whatever. It's was all a pointless because it was both. It's a deterrent and punishment but it's done by game play. You're not magically warped into a dungeon as soon as you kill anyone. You have to be beaten down to be captured by the city guards or citizens. You could just as easily declare war and attack the town and don't have to risk being captured. That means you need a clan and town of your own to risk retaliation as well and the other player will recognize you as an enemy from the start and have to deal with guards from the start. But again you devolved this into look he's pushing for a punishment only despite me stating otherwise multiple times. The obvious assumption is your don't have an understanding.
Now that is just silly.
A virtual character has no mind, and would not respond to punishment. It is the player, who is controlling the toon's behavior who needs to be punished.
If you imprison my toon for a year, i will just play my alt for a year. Don't tell me the toon is feeling boredom in prison.
No but that toon, his gear, his rep, his skills are out for the time. If you put a year into your toon well that time you spent on him is out of commission for a while.
Edit: You are not trying to 100% deter PK, just make it a little more risky. If you and your guild are playing an awesome raid, but your an ass on a homicidal spree then your character can not help out on the raid. You will have to use potentially a lesser alt.
I don't think prison needs to be in the terms of years. That would be stupid. It's a game
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo