Yes. Players should definently be able to hire themselfs out as guards. I mean, why else have an Enforcer faction? Yeah, should also be able to take control of Norad and nuke you all to kingdom come....
Delgado, you really think that if we launch the nukes, we'd leave any behind? And also, this is gonna be around the Grand Canyon, so its not gonna be close to Norad. And if its there for some reason, I'll make sure you never get it
And of course you should have PC guards. But you have to trust them not to take your stuff and leave you in the wastes.
Waiting For: something good Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Ah come on man!!! You gotta give me a bit of fun!!! Oh yeah, Area 51 is nearby.... depending on if your east or west of the grand canyon. Well, if they have area 51, then atleast I will be able to grab me some green shooting energy pistols and such.
Speaking from the Carebear camp (lord, how I hate that term), I'm not a fan of pvp at all, but I know how important it is for any multiplayer game. I think an optional flag system is the best way to handle it. Asheron's Call had the altars where you could turn on your flags, SWG had temporary enemy flags, WoW "normal" and "rp" servers had immediate flags and temporary enemy flags.
Handling pvp with zones strikes me as a bad idea because it's effectively limiting content from individuals. I know, I know, "tough, let them deal with it." Telling people one click away from a cancel button in another window "tough" is a bad business idea, though. People say "great!" when you give them options, they say "bye!" when you take options away; in this case, pvp and non-pvp "zones" are said options.
People who want to be pvping all the time shouldn't have to spend a bunch of time in non-pvp areas, and people who want to be in safe-mode all the time shouldn't feel like they're missing out on anything just because they're not interested in fragging people. The moment you start telling people that they have to play a certain way to access certain content, those people start to feel devalued. With a flag, you're pvp anywhere you go until you turn the flag off, or you're non-pvp anywhere you go until you turn the flag on. Both types of players have what they want (with the exception of the people who get their kicks killing non-pvpers, and those folks really don't bring anything constructive to the game anyway).
I think ruleset servers are a good idea as well, though I'm sure there are financial reasons why these aren't used more often. Having "PvP" (full pvp 24 hours a day) and "RP" (stricter naming conventions, slight behavior code of conduct) servers would start things off on the right foot. Both camps are strongly territorial, and both camps interfere with the way the other does business. If each camp gets its own server, each will feel they're being listened to, each will feel their opinions are being valued. That's quite a lot of morale influenced by a few lines of code and some flags next to server names on the startup screen.
What about the people who RP evil characters? Are they basicly looked over on the "RP" server. Are they going to be forced to play with the l33t d3wds on the pvp servers? No matter what one crowd is going to be forced to do something they dont want to. It just comes down to what way makes the most sense.
Say you want to go from town a to town b. Inbetween said towns lies an area taken over by a local raider gang (played by excellent RPing bandits). You could go around it, missing out on any danger, but that will take a little longer. You could go through it, risking your life, but it'll cut the travel time by more than half(Risk vs. Reward).
How would a flagging system work in a situation like this? I'm sure the person wouldnt flag himself onto PvP before he enters raider territory, so what ends up happening is people just walk all over "dangerous" grounds at no risk to themselves. In a game like this only a zone system would work. Nobody is forcing anyone to go into the PvP zone, but if you do risk it, you get half the travel time taken away. With PvP zones, spread out enough, nobody is forced to do anything. But if you risk going into them, you gain more reward than if you didnt.
___________________________ The Golden Rule. Risk vs. Reward
Your point is valid, but I'm not sure that matters in a business sense. Realism might sound like fun, but it rarely is on a broad scale. There's a reason we don't need to use restrooms in video games. In this particular case, the reality is this: pvpers want to kill other players, non-pvpers do not want to be killed. If you say to the non-pvper, "you don't have to be killed, just walk fifty kilometers out of your way," that non-pvper is going to feel like they are worth less to Icarus Studios than the pvpers are. Is that feeling accurate? Absolutely not. I'm sure Icarus just wants to make the best game they can, but perception is reality to the consumer, which makes it reality for the vendor.
I'll be totally honest here. I love the idea of a post-apocalyptic game. Fallout and Fallout 2 were two of my alltime favorite games. In fact, the idea of playing Fallout Online is exactly what would cause me to pick up this box in the store. As a woman over thirty, however, if I read on the back of the box that there are full pvp zones, I'm going to put it right back down again and keep on shopping. Why? Because full-pvp in any context other than an optional "pvp server" is directly in conflict with my own interests, and there are about sixty other titles in the list to my left that might offer something more to my tastes.
That said, if Icarus is making this game primarily for the pvpers, then I have no problem with that whatsoever. The pvpers deserve their games as much as the non-pvpers deserve theirs, and more power to them. If Icarus is trying to ride both horses, though, they're going to need a different saddle. Full-pvp anything and non-pvpers simply don't fit together. The only instance where I'd play a game with full-pvp zones is if I were dying to play an online game and there were absolutely nothing else to choose from. In other words, there's no situation under the sun in which I'd play a game with full-pvp zones. I'm an extreme example of non-pvpers, perhaps, but not as extreme as you'd imagine. We really have no interest whatsoever in getting fragged during the course of our daily business, nor do most of us want to be subject to a time sink simply because we'd rather chat with the person sitting next to us than kill them.
I fully agree with your reasoning, but I'm not convinced the realistic way to go is going to work, at least not on a large scale. If Icarus is just going for niche status, it might be adequate, however. Whichever the case, cheers for a civil disagreement.
Originally posted by Jenuviel Speaking from the Carebear camp (lord, how I hate that term), I'm not a fan of pvp at all, but I know how important it is for any multiplayer game. I think an optional flag system is the best way to handle it. Asheron's Call had the altars where you could turn on your flags, SWG had temporary enemy flags, WoW "normal" and "rp" servers had immediate flags and temporary enemy flags. Handling pvp with zones strikes me as a bad idea because it's effectively limiting content from individuals. I know, I know, "tough, let them deal with it." Telling people one click away from a cancel button in another window "tough" is a bad business idea, though. People say "great!" when you give them options, they say "bye!" when you take options away; in this case, pvp and non-pvp "zones" are said options. People who want to be pvping all the time shouldn't have to spend a bunch of time in non-pvp areas, and people who want to be in safe-mode all the time shouldn't feel like they're missing out on anything just because they're not interested in fragging people. The moment you start telling people that they have to play a certain way to access certain content, those people start to feel devalued. With a flag, you're pvp anywhere you go until you turn the flag off, or you're non-pvp anywhere you go until you turn the flag on. Both types of players have what they want (with the exception of the people who get their kicks killing non-pvpers, and those folks really don't bring anything constructive to the game anyway). I think ruleset servers are a good idea as well, though I'm sure there are financial reasons why these aren't used more often. Having "PvP" (full pvp 24 hours a day) and "RP" (stricter naming conventions, slight behavior code of conduct) servers would start things off on the right foot. Both camps are strongly territorial, and both camps interfere with the way the other does business. If each camp gets its own server, each will feel they're being listened to, each will feel their opinions are being valued. That's quite a lot of morale influenced by a few lines of code and some flags next to server names on the startup screen.
I have to agree with you on this one. the people who want only one full pvp server are usually (99.99%) of the time wanting to greif non-pvpers and newbies. what usually happens in those cases is that they will want to be teh l33t and if someone beats them to it and greifs them they will say the game sux and leave. it has happened all the time with eve online, WoW, SWG, and many others. why not just have pvp caravan missions? the winners get their share of the loot or money.
nobody should have to worry about the chance of being hijacked when traveling between cities. it is afterall just a game and it is made to be fun. not a noob slay fest, which it would become with only pvp.
Ok, I have to state a few things before I proceed. I RP, I like PvP (most of the time), I support full PvP (though I know it isn't possible), I am not a griefer. Most non-PvP people are called carebears because they are believed to be afraid of any danger. Most people who like PvP are call griefers because people think they just want to kill "n00bz" and show off their "hawt skillz."
Most carebears I've met are not afraid of danger. They hunt and adventure just like everyone. Most PvPers don't grief, they fight other PvPers. Griefers are powergamers who think they can do what they want without repercusion.
If you split the two into PvP and non-PvP (do not call it an RP server) then you lose their ability to talk to each other. To interact. In Galaxies, we have a 3 tier system now. I usually play at the lowest tier, with no factional PvE or PvP. The reason is that there isn't much of either to go around unless you really look hard.
As for this game, Risk vs. Reward should be the motto. In the analogy above, you can cut through the PvP area which may have some extra risk in which case you'll have to defend yourself, or you go along a trail that is a little longer but had outposts every so often in which you can take missions, trade, rest or do many other things as well as be protected from attack. The PvP zones are (or should be) in completely lawless zones. Areas of waste and destruction.
To have a system where you can turn yourself PvP on and PvP off is just crazy in this setting. It ruins the RP, it ruins the realism, and it just makes it harder to play for me and those like me in general (RP, PvP, non-griefers). Now if we're having a card game and you decide to cheat, I can't pull a gun on you because you're PvP off. At that point you'll see a fracture between those that are PvP off and PvP on, with only those that switch between to keep the game together. A fracture in the community isn't good, it means that they will fight over content, throw insults at each other, and generally just be not nice towards each other.
You can't have 2 sets of rules for everyone on 1 server. Everyone has to play by the same rules. So now we're back to different servers. Thats fine if they need it. But different rules means every update they make has to balance out with the rules on one server and the rules on another. Its extra work the devs don't need as it will just end up causing more bugs (more code means better chance of bugs).
One of my friends had an idea for a bounty mission that would work against griefing and raiding alike. Basically lets say that players and NPC caravans alike are getting killed north of the city. Also, they're all under level 15 (I know we aren't using levels, but my friend's idea was with levels; maybe use kill/death ratio). So the local police decide to put up a warant for the bandit(s) to the north. You talk to a policeman who either says you're too weak for the bounty or they give you the mission. They says how many have died, what they think the attacker was using, stuff lik that. Then they tell you to patrol to the north and stop these attacks. If the problem gets big (say 30 people have died) the mission spreds to nearby towns. After awhile, whoever is there is either going to be flooded with loot or with people out for his skin.
Now I know a loophole to this, killing people much weaker than you to draw weak hunters who then get killed. But that would then raise the dificulty on the mission, which means better fighters. At some point a poster would be put up in that town and those around it with a guess at the person's picture (doesn't even have to look like them). Also, lets say the the killer logs off and someone attacks people while hes sleeping, those would be added to the number of dead.
Griefers that kill newbies will then have a price on their head fast. Areas that have griefer problems will then have lots of people coming into town to kill the griefers. Griefers can't enter towns where theres a bounty on them because then the police will kill them (right away too, no "Halt, police!"). The griefers end up either mending their ways or heading further into the wastes.
Waiting For: something good Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
nobody should have to worry about the chance of being hijacked when traveling between cities.
I guess we have different views of this game then. I see a post nuclear world as harsh, dangerous, and worst of all violent. Just watch any Mad Max movie. What was the main threat in almost EVERY one? Raiders. The only exception is Beyond Thunderdome. And whats in the title? Thunderdome. An arena for people to settle arguments.
You can even take a look at the famed Fallout 1&2. Both games, in the begining, had alot to do with raiders. Sure you could fight radscorpions and rats, but whats more fun and rewarding than killing the scum of the earth?
And this stuff about ganking noobs. Am I right that theres no levels in this game? Wont everyone be basicly relying on their FPS skills? So sure if your a noob to FPS you'll get ganked. But if you just buy the game, and get into a fight with someone who's been playing for a year, you actually have a chance, (depending on your skills) to kill him. The 12 year olds who grind all day and night just to gank noobs wont stand a chance in this game.
Sure they could split the servers into Rp and PvP. But that would just split up the community more than it has to. I say just have zones. That way all types of playstyles can live on one server, and be happy.
And about Icarus not caring about you, that can go both ways. How would the PvPers feel if they get thrown into a single server with little to no content compaired to the rp server? How would the RPing PvPers feel to get thrown into one server with all the l337 h4k3r d3wds?
I just dont see this game relying heavily on the "social" gamer. I mean, its got FPS fighting(so no click, wait, talk), and no level grinding. This is nothing like the EQ clones. I think all the people who are sick of these clone games will make their way to Fallen Earth. I have a feeling alot of FPS players will try this game out. And I dont know any fpsmmo's where the whole point of the game isnt PvP.
___________________________ The Golden Rule. Risk vs. Reward
Ah, I didn't even realize it was FPS style. Fair enough, definitely not my cup of tea. I'll move on and wish you folks the best. I hope it turns into a game you'll be happy with. A thread like this is always a good idea anyway, whether folks like me stick around or not. At least the developers will get an idea of what people consider to be gamebreaking ideas or groundbreaking improvements. Cheers, and good wishes.
Aww..don't go. FPS just mean less ganking and more chance to defend yourself.
Something just came to me though, if its FPS, how will you (A) Talk and (B) interact with the world around you? I don't think you can click on anything to examine it unless you use the Fallout pointer (right-click to move between Attack, Examine, and interact modes).
How are they going to make it so that we don't accidentally shoot something rather than examine it? any thoughts? Now I have to reinstal Deus Ex and Deus EX 2 to figure out how they did it (they're futuristic/dytopian FPS/RPGs).
Waiting For: something good Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Different modes I'd guess. When you walk around, talk, examine things ect. your in 3rd person view. Unholster your gun (or switch into combat mode?) and you go straight into first person.
I havent seen any screenshots of the 1st person mode yet, but I've heard it mentioned many times. I couldnt see gun-fights done in any other way. Except maybe turn based. But whoever heard of a turn based mmorpg?
___________________________ The Golden Rule. Risk vs. Reward
You could use the way they do it in Fallout Tactics: You have a certain amount of action points which recharge as you use them up. This way its real-time but still limits you by a semi-turn based system.
Also, I do think that the Matrix Online's melee combat is turned based, though it only affects everything withing 5 meters or so. Thats how you'd have to do it if you had a turn-based combat system in an mmo, you'd have to have it be small and centralized around the combatants.
The 3rd person/1st person change could work well. Maybe have a button on your control panel you could click that would switch you to combat mode. Also, unholstering a weapon would change you to combat mode also. If you're in the examine mode, then you should still be able to be attacked, and if you are, you should be switched to combat mode.
Waiting For: something good Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
The only thing about the close proximity turnbased system is what happens if you're hit by a sniper rifle 1000m away? I dont know how MXO handles stuff like this I haven t really paid attention in the slightest to that game, but I do know that a turn based system in an MMO is very hard to implement and in a postmodern setting I would say impossible without severely impeding the quality of the game.
Originally posted by Clive The only thing about the close proximity turnbased system is what happens if you're hit by a sniper rifle 1000m away? I dont know how MXO handles stuff like this I haven t really paid attention in the slightest to that game, but I do know that a turn based system in an MMO is very hard to implement and in a postmodern setting I would say impossible without severely impeding the quality of the game.
Its a pure first person shooter. no turn based here. i believe that the rate of fire will be a mix of the guns ability and the persons skill. but since that has not ben specifically addressed...
Seriously though about the 1st/3rd person thing, I dont really like the idea of 3rd person in a game like this. First of all I'm a stealther rogue style by trade and in PvP I want to be able to sneak up on someone without them knowing. I thnk things like Stealthmode are just cop outs, I 'll get into that later though. Now I'm in favor of a very limited 3rd person system integrated with a much improved 1st person camera. What this means is that the camera is essentially the eyes of the player (should be obvious but well...) This means that if you look down you should be able to see your feet etc, theres a few games who've done this right, way too many that havent , I hope FE is one of the former. Now with this FP mode you can look behind you by commands, say have 2 keys bound to quick glance over shoulders (left and right)
You also have to compensate for sound and senses etc. I'm not really sure how this would be done other than to have maybe a small icon area with an avatar symbol in the middle and around that would be an area where portions light up if the character senses something (for those of you who dont have 5.1 or 7.1 its hard to tell when people are behind you). This way you could get sort of a heads up if someone was making noise or if you had some special ability to sense things without adding a full blown radar.
I'm not saying that a radar or TP view should not be in game at all (im sure I just contradicted myself there but ...)
Sicne this is in a post modern setting I think it would be cool to have gadgets and psi powers that not only improved your skills but your perception of the game. IE a radar device that gives you a radar much like other games but realistic in the fact that you dont automaticly have them. A small camera bot that hovers over your head or shoulder and connects to your brain via wireless neural interface (seen those light spheres you can equip in AO?) This would enable you to switch to TP view and FP view because you could realisitcly see behind you.
To use an old cliche the possibilities are endless
Originally posted by Cthulhuvong Aww..don't go. FPS just mean less ganking and more chance to defend yourself. Something just came to me though, if its FPS, how will you (A) Talk and (B) interact with the world around you? I don't think you can click on anything to examine it unless you use the Fallout pointer (right-click to move between Attack, Examine, and interact modes). How are they going to make it so that we don't accidentally shoot something rather than examine it? any thoughts? Now I have to reinstal Deus Ex and Deus EX 2 to figure out how they did it (they're futuristic/dytopian FPS/RPGs).
To answer your question, it will probably be like Face of Mankind. And for those of you that dont know the game, its simple. You move your crosshair over who ever you wanna talk to and hit the use key. This also works for terminals and other things as well.
Originally posted by Jenuviel Ah, I didn't even realize it was FPS style. Fair enough, definitely not my cup of tea. I'll move on and wish you folks the best.
Well, don't write it off yet. FPS is an interface style in this case, not the genre of the game itself. Deus Ex was an awesome example of an RPG done with a FPS interface & combat system. If that is indeed the kind of combat system the dev team is working on, I think it will make for a fantastic degree of immersion and excitement.
I'm a card-carrying carebear myself; my view of PvP is that it usually involves leet d00dz waiting to gank anyone they can find who isn't actually a challange. I'm hoping FE is able to avoid that type of thing while providing the PvP crowd with the fun they want. Stick around, be a voice for the Carebears, and wait to see what the dev team comes up with.
If you never played Deus Ex, though, snag it! *NOT NOT NOT*, I tell you three times, Deus Ex: Invisible War.
I just hope FE will be able to take care of those l33t d00dz by giving the lowbies a chance to fight back. So I may not be as experienced as you, my mac-10 says I don't care...(that is provided I can get the shot off)
You don't see many l33t d00dz in FPS games because you accutally have to be good in order to do stuff, and other players usually can defend themselves even if you're good. That will help equalize the game enough just off the bat. As long as everyone has a weapon with atleast some range (hell even a rock would do) they have a fighting chance.
Radzik has pointed out (and even has it in his signature) that Risk vs. Reward is a major rule of MMOs. Another major one is Realism vs. Fun. Now I know we don't want totally realistic weapon damage (no 1 shot kills except maybe a close up shotgun blast or a sniper to the head) but what about range?
Should we have snipers who can shoot at 1000 meters? or should it be limited to maybe 150? I say 150 is kinda short, as I've never used a gun in my life and I'm pretty sure I could hit someone with a pistol at that range if they were standing still an I aimed. But 1000 is kinda long as no one is going to have the time to learn, nor will they have the time to sit still and make the shot. So what should be the longest effective range with a scoped rifle? half a mile? quarter mile?
What about their accuracy? should the guns be really sensative and any movement screws with the accuracy? or should they be so unsensative that you could spray an AK at 10 meters and put every round into your target's chest? should they have the breathing effect (which several games have done well)?
Waiting For: something good Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Very good question Cthul. Sniping could really make or break pvp...and even the whole game. I say they make guns and scopes two seperate items. Make scopes along the lines of low, med, high. And only certain sizes fit on certain guns. So if you find an old bolt action rifle, it'll be pretty powerful, and have good range. But with just iron sights You'll just be randomly hitting body parts of whatever your shooting at. But if you happen to find a good high powered scope, slow em down with a leg shot, or stop em for good with one to the head.
As to shooting distances, I think it should be limited to what you can see without the scope. That way theres no virginia sniper gankers running around killing people a mile away. You can see him shooting at you, but theres damned little you can do about it. Try your luck taking pot shots at the small figure in the distance? Or run and head for cover?
Breathing in a definate must. As is high sensitivity. Nothing I hate more than the sprinting/jumping sniper.
___________________________ The Golden Rule. Risk vs. Reward
Yea the jumping sniper stuff is BS. If Counter-Strike was realistic, the first time someone did that, he'd be on his back with a broken shoulder. Snipers are supposed to set their weapons on something to steady it and then fire. Movement would make you're accuracy horrible.
Waiting For: something good Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Originally posted by Cthulhuvong You don't see many l33t d00dz in FPS games because you accutally have to be good in order to do stuff, and other players usually can defend themselves even if you're good. That will help equalize the game enough just off the bat. As long as everyone has a weapon with atleast some range (hell even a rock would do) they have a fighting chance. Radzik has pointed out (and even has it in his signature) that Risk vs. Reward is a major rule of MMOs. Another major one is Realism vs. Fun. Now I know we don't want totally realistic weapon damage (no 1 shot kills except maybe a close up shotgun blast or a sniper to the head) but what about range? Should we have snipers who can shoot at 1000 meters? The maximum range for a government sniper more like 3/4 of a mile, maybe more. As an avid hunter i have made shots that are around the 300 to 400 yard range which is about 366 meters and that is just with my 243 Winchester. or should it be limited to maybe 150? I say 150 is kinda short, as I've never used a gun in my life and I'm pretty sure I could hit someone with a pistol at that range if they were standing still an I aimed (The maximum effective range for a pistol, depending on caliber would be about 20 to 30 meters).. But 1000 is kinda long as no one is going to have the time to learn, nor will they have the time to sit still and make the shot. So what should be the longest effective range with a scoped rifle? half a mile? quarter mile? What about their accuracy? should the guns be really sensative and any movement screws with the accuracy? or should they be so unsensative that you could spray an AK at 10 meters and put every round into your target's chest? should they have the breathing effect (which several games have done well)?
I remember hearing somewhere that a new record was made for longest confermed snipe-kill. Some brit killed a guy almost a mile and a quarter away. Cal is about right with his estimates though. 20-30 meters sounds about right for pistols, and 300-400 meters with rifles. (that is sniper rifles, not assult rifles.)
___________________________ The Golden Rule. Risk vs. Reward
Comments
Delgado, you really think that if we launch the nukes, we'd leave any behind? And also, this is gonna be around the Grand Canyon, so its not gonna be close to Norad. And if its there for some reason, I'll make sure you never get it
And of course you should have PC guards. But you have to trust them not to take your stuff and leave you in the wastes.
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Speaking from the Carebear camp (lord, how I hate that term), I'm not a fan of pvp at all, but I know how important it is for any multiplayer game. I think an optional flag system is the best way to handle it. Asheron's Call had the altars where you could turn on your flags, SWG had temporary enemy flags, WoW "normal" and "rp" servers had immediate flags and temporary enemy flags.
Handling pvp with zones strikes me as a bad idea because it's effectively limiting content from individuals. I know, I know, "tough, let them deal with it." Telling people one click away from a cancel button in another window "tough" is a bad business idea, though. People say "great!" when you give them options, they say "bye!" when you take options away; in this case, pvp and non-pvp "zones" are said options.
People who want to be pvping all the time shouldn't have to spend a bunch of time in non-pvp areas, and people who want to be in safe-mode all the time shouldn't feel like they're missing out on anything just because they're not interested in fragging people. The moment you start telling people that they have to play a certain way to access certain content, those people start to feel devalued. With a flag, you're pvp anywhere you go until you turn the flag off, or you're non-pvp anywhere you go until you turn the flag on. Both types of players have what they want (with the exception of the people who get their kicks killing non-pvpers, and those folks really don't bring anything constructive to the game anyway).
I think ruleset servers are a good idea as well, though I'm sure there are financial reasons why these aren't used more often. Having "PvP" (full pvp 24 hours a day) and "RP" (stricter naming conventions, slight behavior code of conduct) servers would start things off on the right foot. Both camps are strongly territorial, and both camps interfere with the way the other does business. If each camp gets its own server, each will feel they're being listened to, each will feel their opinions are being valued. That's quite a lot of morale influenced by a few lines of code and some flags next to server names on the startup screen.
What about the people who RP evil characters? Are they basicly looked over on the "RP" server. Are they going to be forced to play with the l33t d3wds on the pvp servers? No matter what one crowd is going to be forced to do something they dont want to. It just comes down to what way makes the most sense.
Say you want to go from town a to town b. Inbetween said towns lies an area taken over by a local raider gang (played by excellent RPing bandits). You could go around it, missing out on any danger, but that will take a little longer. You could go through it, risking your life, but it'll cut the travel time by more than half(Risk vs. Reward).
How would a flagging system work in a situation like this? I'm sure the person wouldnt flag himself onto PvP before he enters raider territory, so what ends up happening is people just walk all over "dangerous" grounds at no risk to themselves. In a game like this only a zone system would work. Nobody is forcing anyone to go into the PvP zone, but if you do risk it, you get half the travel time taken away. With PvP zones, spread out enough, nobody is forced to do anything. But if you risk going into them, you gain more reward than if you didnt.
___________________________
The Golden Rule.
Risk vs. Reward
Your point is valid, but I'm not sure that matters in a business sense. Realism might sound like fun, but it rarely is on a broad scale. There's a reason we don't need to use restrooms in video games. In this particular case, the reality is this: pvpers want to kill other players, non-pvpers do not want to be killed. If you say to the non-pvper, "you don't have to be killed, just walk fifty kilometers out of your way," that non-pvper is going to feel like they are worth less to Icarus Studios than the pvpers are. Is that feeling accurate? Absolutely not. I'm sure Icarus just wants to make the best game they can, but perception is reality to the consumer, which makes it reality for the vendor.
I'll be totally honest here. I love the idea of a post-apocalyptic game. Fallout and Fallout 2 were two of my alltime favorite games. In fact, the idea of playing Fallout Online is exactly what would cause me to pick up this box in the store. As a woman over thirty, however, if I read on the back of the box that there are full pvp zones, I'm going to put it right back down again and keep on shopping. Why? Because full-pvp in any context other than an optional "pvp server" is directly in conflict with my own interests, and there are about sixty other titles in the list to my left that might offer something more to my tastes.
That said, if Icarus is making this game primarily for the pvpers, then I have no problem with that whatsoever. The pvpers deserve their games as much as the non-pvpers deserve theirs, and more power to them. If Icarus is trying to ride both horses, though, they're going to need a different saddle. Full-pvp anything and non-pvpers simply don't fit together. The only instance where I'd play a game with full-pvp zones is if I were dying to play an online game and there were absolutely nothing else to choose from. In other words, there's no situation under the sun in which I'd play a game with full-pvp zones. I'm an extreme example of non-pvpers, perhaps, but not as extreme as you'd imagine. We really have no interest whatsoever in getting fragged during the course of our daily business, nor do most of us want to be subject to a time sink simply because we'd rather chat with the person sitting next to us than kill them.
I fully agree with your reasoning, but I'm not convinced the realistic way to go is going to work, at least not on a large scale. If Icarus is just going for niche status, it might be adequate, however. Whichever the case, cheers for a civil disagreement.
I have to agree with you on this one. the people who want only one full pvp server are usually (99.99%) of the time wanting to greif non-pvpers and newbies. what usually happens in those cases is that they will want to be teh l33t and if someone beats them to it and greifs them they will say the game sux and leave. it has happened all the time with eve online, WoW, SWG, and many others. why not just have pvp caravan missions? the winners get their share of the loot or money.
nobody should have to worry about the chance of being hijacked when traveling between cities. it is afterall just a game and it is made to be fun. not a noob slay fest, which it would become with only pvp.
Ok, I have to state a few things before I proceed. I RP, I like PvP (most of the time), I support full PvP (though I know it isn't possible), I am not a griefer. Most non-PvP people are called carebears because they are believed to be afraid of any danger. Most people who like PvP are call griefers because people think they just want to kill "n00bz" and show off their "hawt skillz."
Most carebears I've met are not afraid of danger. They hunt and adventure just like everyone. Most PvPers don't grief, they fight other PvPers. Griefers are powergamers who think they can do what they want without repercusion.
If you split the two into PvP and non-PvP (do not call it an RP server) then you lose their ability to talk to each other. To interact. In Galaxies, we have a 3 tier system now. I usually play at the lowest tier, with no factional PvE or PvP. The reason is that there isn't much of either to go around unless you really look hard.
As for this game, Risk vs. Reward should be the motto. In the analogy above, you can cut through the PvP area which may have some extra risk in which case you'll have to defend yourself, or you go along a trail that is a little longer but had outposts every so often in which you can take missions, trade, rest or do many other things as well as be protected from attack. The PvP zones are (or should be) in completely lawless zones. Areas of waste and destruction.
To have a system where you can turn yourself PvP on and PvP off is just crazy in this setting. It ruins the RP, it ruins the realism, and it just makes it harder to play for me and those like me in general (RP, PvP, non-griefers). Now if we're having a card game and you decide to cheat, I can't pull a gun on you because you're PvP off. At that point you'll see a fracture between those that are PvP off and PvP on, with only those that switch between to keep the game together. A fracture in the community isn't good, it means that they will fight over content, throw insults at each other, and generally just be not nice towards each other.
You can't have 2 sets of rules for everyone on 1 server. Everyone has to play by the same rules. So now we're back to different servers. Thats fine if they need it. But different rules means every update they make has to balance out with the rules on one server and the rules on another. Its extra work the devs don't need as it will just end up causing more bugs (more code means better chance of bugs).
One of my friends had an idea for a bounty mission that would work against griefing and raiding alike. Basically lets say that players and NPC caravans alike are getting killed north of the city. Also, they're all under level 15 (I know we aren't using levels, but my friend's idea was with levels; maybe use kill/death ratio). So the local police decide to put up a warant for the bandit(s) to the north. You talk to a policeman who either says you're too weak for the bounty or they give you the mission. They says how many have died, what they think the attacker was using, stuff lik that. Then they tell you to patrol to the north and stop these attacks. If the problem gets big (say 30 people have died) the mission spreds to nearby towns. After awhile, whoever is there is either going to be flooded with loot or with people out for his skin.
Now I know a loophole to this, killing people much weaker than you to draw weak hunters who then get killed. But that would then raise the dificulty on the mission, which means better fighters. At some point a poster would be put up in that town and those around it with a guess at the person's picture (doesn't even have to look like them). Also, lets say the the killer logs off and someone attacks people while hes sleeping, those would be added to the number of dead.
Griefers that kill newbies will then have a price on their head fast. Areas that have griefer problems will then have lots of people coming into town to kill the griefers. Griefers can't enter towns where theres a bounty on them because then the police will kill them (right away too, no "Halt, police!"). The griefers end up either mending their ways or heading further into the wastes.
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
I guess we have different views of this game then. I see a post nuclear world as harsh, dangerous, and worst of all violent. Just watch any Mad Max movie. What was the main threat in almost EVERY one? Raiders. The only exception is Beyond Thunderdome. And whats in the title? Thunderdome. An arena for people to settle arguments.
You can even take a look at the famed Fallout 1&2. Both games, in the begining, had alot to do with raiders. Sure you could fight radscorpions and rats, but whats more fun and rewarding than killing the scum of the earth?
And this stuff about ganking noobs. Am I right that theres no levels in this game? Wont everyone be basicly relying on their FPS skills? So sure if your a noob to FPS you'll get ganked. But if you just buy the game, and get into a fight with someone who's been playing for a year, you actually have a chance, (depending on your skills) to kill him. The 12 year olds who grind all day and night just to gank noobs wont stand a chance in this game.
Sure they could split the servers into Rp and PvP. But that would just split up the community more than it has to. I say just have zones. That way all types of playstyles can live on one server, and be happy.
And about Icarus not caring about you, that can go both ways. How would the PvPers feel if they get thrown into a single server with little to no content compaired to the rp server? How would the RPing PvPers feel to get thrown into one server with all the l337 h4k3r d3wds?
I just dont see this game relying heavily on the "social" gamer. I mean, its got FPS fighting(so no click, wait, talk), and no level grinding. This is nothing like the EQ clones. I think all the people who are sick of these clone games will make their way to Fallen Earth. I have a feeling alot of FPS players will try this game out. And I dont know any fpsmmo's where the whole point of the game isnt PvP.
___________________________
The Golden Rule.
Risk vs. Reward
Ah, I didn't even realize it was FPS style. Fair enough, definitely not my cup of tea. I'll move on and wish you folks the best. I hope it turns into a game you'll be happy with.
A thread like this is always a good idea anyway, whether folks like me stick around or not. At least the developers will get an idea of what people consider to be gamebreaking ideas or groundbreaking improvements. Cheers, and good wishes.
Aww..don't go. FPS just mean less ganking and more chance to defend yourself.
Something just came to me though, if its FPS, how will you (A) Talk and (B) interact with the world around you? I don't think you can click on anything to examine it unless you use the Fallout pointer (right-click to move between Attack, Examine, and interact modes).
How are they going to make it so that we don't accidentally shoot something rather than examine it? any thoughts? Now I have to reinstal Deus Ex and Deus EX 2 to figure out how they did it (they're futuristic/dytopian FPS/RPGs).
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Different modes I'd guess. When you walk around, talk, examine things ect. your in 3rd person view. Unholster your gun (or switch into combat mode?) and you go straight into first person.
I havent seen any screenshots of the 1st person mode yet, but I've heard it mentioned many times. I couldnt see gun-fights done in any other way. Except maybe turn based. But whoever heard of a turn based mmorpg?
___________________________
The Golden Rule.
Risk vs. Reward
You could use the way they do it in Fallout Tactics: You have a certain amount of action points which recharge as you use them up. This way its real-time but still limits you by a semi-turn based system.
Also, I do think that the Matrix Online's melee combat is turned based, though it only affects everything withing 5 meters or so. Thats how you'd have to do it if you had a turn-based combat system in an mmo, you'd have to have it be small and centralized around the combatants.
The 3rd person/1st person change could work well. Maybe have a button on your control panel you could click that would switch you to combat mode. Also, unholstering a weapon would change you to combat mode also. If you're in the examine mode, then you should still be able to be attacked, and if you are, you should be switched to combat mode.
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
The only thing about the close proximity turnbased system is what happens if you're hit by a sniper rifle 1000m away? I dont know how MXO handles stuff like this I haven t really paid attention in the slightest to that game, but I do know that a turn based system in an MMO is very hard to implement and in a postmodern setting I would say impossible without severely impeding the quality of the game.
Seriously though about the 1st/3rd person thing, I dont really like the idea of 3rd person in a game like this. First of all I'm a stealther rogue style by trade and in PvP I want to be able to sneak up on someone without them knowing. I thnk things like Stealthmode are just cop outs, I 'll get into that later though. Now I'm in favor of a very limited 3rd person system integrated with a much improved 1st person camera. What this means is that the camera is essentially the eyes of the player (should be obvious but well...) This means that if you look down you should be able to see your feet etc, theres a few games who've done this right, way too many that havent , I hope FE is one of the former. Now with this FP mode you can look behind you by commands, say have 2 keys bound to quick glance over shoulders (left and right)
You also have to compensate for sound and senses etc. I'm not really sure how this would be done other than to have maybe a small icon area with an avatar symbol in the middle and around that would be an area where portions light up if the character senses something (for those of you who dont have 5.1 or 7.1 its hard to tell when people are behind you). This way you could get sort of a heads up if someone was making noise or if you had some special ability to sense things without adding a full blown radar.
I'm not saying that a radar or TP view should not be in game at all (im sure I just contradicted myself there but ...)
Sicne this is in a post modern setting I think it would be cool to have gadgets and psi powers that not only improved your skills but your perception of the game. IE a radar device that gives you a radar much like other games but realistic in the fact that you dont automaticly have them. A small camera bot that hovers over your head or shoulder and connects to your brain via wireless neural interface (seen those light spheres you can equip in AO?) This would enable you to switch to TP view and FP view because you could realisitcly see behind you.
To use an old cliche the possibilities are endless
Well, don't write it off yet. FPS is an interface style in this case, not the genre of the game itself. Deus Ex was an awesome example of an RPG done with a FPS interface & combat system. If that is indeed the kind of combat system the dev team is working on, I think it will make for a fantastic degree of immersion and excitement.
I'm a card-carrying carebear myself; my view of PvP is that it usually involves leet d00dz waiting to gank anyone they can find who isn't actually a challange. I'm hoping FE is able to avoid that type of thing while providing the PvP crowd with the fun they want. Stick around, be a voice for the Carebears, and wait to see what the dev team comes up with.
If you never played Deus Ex, though, snag it! *NOT NOT NOT*, I tell you three times, Deus Ex: Invisible War.
Hope to see you around!
Guildleader, Mithril Council, Chaos
I just hope FE will be able to take care of those l33t d00dz by giving the lowbies a chance to fight back. So I may not be as experienced as you, my mac-10 says I don't care...(that is provided I can get the shot off)
You don't see many l33t d00dz in FPS games because you accutally have to be good in order to do stuff, and other players usually can defend themselves even if you're good. That will help equalize the game enough just off the bat. As long as everyone has a weapon with atleast some range (hell even a rock would do) they have a fighting chance.
Radzik has pointed out (and even has it in his signature) that Risk vs. Reward is a major rule of MMOs. Another major one is Realism vs. Fun. Now I know we don't want totally realistic weapon damage (no 1 shot kills except maybe a close up shotgun blast or a sniper to the head) but what about range?
Should we have snipers who can shoot at 1000 meters? or should it be limited to maybe 150? I say 150 is kinda short, as I've never used a gun in my life and I'm pretty sure I could hit someone with a pistol at that range if they were standing still an I aimed. But 1000 is kinda long as no one is going to have the time to learn, nor will they have the time to sit still and make the shot. So what should be the longest effective range with a scoped rifle? half a mile? quarter mile?
What about their accuracy? should the guns be really sensative and any movement screws with the accuracy? or should they be so unsensative that you could spray an AK at 10 meters and put every round into your target's chest? should they have the breathing effect (which several games have done well)?
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Very good question Cthul. Sniping could really make or break pvp...and even the whole game. I say they make guns and scopes two seperate items. Make scopes along the lines of low, med, high. And only certain sizes fit on certain guns. So if you find an old bolt action rifle, it'll be pretty powerful, and have good range. But with just iron sights You'll just be randomly hitting body parts of whatever your shooting at. But if you happen to find a good high powered scope, slow em down with a leg shot, or stop em for good with one to the head.
As to shooting distances, I think it should be limited to what you can see without the scope. That way theres no virginia sniper gankers running around killing people a mile away. You can see him shooting at you, but theres damned little you can do about it. Try your luck taking pot shots at the small figure in the distance? Or run and head for cover?
Breathing in a definate must. As is high sensitivity. Nothing I hate more than the sprinting/jumping sniper.
___________________________
The Golden Rule.
Risk vs. Reward
Yea the jumping sniper stuff is BS. If Counter-Strike was realistic, the first time someone did that, he'd be on his back with a broken shoulder. Snipers are supposed to set their weapons on something to steady it and then fire. Movement would make you're accuracy horrible.
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
I remember hearing somewhere that a new record was made for longest confermed snipe-kill. Some brit killed a guy almost a mile and a quarter away. Cal is about right with his estimates though. 20-30 meters sounds about right for pistols, and 300-400 meters with rifles. (that is sniper rifles, not assult rifles.)
___________________________
The Golden Rule.
Risk vs. Reward