i disagree. you dont need any of that stuff. all you need is alliances of players, with some sort of allegiance or private messaging chat. original AC didnt even have a /a, just a direct tell to patrons and vassals.
lets say youre hunting or doing a quest and you get killed. you say, hey patron, please take a break from what you are doing and come help me defeat this guy and reclaim my hunting grounds. thats all you need. what happens from there and how the battle expands is what makes the games great. you dont need to 'force' some winning player into a jail or force them to suffer some penalty because they defeated another player.
you guys may want a jail to protect you from bullies, but what id like is a system where the mighty players could just force all the weak ones to be their serfs , yeah, serfs gone wild, woo hoooo
I dunno about Darkfall but Mortal Online is far from dying... still lots of people playing, lots of pvp between guilds.... sure theres some griefing and such, but the flagging system (which is far from perfect) helps alot with that, theres even some ppl that are anti-rpk, fighting the griefers everyday....
this types of games are like the harsh world, sometimes theres nobody to protect the victims, so up to them themselves to get stronger and fight back... I enjoy that challenge alot more than doing tons of scripted raids for that epic pixel... thats not my idea of fun lol
I just finished reading an article over at Massively about FFA PVP and why devs keep trying and failing to find the magical formula to make it work. I tried to post a link, but for some reason MMORPG won't let me. Basically, the author's opinion is that the reason it doesn't work is that devs try to throw a bunch of players together with no restrictions, but also no rules or repercussions for antisocial or predatory behavior. Thus, you end up with the lowest common denominator becoming the de facto standard and the absolute worst players driving away everyone else. In real life you can go attack someone randomly for no other reason than to entertain yourself, but there will be serious consequences that prevent you from doing so. In the opinion of the author, the devs are using the FFA PVP sandbox experience as an excuse for poorly and lazily designed game systems.
This is exactly how I have felt for a long time. I am an avid PVP player, but most of the sandboxy or more hardcore PVP MMOs don't have any type of systems in place to encourage PVP while discouraging or preventing the emotionally malformed griefer crowd from spending all day camping new players or simply trying to prevent other players from playing the game. An example that comes to mind is the guy who was posting videos of how he and his guild could go to PVP safe zones in Darkfall UW and still harass other players by preventing them from gathering materials "for fun." The point was clearly not PVP or advancement, it was harassment of other players.
I know that the griefer crowd is over-represented on these forums, but I invite other PVPers who are not griefers to read the article called Some Assembly Required over at Massively and to discuss it. Why is a full PVP experience with firm rules that encourage PVP and not antisocial griefing so rare? It is my understanding that the only game to do a decent job has been Eve.
Read that article and it bought a tear to my eyes. The finest piece of game journalism and more importantly TRUTH I've ever read anywhere about the FFA PvP hoax.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I just finished reading an article over at Massively about FFA PVP and why devs keep trying and failing to find the magical formula to make it work.
I have to agree with your post, I havent read the article yet but it sounds like the reason explained why I personally dont play FFAPVP games usually. Usually the games are just dumb un-immersive mass murder simulators where all the rest of game mechanics and activities gets overrun by the mass murder griefing frenzy. At that point the game is simply stupid, possibly an exciting world completely wasted under lazy development.
I do play EvE though currently, and the systems put in place there works quite well.
(1.0 - 0.5) There's the high-security "core worlds" where all the illegal aggressors gets stomped by the NPC police. "Suicide ganks" are possible but not very common except certain places, and under certain conditions (there are also advanced rules which allow you killing certain people, for being at war with their corporation for example).
(0.4 - 0.1) Then there is the low-security space, where the NPC police wont intervene but illegal kills lower player security status which eventually bans them from high-sec unless they grind security missions, a lot, or spend money, a lot.
(0.0 and lower) And lastly, the nullsec (and also wormhole space) which is the wild west during gold rush and no laws are present.
That layering of PvP rules feels like it works quite well, it's still possible to PvP anywhere, and even get some legal PvP kills in high-sec against criminals, and all the PvP in the world on the lower security systems. It's quite balanced system and even pure PvE players may enjoy playing EvE, sure you might get suicide ganked in high-sec a couple of times a year but it wont ruin anything completely.
No offense but I have to disagree, at least partially. Gankers use alts that they don't care about to suicide gank miners in hisec and it's really not that fun. I was never ganked myself because I was paranoid but a lot of people were. Now if my corp is at war with another corp it's perfectly ok in my book to blow up my mining barge because then I am a strategic target in a war.
This however is not the suicide gankers goal. They go on about how they hate miners and will gank and gank until 1) They move to null or 2) quit EVE altogheter.
These are rich vets also. The Cat or Thrasher they used is not even pocket change to them. To the newbie who just spent two weeks saving up for his Retriever it might not be so easy to just shrug and buy a new one ten minutes later.
I like how people keep saying that open world PvP games always fail, when there are currently several successful open world FFA PvP games currently operating.
If you don't like PvP, then don't play those games.
If you don't like Chinese food, don't eat at Chinese restaurants.
i disagree. you dont need any of that stuff. all you need is alliances of players, with some sort of allegiance or private messaging chat. original AC didnt even have a /a, just a direct tell to patrons and vassals. lets say youre hunting or doing a quest and you get killed. you say, hey patron, please take a break from what you are doing and come help me defeat this guy and reclaim my hunting grounds. thats all you need. what happens from there and how the battle expands is what makes the games great. you dont need to 'force' some winning player into a jail or force them to suffer some penalty because they defeated another player.
The problem with this is that it relegates all gameplay to only PvP dynamics. In your model, it is merely a game of killing people. A virtual world can provide much richer role-playing experiences than that, but without consequences other than revenge, it becomes merely a game of tag. Consequences can be added that aren't system-driven punishments for PKing. Adding meaning to PvP beyond just "winning" is a start. Pure FFA pvp is a fun diversion for people like you and I, but in the context of building a successful virtual world, it is not viable without mechanical facilitation of consequence and risk. Your model works for a fragfest game, but not for a virtual world.
there are ways to avoid ganking. i used to gank a lot in high sec. i got a great adrenaline rush from every time i fired at a hauler. the feeling of satisfaction i got as i scooped 1 bill worth of loot from a can after waiting out for the good target felt amazing. but if youre flying around with 1 bill worth of loot in a tier 1 hauler, afk and on autopilot, you deserve to get ganked. thats a mistake by the victim, not bullying by the ganker.
it does work for a virtual world, PerfArt. AC:DT was and is the most unique and complete MMO experience of all. honesty though, i feel it was partially a fluke. sure, they designed this Amazing game with so much from the beginning and only kept adding great content to it (tinkering, etc, more expanded areas) but i do feel it was one of those 'pve designed' 'pvp world slapped on' games that just happened to hit it Just right. i could be wrong.
I just finished reading an article over at Massively about FFA PVP and why devs keep trying and failing to find the magical formula to make it work. I tried to post a link, but for some reason MMORPG won't let me. Basically, the author's opinion is that the reason it doesn't work is that devs try to throw a bunch of players together with no restrictions, but also no rules or repercussions for antisocial or predatory behavior. Thus, you end up with the lowest common denominator becoming the de facto standard and the absolute worst players driving away everyone else. In real life you can go attack someone randomly for no other reason than to entertain yourself, but there will be serious consequences that prevent you from doing so. In the opinion of the author, the devs are using the FFA PVP sandbox experience as an excuse for poorly and lazily designed game systems.
This is exactly how I have felt for a long time. I am an avid PVP player, but most of the sandboxy or more hardcore PVP MMOs don't have any type of systems in place to encourage PVP while discouraging or preventing the emotionally malformed griefer crowd from spending all day camping new players or simply trying to prevent other players from playing the game. An example that comes to mind is the guy who was posting videos of how he and his guild could go to PVP safe zones in Darkfall UW and still harass other players by preventing them from gathering materials "for fun." The point was clearly not PVP or advancement, it was harassment of other players.
I know that the griefer crowd is over-represented on these forums, but I invite other PVPers who are not griefers to read the article called Some Assembly Required over at Massively and to discuss it. Why is a full PVP experience with firm rules that encourage PVP and not antisocial griefing so rare? It is my understanding that the only game to do a decent job has been Eve.
Age of Wushu does the best job. I'm sure it's crime and punishment system was on the authors mind when this was written. They cover Wushu heavily over there.
The author is correct in calling out lazy (western) developers. No one wants ganking w/o consequence. Instead of putting thought into design, we get more themepark clones.
As sad as it to say those lazy western publishers are looking for the big $$$. Everyone says they are tired of themeparks yet games like FFXIV come and get rave reviews and people gobble it up like crack. I'm sure the same will happen with ESO...the ONE MMO that should of been a sandbox, or at the least a Sandpark and we get pure unadulterated Themepark WoW'esque linear game play. Face it the average MMO gamer wants to be told where to go, what to do and how to do it all while following a pre-packaged guide on a wiki or youtube.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
The only games with world PvP that work are those with harsh consequences for mindless killing. That's EvE High sec and Wushu.
Or those with optional non-PvP servers or worlds, like UO and AC1, so people can switch depending on how they feel.
There's a reason why Mortal Online and Darkfall are failed niche games... because there are no consequences, or actually, no harsh enough consequences for "killing just because you can". The result is those games are full of the worse part of the MMORPG player population, the filth of gamers, the griefers. And no sane person wants to spend their time being griefed by some no life kiddie (of any age) in his parent's basement just because that guy can play more than you, has a stronger character, and will just one hit you over and over again until you log out.
Being able to kill anyone, and specially weaker players, just "because you can", is not only bad for the game since it stops new players from joining, but it's also irrealistic. Even in the Middle Ages of our real world Earth, you couldn't just run around killing random people and expect no consequences. Someone who started to kill the weakest (kids and women) back then had a very high risk to end empalled on some spike or with his head mounted on the walls of a castle. And that's why all those games fail hard.
To me, a good game with world PvP should encourage PvP with a goal (defend your faction, etc...) and very harshly discourage mindless murdering. And by very harsh, I mean the life of a criminal should be pure nightmare, hunted by everyone, unable to access most cities, etc... then, and only then, such a game will have a public larger than just a small niche of masochists and griefers. Players who murder everyone in sight including their own faction should be removed from the game for a long time when caught, removed meaning unable to kill more.
MO and DF are niche games because they're bad. I think a well made version of those games would be commercially successful. At least in the beginning.
That said I agree with you that mindless murder needs to have harsh consequences. It one thing as a PVP it took me a while to see that might makes right isn't fun for a lot of people. And to me its even more hardcore to imprison players and make them suffer the consequences of random killing. You'll see a PVP say we should be able to kill everyone and rob them of their things. But let you talk about if you do that you could have your player locked away for while and you see a whole other side.
What made them bad games is the set of design decisions that JLP mentions. A 'well made version' of those games would be one that corrected those problems, thus completely changing those games at their core.
From what I've seen in MMOs from UO to present is that in any successful high-risk PVP game, the game has to be designed around the premise that only 20% or so will be engaging in the PVP aspect. Additionally, influence in the PVP combat aspect needs to be a two way street - the other playstyles need to be able to influence the PVP combat as much as it is influenced by it.This is accomplished a variety of ways in different games. In UO, it was the rather brilliant solution (albeit a band-aid to stop the bleeding at the time) of a two-facet game world. In Puzzle Pirates, it is occupation-style conquest. In EVE, it is a vibrant and complex crafting/manufacturing economy.
I am not talking about feature sets being correct. I am talking about them being clunky, buggy, laggy and just general low playability. You can have the best features and a piss poor game. Its one thing that's always bothered me about the FFA PVP doesn't sell/work using poor quality games as an example of why. Like PVPers just are supposed to be happy for and thing thrown there way. I wanted to like MO and DF but they just mechanically good games.
I like how people keep saying that open world PvP games always fail, when there are currently several successful open world FFA PvP games currently operating.
If you don't like PvP, then don't play those games.
If you don't like Chinese food, don't eat at Chinese restaurants.
See how that works?
No... I really "don't see how that works" but if it can be simplified that much- More power to you.
Its really not about "not liking PVP" its about the evolution of a FFA game losing all sandbox elements and all other gameplay to end up as an arena deathmatch. Now, I like arena deathmatch games when the mood strikes me- But why must my MMOPRG end up just as shallow?
You can enjoy FFA PVP and see how the entire genre has devolved into something very shallow and with a horrible community.
This is a very complex issue but essentially is due to a saturation of the market and games tailor made to every playstyle. A developer could start with great intentions of an all encompassing sandbox 'world' but absent of very strong penalties towards 'reds' you will never have the 'carebear' players you need to actually make that "World"- Eventually most of the paying subs are coming from the exact type of people who only want to murder and be 'wolves' and developers begin catering exclusivly towards them...BUT all Wolves and no sheep equal bored wolves.
Its a cycle I have seen again, and again and again.
I love Sandbox games with FFA- I like the 'danger' they evoke and the fact they can really get your blood pumping when you have something to really lose. But this crop of "sandbox" games are arena deathmatch games with little to no sand and a terrible community.
-Sad but true.
EDIT: To add to your example- It would be like a Chinese eatery opening up that only served spicy food. No sweet and sour anything... Then when I ask if they will be having a bit of variety I am told "you must hate Chinese food"... I eat elsewhere. Spicy is good. I like spicy. But I would become bored very quickly of a place that only served spicy food and nothing else.
Age of Wushu does the best job. I'm sure it's crime and punishment system was on the authors mind when this was written. They cover Wushu heavily over there.
The author is correct in calling out lazy (western) developers. No one wants ganking w/o consequence. Instead of putting thought into design, we get more themepark clones.
As sad as it to say those lazy western publishers are looking for the big $$$. Everyone says they are tired of themeparks yet games like FFXIV come and get rave reviews and people gobble it up like crack. I'm sure the same will happen with ESO...the ONE MMO that should of been a sandbox, or at the least a Sandpark and we get pure unadulterated Themepark WoW'esque linear game play. Face it the average MMO gamer wants to be told where to go, what to do and how to do it all while following a pre-packaged guide on a wiki or youtube.
I blame the press, as much as the developers (same people?). There are some people in there world that like/try something until someone "official" says they should. Yeah sandbox ESO would have been great Too much work to develop original systems I guess...
i disagree. you dont need any of that stuff. all you need is alliances of players, with some sort of allegiance or private messaging chat. original AC didnt even have a /a, just a direct tell to patrons and vassals.
lets say youre hunting or doing a quest and you get killed. you say, hey patron, please take a break from what you are doing and come help me defeat this guy and reclaim my hunting grounds. thats all you need. what happens from there and how the battle expands is what makes the games great. you dont need to 'force' some winning player into a jail or force them to suffer some penalty because they defeated another player.
you guys may want a jail to protect you from bullies, but what id like is a system where the mighty players could just force all the weak ones to be their serfs , yeah, serfs gone wild, woo hoooo
What you're describing is essentially what UO originally promoted, it's a sound concept it just doesn't typically pan out. It hardly worked when communities in MMO's were strong, it's even harder for it to work today. There's just too many anti-social malcontents running around. There are whole internet communities devoted to ruining other peoples fun, these folks got their start in those early games.That's where their craving for it today comes from.
The behavior of the participants is the problem, not the designs, there's no real way to police this behavior or curb it without removing the option to freely attack people. That's not even considering the pretenders, who want to live up to these internet legends they've heard about within those older communities.
On the other side the will of the prey isn't strong enough to overcome the wolves that hunt them down for easy kills or thrills. Many would rather just move onto something else entirely (a different game). It's not hard to understand why. It's this that places the biggest bump on the tracks of a unified force overcoming these wolves and taking back the game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Age of Wushu has the best open world pvp balance since Star Wars Galaxies.
This is the basic formula for making good PvP:
- The world has to be very big
- There should be some long term goals (not battle ground objectives that are completed in one session)
- Down time for people who grief (Environment enforced)
- Bounty hunting system (Player enforced)
- It is a PK system with no factions
- Don't constantly over inflate the power of players (EVE example The Titan has been the best ship in the game for 10 years)
You fail to mention that the bounty system is only if the other player kills you in an unconscious state. If they just take your Life down to zero and leave you there to die eventually you can't put a bounty on them and there are zero repercussions for this person.
Yeah, they changed that. For whatever reason now, if someone knocks you unconscious or kills you, you can add them to your enemy list, and bounty anytime they have infamy.
I stand corrected. The last time I played it wasn't like this. I apologize to Novusod.
Age of Wushu has the best open world pvp balance since Star Wars Galaxies.
This is the basic formula for making good PvP:
- The world has to be very big
- There should be some long term goals (not battle ground objectives that are completed in one session)
- Down time for people who grief (Environment enforced)
- Bounty hunting system (Player enforced)
- It is a PK system with no factions
- Don't constantly over inflate the power of players (EVE example The Titan has been the best ship in the game for 10 years)
You fail to mention that the bounty system is only if the other player kills you in an unconscious state. If they just take your Life down to zero and leave you there to die eventually you can't put a bounty on them and there are zero repercussions for this person.
Yeah, they changed that. For whatever reason now, if someone knocks you unconscious or kills you, you can add them to your enemy list, and bounty anytime they have infamy.
I stand corrected. The last time I played it wasn't like this. I apologize to Novusod.
So what happens here? PKer knocks you out, you put a bounty on them with your own funds? UO tried that and PKers got a friend to kill them and collect the bounty (supplied by the original victim), the PKer and friend split the bounty. PKer doesn't really suffer any loss for being killed, and gets part of the bounty. Is there any difference in this system? If there's "down time" for the PKer character, can he simply play another character, or macro while sleeping to work off the time?
if a stronger player comes along and there is no one online to help, the weaker player must go to a different area. thats just the way things are. people who are real players and who really enjoy this type of game will say, im going to go get stronger and then i will defeat this player. i know its a hard pill to swallow for the current generation who is used to being able to progress through instances where the only competition is some pseudo weaksauce where who can run the instance the fastest. in the open world , might makes right model , the fights are so much more epic, heavy, and memorable.
i dont understand your imagination sentences. what consequences are there to killing people exactly? thats the whole point of a ffa pvp game, that you can defeat your enemies and claim the territory and their items as your own.
What you're missing is the very distinct difference between gameplay mechanics supporting such territorial control - thus providing acceptable reason and context for the encounter - and simple denial of access to a play area. Unfortunately, your post makes it very clear that you aren't interested in understanding that distinction.
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 support denial of access, whether 'permanent' (securing a top hunting groups for alliance access Only, after defeating and defending successfully enough to deter most raiders) or temporary (killing a group doing a quest so our group can continue after looting their group)
Originally posted by obsolete5 i support denial of access, whether 'permanent' (securing a top hunting groups for alliance access Only, after defeating and defending successfully enough to deter most raiders) or temporary (killing a group doing a quest so our group can continue after looting their group)
No one said that was universally bad or wrong. It's the manner of implementation that seems lost on you.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by bcbully No one wants ganking w/o consequence.
Me, who HATES PvP, would try a FFA PvP game that had repurcussions other than "call in your friends to gank them back."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Honestly, the worst thing about the whole FFA PvP is that it USED to be perfectly fine... Something seems to have been lost in the advancement of gaming.
L2, T4C, AC, multiple other online games were all pretty much fine FFA PvP wise. We've seen multiple way of handling this, from giving players the power to punish griefers to criminal status where a criminal would have a chance to drop items he wore or had in his bag...
Sometimes I think it might be a good idea to simply look at the past and start from there instead of trying some new stuff which ends up as a complete disaster lol.
l2 pvp was not good. shadowbane was a good pvp game. also the system of forcing Pkers to drop their equipped gear without any other, smarter drop system (like in AC with item value) is not fair and rewards cowardly play. oh, a stronger player is attacking me in the world. better just die , so they will go red, and maybe get ganked by 5 people eventually and they will drop their gear without any way to prevent it. thats lame.
Originally posted by obsolete5 l2 pvp was not good. shadowbane was a good pvp game. also the system of forcing Pkers to drop their equipped gear without any other, smarter drop system (like in AC with item value) is not fair and rewards cowardly play. oh, a stronger player is attacking me in the world. better just die , so they will go red, and maybe get ganked by 5 people eventually and they will drop their gear without any way to prevent it. thats lame.
Lol, sorry, but what is lame is killing players with no chance to defend themselves over and over. The cowardly play lies there. Griefers have it way too easy nowadays, killing other players over and over and over with no punishment of any kind.
I never really bothered with being killed by another player... I'd die, then run back. However I do remember these few times where it would simply last for way too long. I remember being ganked by some chinese guild when I was playing WoW, ran to my corpse 1-2 times but they kept killing me... So I logged off and went out with some friends. The next morning, I logged back and they were still there, camping the mountains where I was killed. Different name, same guild.
You want to make a game not fun for other players, fine, but deal with the consequences. That's how it should be addressed.
Also, these kind of games had a criminal system. A player wouldn't turn "red" after killing one player.
i disagree. you dont need any of that stuff. all you need is alliances of players, with some sort of allegiance or private messaging chat. original AC didnt even have a /a, just a direct tell to patrons and vassals. lets say youre hunting or doing a quest and you get killed. you say, hey patron, please take a break from what you are doing and come help me defeat this guy and reclaim my hunting grounds. thats all you need. what happens from there and how the battle expands is what makes the games great. you dont need to 'force' some winning player into a jail or force them to suffer some penalty because they defeated another player. you guys may want a jail to protect you from bullies, but what id like is a system where the mighty players could just force all the weak ones to be their serfs , yeah, serfs gone wild, woo hoooo
Well I'm not sure what you mean by "need." But if the goal is to cause people to think twice about who they attack and give meaning to committing crimes, then you definitely do need game mechanics to help you out with that. For instance, darkfall is a game with zero repercussions for killing other players. And it's even a very community driven and clan/alliance driven game where what you're talking about should work. But what you have is a situation where everybody pretty much always attacks everybody else unless they're allied.
Originally posted by obsolete5 l2 pvp was not good. shadowbane was a good pvp game. also the system of forcing Pkers to drop their equipped gear without any other, smarter drop system (like in AC with item value) is not fair and rewards cowardly play. oh, a stronger player is attacking me in the world. better just die , so they will go red, and maybe get ganked by 5 people eventually and they will drop their gear without any way to prevent it. thats lame.
Lol, sorry, but what is lame is killing players with no chance to defend themselves over and over. The cowardly play lies there. Griefers have it way too easy nowadays, killing other players over and over and over with no punishment of any kind.
I never really bothered with being killed by another player... I'd die, then run back. However I do remember these few times where it would simply last for way too long. I remember being ganked by some chinese guild when I was playing WoW, ran to my corpse 1-2 times but they kept killing me... So I logged off and went out with some friends. The next morning, I logged back and they were still there, camping the mountains where I was killed. Different name, same guild.
You want to make a game not fun for other players, fine, but deal with the consequences. That's how it should be addressed.
Also, these kind of games had a criminal system. A player wouldn't turn "red" after killing one player.
The funny thing is that griefing is probably more of a problem in ow pvp games with no consequences (like wow or tera) BECAUSE there are no consequences to dying. If the game is full loot, that griefer is risking his own equipment just to piss you off.
Comments
i disagree. you dont need any of that stuff. all you need is alliances of players, with some sort of allegiance or private messaging chat. original AC didnt even have a /a, just a direct tell to patrons and vassals.
lets say youre hunting or doing a quest and you get killed. you say, hey patron, please take a break from what you are doing and come help me defeat this guy and reclaim my hunting grounds. thats all you need. what happens from there and how the battle expands is what makes the games great. you dont need to 'force' some winning player into a jail or force them to suffer some penalty because they defeated another player.
you guys may want a jail to protect you from bullies, but what id like is a system where the mighty players could just force all the weak ones to be their serfs , yeah, serfs gone wild, woo hoooo
I dunno about Darkfall but Mortal Online is far from dying... still lots of people playing, lots of pvp between guilds.... sure theres some griefing and such, but the flagging system (which is far from perfect) helps alot with that, theres even some ppl that are anti-rpk, fighting the griefers everyday....
this types of games are like the harsh world, sometimes theres nobody to protect the victims, so up to them themselves to get stronger and fight back... I enjoy that challenge alot more than doing tons of scripted raids for that epic pixel... thats not my idea of fun lol
Read that article and it bought a tear to my eyes. The finest piece of game journalism and more importantly TRUTH I've ever read anywhere about the FFA PvP hoax.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
No offense but I have to disagree, at least partially. Gankers use alts that they don't care about to suicide gank miners in hisec and it's really not that fun. I was never ganked myself because I was paranoid but a lot of people were. Now if my corp is at war with another corp it's perfectly ok in my book to blow up my mining barge because then I am a strategic target in a war.
This however is not the suicide gankers goal. They go on about how they hate miners and will gank and gank until 1) They move to null or 2) quit EVE altogheter.
These are rich vets also. The Cat or Thrasher they used is not even pocket change to them. To the newbie who just spent two weeks saving up for his Retriever it might not be so easy to just shrug and buy a new one ten minutes later.
I like how people keep saying that open world PvP games always fail, when there are currently several successful open world FFA PvP games currently operating.
If you don't like PvP, then don't play those games.
If you don't like Chinese food, don't eat at Chinese restaurants.
See how that works?
The problem with this is that it relegates all gameplay to only PvP dynamics. In your model, it is merely a game of killing people. A virtual world can provide much richer role-playing experiences than that, but without consequences other than revenge, it becomes merely a game of tag. Consequences can be added that aren't system-driven punishments for PKing. Adding meaning to PvP beyond just "winning" is a start. Pure FFA pvp is a fun diversion for people like you and I, but in the context of building a successful virtual world, it is not viable without mechanical facilitation of consequence and risk. Your model works for a fragfest game, but not for a virtual world.http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
there are ways to avoid ganking. i used to gank a lot in high sec. i got a great adrenaline rush from every time i fired at a hauler. the feeling of satisfaction i got as i scooped 1 bill worth of loot from a can after waiting out for the good target felt amazing. but if youre flying around with 1 bill worth of loot in a tier 1 hauler, afk and on autopilot, you deserve to get ganked. thats a mistake by the victim, not bullying by the ganker.
it does work for a virtual world, PerfArt. AC:DT was and is the most unique and complete MMO experience of all. honesty though, i feel it was partially a fluke. sure, they designed this Amazing game with so much from the beginning and only kept adding great content to it (tinkering, etc, more expanded areas) but i do feel it was one of those 'pve designed' 'pvp world slapped on' games that just happened to hit it Just right. i could be wrong.
As sad as it to say those lazy western publishers are looking for the big $$$. Everyone says they are tired of themeparks yet games like FFXIV come and get rave reviews and people gobble it up like crack. I'm sure the same will happen with ESO...the ONE MMO that should of been a sandbox, or at the least a Sandpark and we get pure unadulterated Themepark WoW'esque linear game play. Face it the average MMO gamer wants to be told where to go, what to do and how to do it all while following a pre-packaged guide on a wiki or youtube.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I am not talking about feature sets being correct. I am talking about them being clunky, buggy, laggy and just general low playability. You can have the best features and a piss poor game. Its one thing that's always bothered me about the FFA PVP doesn't sell/work using poor quality games as an example of why. Like PVPers just are supposed to be happy for and thing thrown there way. I wanted to like MO and DF but they just mechanically good games.
No... I really "don't see how that works" but if it can be simplified that much- More power to you.
Its really not about "not liking PVP" its about the evolution of a FFA game losing all sandbox elements and all other gameplay to end up as an arena deathmatch. Now, I like arena deathmatch games when the mood strikes me- But why must my MMOPRG end up just as shallow?
You can enjoy FFA PVP and see how the entire genre has devolved into something very shallow and with a horrible community.
This is a very complex issue but essentially is due to a saturation of the market and games tailor made to every playstyle. A developer could start with great intentions of an all encompassing sandbox 'world' but absent of very strong penalties towards 'reds' you will never have the 'carebear' players you need to actually make that "World"- Eventually most of the paying subs are coming from the exact type of people who only want to murder and be 'wolves' and developers begin catering exclusivly towards them...BUT all Wolves and no sheep equal bored wolves.
Its a cycle I have seen again, and again and again.
I love Sandbox games with FFA- I like the 'danger' they evoke and the fact they can really get your blood pumping when you have something to really lose. But this crop of "sandbox" games are arena deathmatch games with little to no sand and a terrible community.
-Sad but true.
EDIT: To add to your example- It would be like a Chinese eatery opening up that only served spicy food. No sweet and sour anything... Then when I ask if they will be having a bit of variety I am told "you must hate Chinese food"... I eat elsewhere. Spicy is good. I like spicy. But I would become bored very quickly of a place that only served spicy food and nothing else.
I blame the press, as much as the developers (same people?). There are some people in there world that like/try something until someone "official" says they should. Yeah sandbox ESO would have been great
Too much work to develop original systems I guess...
What you're describing is essentially what UO originally promoted, it's a sound concept it just doesn't typically pan out. It hardly worked when communities in MMO's were strong, it's even harder for it to work today. There's just too many anti-social malcontents running around. There are whole internet communities devoted to ruining other peoples fun, these folks got their start in those early games.That's where their craving for it today comes from.
The behavior of the participants is the problem, not the designs, there's no real way to police this behavior or curb it without removing the option to freely attack people. That's not even considering the pretenders, who want to live up to these internet legends they've heard about within those older communities.
On the other side the will of the prey isn't strong enough to overcome the wolves that hunt them down for easy kills or thrills. Many would rather just move onto something else entirely (a different game). It's not hard to understand why. It's this that places the biggest bump on the tracks of a unified force overcoming these wolves and taking back the game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If a game has a open pvp world. There should always be a penalty for the attacking player.
You could look at Lineage 2 for example.
If you attack someone without them attacking you. You go red and can't go in the cities. Now if they fight back you go purple and it wears off.
When the red person is attacked the people arent gonna go red or purple as its like a bounty.
You have to work off your karma to go back to normal.
A system to this is always welcomed in Open world pvp Where there is no war between factions or races.
Now on Faction based pvp . It is war . You see an enemy there shouldn't be a real penalty for killing in a time of war.
Now on that hand if you have 5 people ganking you then there should be a system where the person getting ganked gets alittle buff.
Developers are only lazy cause of the customers and their bosses.
ASUS G74sx
i7 quad core
16gb ddr3 ram
3gb ram Nvidia 560M
240GB SSD & 750GB
I stand corrected. The last time I played it wasn't like this. I apologize to Novusod.
So what happens here? PKer knocks you out, you put a bounty on them with your own funds? UO tried that and PKers got a friend to kill them and collect the bounty (supplied by the original victim), the PKer and friend split the bounty. PKer doesn't really suffer any loss for being killed, and gets part of the bounty. Is there any difference in this system? If there's "down time" for the PKer character, can he simply play another character, or macro while sleeping to work off the time?
Once upon a time....
What you're missing is the very distinct difference between gameplay mechanics supporting such territorial control - thus providing acceptable reason and context for the encounter - and simple denial of access to a play area. Unfortunately, your post makes it very clear that you aren't interested in understanding that distinction.
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
No one said that was universally bad or wrong. It's the manner of implementation that seems lost on you.
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
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Honestly, the worst thing about the whole FFA PvP is that it USED to be perfectly fine... Something seems to have been lost in the advancement of gaming.
L2, T4C, AC, multiple other online games were all pretty much fine FFA PvP wise. We've seen multiple way of handling this, from giving players the power to punish griefers to criminal status where a criminal would have a chance to drop items he wore or had in his bag...
Sometimes I think it might be a good idea to simply look at the past and start from there instead of trying some new stuff which ends up as a complete disaster lol.
Lol, sorry, but what is lame is killing players with no chance to defend themselves over and over. The cowardly play lies there. Griefers have it way too easy nowadays, killing other players over and over and over with no punishment of any kind.
I never really bothered with being killed by another player... I'd die, then run back. However I do remember these few times where it would simply last for way too long. I remember being ganked by some chinese guild when I was playing WoW, ran to my corpse 1-2 times but they kept killing me... So I logged off and went out with some friends. The next morning, I logged back and they were still there, camping the mountains where I was killed. Different name, same guild.
You want to make a game not fun for other players, fine, but deal with the consequences. That's how it should be addressed.
Also, these kind of games had a criminal system. A player wouldn't turn "red" after killing one player.
Well I'm not sure what you mean by "need." But if the goal is to cause people to think twice about who they attack and give meaning to committing crimes, then you definitely do need game mechanics to help you out with that. For instance, darkfall is a game with zero repercussions for killing other players. And it's even a very community driven and clan/alliance driven game where what you're talking about should work. But what you have is a situation where everybody pretty much always attacks everybody else unless they're allied.Lol, sorry, but what is lame is killing players with no chance to defend themselves over and over. The cowardly play lies there. Griefers have it way too easy nowadays, killing other players over and over and over with no punishment of any kind.
I never really bothered with being killed by another player... I'd die, then run back. However I do remember these few times where it would simply last for way too long. I remember being ganked by some chinese guild when I was playing WoW, ran to my corpse 1-2 times but they kept killing me... So I logged off and went out with some friends. The next morning, I logged back and they were still there, camping the mountains where I was killed. Different name, same guild.
You want to make a game not fun for other players, fine, but deal with the consequences. That's how it should be addressed.
Also, these kind of games had a criminal system. A player wouldn't turn "red" after killing one player.
The funny thing is that griefing is probably more of a problem in ow pvp games with no consequences (like wow or tera) BECAUSE there are no consequences to dying. If the game is full loot, that griefer is risking his own equipment just to piss you off.