OP, pve players don't need you. You need pve players. Simply said, you don't have much power in the situation.
Yeah ... this discussion is pretty much moot.
I won't play pve games with open pvp .. and there is pretty much nothing that can force me to do so. And the market has pretty much spoke on this issue too.
I have zero interest in PVE in a PVP game just like I have zero interest in PVP when I"m playing PVE content. There is just no reason in my mind to mix the two activities as one gets in the way of the other.
It will be interesting to see how the public dungeons in the PVP zone fares in ESO. Personally I think it's going to be a ghost town with people only going there when it's so far behind their own lines that the chance of running into PVP is low but maybe it will be a hit and groups will be literally fighting over mobs.
Originally posted by udon Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by waynejr2OP, pve players don't need you. You need pve players. Simply said, you don't have much power in the situation.
Yeah ... this discussion is pretty much moot.I won't play pve games with open pvp .. and there is pretty much nothing that can force me to do so. And the market has pretty much spoke on this issue too.I have zero interest in PVE in a PVP game just like I have zero interest in PVP when I"m playing PVE content. There is just no reason in my mind to mix the two activities as one gets in the way of the other.
It will be interesting to see how the public dungeons in the PVP zone fares in ESO. Personally I think it's going to be a ghost town with people only going there when it's so far behind their own lines that the chance of running into PVP is low but maybe it will be a hit and groups will be literally fighting over mobs.
I like both. I like having the option available.... I'm very much looking forward to the Adventure Zones - Huge group PvE battles!
Originally posted by maccarthur2004 Because open PVP expose players to lose/defeat, breaking their illusions of power and strength that slaughter of dumb/weaker npcs brings. Open PVP demands a little more attention, mental work, training, study of the character and smartness in general, which alienates the majority of mmo players.
I tend to agree. Most MMO players are very competition averse and Open World PvP traditionally comes with a penalty when you don't win. Losing has become a four letter word in the MMO world as most games are a simple grind where even mildly challenging content is quickly streamline and nerfed so everyone can win even without trying.
Compared to the original MMOs, the genre has become an adventure's daycare center that placates the masses while handing out gold stars and ribbons to everyone because it isn't nice to reward people for being better than others.
Open World PvP can't be controlled and it exposes the skill / strategy differences in players which breaks the illusion that everyone is the hero and that everyone wins.
why devs dont like open world pvp ? almost all new/old games are with arena pvp
for me is pvp arena boring
enjoyed a lot of more with open world pvp (Lineage 2 / A rcheage)
Hope any good game coming soon with open world pvp / pk
Western gamers still haven't evolved yet... its quite disgusting.
Still fighing to the brink of death on the main roads with their best gear in pvp areas? Then when somebody does the inevitable they quit and blame OWpvp. There are precautionary measures one could take to minimize unfavorable situations like staying off the main roads, don't wear anything you can't make yourself and bank often.
This is all common sense however the majority of the games today softened that part of the mind. When you leave your world where all the horrible things in life are stopped by game Design/Rulesets and enter another world where there are none, you shout "Griefer and Troll" when they are merely just "Opportunist".
So continue to let the actions of others dictate what games you play.
Ah yes all the While the Pvper has gear that gives him the advange +12 hackmaster +30 plate and boots of speed and the shield of Zues and filed of Defence -30 all damage. While you have +0 chain and a+1 longsword fair fight yeah Right!
OWpvp games rely more on skill so there isn't alot of equipment designed to make people feel "special", most of the good equipment is player made. So you don't see people running around with "Boots of speed" or "shield of so-forth" unless they were made which also means my point in the first post remains relevant and yours... not so much.
Which open world PvP games depend more on skill than gear? Because it's not Eve, WoW's PvP servers or Rift's PvP servers. Mortal Online or Darkfall? I'm not familiar enough with those games to really answer that. Does anyone who plays those games know?
it does'nt really matter.. because in an optimal owpvp scenario even if you're a lowbie you'll get friends to help you out and it will go back and forth til one side gives up.. it's just nowadays people are'nt communicating anymore so when someone tries to bring it about the opposing side usually just rolls over.. and tbh i dont think it would work in todays mmo's anymore.
now everything is about quick access with minimal participation. i mean come on loads of people dont even play anymore they just use bots instead.
I really just wanted to confirm that it was something that existed in the real world rather than something that exists as an ideal. We get a lot of that here, where something is horrible or fantastic, but it doesn't exist so it doesn't really matter.
Sounds like in Mortal Online, gear matters if you're a new player, but not so much as you progress a bit in the game so that if you stick with the game, your skill can overcome gear. I don't think it matters in regards to the conversation over all though. It wouldn't matter if someone made a game that was 100% dependent upon skill and all players were power balanced. The problem is whether or not the PvP is By Choice, or Always On. People who want the PvP to be Always On aren't going to enjoy a game where PvP is By Choice and players who want PvP to be By Choice are not going to enjoy a game where PvP is Always On. Two different ways of thinking, goals and expectations for the different styles of PvP.
I understand why these topics keep coming up. People really just want to argue the merits of PvE, PvP, "Flagging" and having PvP everywhere. What I don't understand and am having a harder time believing as time goes on is that people think there is some set of rules that would turn players who want consensual* PvP into players who want always on PvP. All those rules are heralded by Always On PvP players as being good. Well, of course. Those rules can enhance PvP and turn it into something worth thinking about rather than a free for all. But that's all for the benefit of the Always On PvP player. The PvP By Choice player just wants something else and Always On PvP cannot provide the experience.
That's it. The rest is money. Which market does the developer think they can better serve? Which subset of the chosen market does the developer think they can do the best job of? Developers probably don't hate one or the other. They probably just want to make the best game they can.
* There has got to be a better word for this. "PvP By Choice" or something. I'm going to use that and see if it sticks.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That article says it's reached more than 17 million players since it's launch. Not that the subs maxed at that point. That just means that 17 million have tried the game.
If dont right i guess i could see myself liking open World pvp. I just haven't seen it done right yet. Ofc. haven't realy played many MMO's. Some things would have to be done though to make it work imo.
1. A booster system ex. like GW2 where you scale to the level of the area. That would limit high level ganking on lower levels. Ofc. higher level would still have an advantage due to skillpoint or having trained more class skills but the lowlevel would have a chance.
2. No pvp stats. The player who loves pvp is probably allready better at pvp and dont need a gear advantage over the player who primarily does pve. Having said that gearing through pvp should ofc be possible and the masters of pvp should be able to get the same level of gear as the masters of pve.
3. Incentive. A reason to kill that other faction guy other than he's from the other faction.
4. preferably some sort of ganking protaction. Ex. if you attack and kill player X you cannot attack him again the next 60min unless he attacks you. Timer will expire if player X kills you.
If you attack and fail to kill player X 3 times in 30 min you will not be able to attack that player again the next 60min
Not sure how easy it would be to implement something like point 4 since it would involve alot of tracking and timers.
That article says it's reached more than 17 million players since it's launch. Not that the subs maxed at that point. That just means that 17 million have tried the game.
Heck WoW has reached over 100 million players.
That's not really impressive considering your average 8 year old can master WoW.
Originally posted by Distopia Devs don't typically like anything that allows another player to ruin someone's gaming experience.
Lets examine that statement for a moment: If your "wining" you are having an enjoyable player experience, The moment you start "losing" someone is ruining your gaming experience?
What goes around comes around...
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
That still doesn't mms what he said untrue. You have examples of what a dev can do about it but you did not state why the statement is untrue.
Why do players and devs ignore o wpvp? He started because it only takes a few idiots to drive away paying customers. You said it's untrue and gave examples of what they can do about it but did not give reasons why it's untrue, only what they can do to mitigate it.
A business absolutely will ignore a customer that costs them more money than they make. Specialized businesses do it all the time. It's even becoming a mantra, "Don't be afraid to fire as bad customer"
Well lets talk experiences then, me personally I can talk about me, I have never seen open world pvp drive off the "majority" of customers in a game since gaming back in 2002. If anything it has been my experience that it amplified pvp and the want to log on and be a part of that.
We can argue theories on business practices, there is never one set way to do business. On a large scale and depending on the product or type of business they would rather fire the employee then to give up a potential customer.
IMO open world pvp and sandbox gaming is a good thing for gamers in general.
Originally posted by waynejr2OP, pve players don't need you. You need pve players. Simply said, you don't have much power in the situation.
Yeah ... this discussion is pretty much moot.I won't play pve games with open pvp .. and there is pretty much nothing that can force me to do so. And the market has pretty much spoke on this issue too.
I have zero interest in PVE in a PVP game just like I have zero interest in PVP when I"m playing PVE content. There is just no reason in my mind to mix the two activities as one gets in the way of the other.
It will be interesting to see how the public dungeons in the PVP zone fares in ESO. Personally I think it's going to be a ghost town with people only going there when it's so far behind their own lines that the chance of running into PVP is low but maybe it will be a hit and groups will be literally fighting over mobs.
I like both. I like having the option available.... I'm very much looking forward to the Adventure Zones - Huge group PvE battles!
Originally posted by timidobserver People don't want PVP imposed on them. I go PVP when I want to and stop when I get tired of it.
Very rarely is it imposed on them. Usually its their option to pick a pvp server, OR if the game is a "pvp game" participate in that type of gameplay.
so? In fact, what you said is the RESULT of people do not want pvp imposed on them. The devs respond to that, and so very few games would impose pvp on players.
why devs dont like open world pvp ? almost all new/old games are with arena pvp
for me is pvp arena boring
enjoyed a lot of more with open world pvp (Lineage 2 / A rcheage)
Hope any good game coming soon with open world pvp / pk
Devs don't put stuff in games because they "like it", they also don't leave things out because "they don't like them"
That's not how game development works.
OpenPvP is a small niche. Ofcourse big budget titles won't target it as main audience and try to force openPvP on everyone. That would be financial suicide.
Most of the big titles do have optional PvP servers though. Why not play on them? Problem solved.
Originally posted by timidobserver People don't want PVP imposed on them. I go PVP when I want to and stop when I get tired of it.
Very rarely is it imposed on them. Usually its their option to pick a pvp server, OR if the game is a "pvp game" participate in that type of gameplay.
I think what they are saying is that most people would prefer to have the option of turning PvP on or off as it suits them, not that somebody is putting a gun to their head forcing them to play a PvP game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Pretty much what most people here are saying, I like having the option of engaging in PvP when I want. I tried Mortal Online which was pretty much an open-world gankfest, I hated it.
Comments
I have zero interest in PVE in a PVP game just like I have zero interest in PVP when I"m playing PVE content. There is just no reason in my mind to mix the two activities as one gets in the way of the other.
It will be interesting to see how the public dungeons in the PVP zone fares in ESO. Personally I think it's going to be a ghost town with people only going there when it's so far behind their own lines that the chance of running into PVP is low but maybe it will be a hit and groups will be literally fighting over mobs.
I have zero interest in PVE in a PVP game just like I have zero interest in PVP when I"m playing PVE content. There is just no reason in my mind to mix the two activities as one gets in the way of the other.
It will be interesting to see how the public dungeons in the PVP zone fares in ESO. Personally I think it's going to be a ghost town with people only going there when it's so far behind their own lines that the chance of running into PVP is low but maybe it will be a hit and groups will be literally fighting over mobs.
I like both. I like having the option available.... I'm very much looking forward to the Adventure Zones - Huge group PvE battles!
I tend to agree. Most MMO players are very competition averse and Open World PvP traditionally comes with a penalty when you don't win. Losing has become a four letter word in the MMO world as most games are a simple grind where even mildly challenging content is quickly streamline and nerfed so everyone can win even without trying.
Compared to the original MMOs, the genre has become an adventure's daycare center that placates the masses while handing out gold stars and ribbons to everyone because it isn't nice to reward people for being better than others.
Open World PvP can't be controlled and it exposes the skill / strategy differences in players which breaks the illusion that everyone is the hero and that everyone wins.
I really just wanted to confirm that it was something that existed in the real world rather than something that exists as an ideal. We get a lot of that here, where something is horrible or fantastic, but it doesn't exist so it doesn't really matter.
Sounds like in Mortal Online, gear matters if you're a new player, but not so much as you progress a bit in the game so that if you stick with the game, your skill can overcome gear. I don't think it matters in regards to the conversation over all though. It wouldn't matter if someone made a game that was 100% dependent upon skill and all players were power balanced. The problem is whether or not the PvP is By Choice, or Always On. People who want the PvP to be Always On aren't going to enjoy a game where PvP is By Choice and players who want PvP to be By Choice are not going to enjoy a game where PvP is Always On. Two different ways of thinking, goals and expectations for the different styles of PvP.
I understand why these topics keep coming up. People really just want to argue the merits of PvE, PvP, "Flagging" and having PvP everywhere. What I don't understand and am having a harder time believing as time goes on is that people think there is some set of rules that would turn players who want consensual* PvP into players who want always on PvP. All those rules are heralded by Always On PvP players as being good. Well, of course. Those rules can enhance PvP and turn it into something worth thinking about rather than a free for all. But that's all for the benefit of the Always On PvP player. The PvP By Choice player just wants something else and Always On PvP cannot provide the experience.That's it. The rest is money. Which market does the developer think they can better serve? Which subset of the chosen market does the developer think they can do the best job of? Developers probably don't hate one or the other. They probably just want to make the best game they can.
* There has got to be a better word for this. "PvP By Choice" or something. I'm going to use that and see if it sticks.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Haven't read through the thread, but there is really no such thing as "open world PvP".
What you actually get is either zergs or ganking. Rarely anything else.
That article says it's reached more than 17 million players since it's launch. Not that the subs maxed at that point. That just means that 17 million have tried the game.
Heck WoW has reached over 100 million players.
http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/blog/12740510/celebrating-100-million-players-03-02-2014
Kinda destroy's L2's numbers.
Hmm cant' paste or put links in. Odd.
If dont right i guess i could see myself liking open World pvp. I just haven't seen it done right yet. Ofc. haven't realy played many MMO's. Some things would have to be done though to make it work imo.
1. A booster system ex. like GW2 where you scale to the level of the area. That would limit high level ganking on lower levels. Ofc. higher level would still have an advantage due to skillpoint or having trained more class skills but the lowlevel would have a chance.
2. No pvp stats. The player who loves pvp is probably allready better at pvp and dont need a gear advantage over the player who primarily does pve. Having said that gearing through pvp should ofc be possible and the masters of pvp should be able to get the same level of gear as the masters of pve.
3. Incentive. A reason to kill that other faction guy other than he's from the other faction.
4. preferably some sort of ganking protaction. Ex. if you attack and kill player X you cannot attack him again the next 60min unless he attacks you. Timer will expire if player X kills you.
If you attack and fail to kill player X 3 times in 30 min you will not be able to attack that player again the next 60min
Not sure how easy it would be to implement something like point 4 since it would involve alot of tracking and timers.
That's not really impressive considering your average 8 year old can master WoW.
Life IS Feudal
Lets examine that statement for a moment: If your "wining" you are having an enjoyable player experience, The moment you start "losing" someone is ruining your gaming experience?
What goes around comes around...
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Well lets talk experiences then, me personally I can talk about me, I have never seen open world pvp drive off the "majority" of customers in a game since gaming back in 2002. If anything it has been my experience that it amplified pvp and the want to log on and be a part of that.
We can argue theories on business practices, there is never one set way to do business. On a large scale and depending on the product or type of business they would rather fire the employee then to give up a potential customer.
IMO open world pvp and sandbox gaming is a good thing for gamers in general.
Very rarely is it imposed on them. Usually its their option to pick a pvp server, OR if the game is a "pvp game" participate in that type of gameplay.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=f6w1BGsgLjQ
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt"
I like both to, just not at the same time.
Not for those gamers who do not like open world pvp and sandbox.
so? In fact, what you said is the RESULT of people do not want pvp imposed on them. The devs respond to that, and so very few games would impose pvp on players.
That does not make his preference less valid.
Devs don't put stuff in games because they "like it", they also don't leave things out because "they don't like them"
That's not how game development works.
OpenPvP is a small niche. Ofcourse big budget titles won't target it as main audience and try to force openPvP on everyone. That would be financial suicide.
Most of the big titles do have optional PvP servers though. Why not play on them? Problem solved.
I think what they are saying is that most people would prefer to have the option of turning PvP on or off as it suits them, not that somebody is putting a gun to their head forcing them to play a PvP game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I am referring to those rare instances that you referred to.
I don't have an issue with elective PVP servers or WvW/RvR/AvA/MonsterPlay/Ect pvp modes. In fact, I am/was a GW2 WvW junkie until ESO.