Originally posted by maccarthur2004 Lineage 1 and 2 had ow pvp and were a loud success. EvE is considered a success too, althought isn't a big budget mmo.
Only about 15% of EVE player base live in 0.0. Lineage was never really much of a success on western market.
Sure, if you count multi-boxing PVP with 5 or more accounts.
Honestly, EVE has to be one of the worst examples of a good PVP MMORPG.
(Not to say it's not a good game but it's not a good example for MMORPGS)
You may as well be saying WOW is a poorly designed game.
Objectively, that just doesn't hold water.
So, you think a company is going to design a big budget open world PVP MMORPG around the concept of encouraging players to pay multiple accounts in order to make any difference?
Eastern developers are making AAA pvp focused mmos right and left, big budget aswell.
This. In the Korean market, mmorpgs of all kinds are much more popular. Lineage 1 and Aion, despite their "owpvp" elements, still have huge numbers and are at the top of the lists. Not that Koreans "want" owpvp, just they're usually more hardcore.
But to be fair, is are there even that many sucessfull mmorpgs in the west? RVR focused DAOC and crafting focused SWG didn't even surpass 500k subs as far as i know. If that's incorrect, i'm sorry.
There's WOW, obviously, and some like GW1 and EVE are indeed sucesses, but post wow modern AAA, or even "AA", mmorpgs are almost always pve themeparks. Even Rift, which was very sucessfull at launch, now as gone F2P and seems to be losing players, at a slow pace of course. I'd say only GW2 as been a truly amazing sucess.
OWPVP, IMHO, will never be protitable for companies in the West, but then again, it seems mmorpgs as a whole might not be the best option.
It isn't the lack of pvp people that's the problem. It's the abundance of pvp people who drive everyone else out of the game that is.
Games like LOL and world of tanks, CS, TF2 etc, show there are plenty of people who want the pvp competition. Many of those players also play mmos. Unfortunately in an mmo there is a much more personal aspect to the pvp. It's very hard to ruin someones fun in those other types of games. Win or lose you just move on the next battle. The worst thing that can happen is someone types stupid things at you.
In an mmo it doesn't end at just a single fight. It's the difference between a boxing match or soccer game, and getting mugged in an alley way. It's not the same type of upset/outrage at what just happened.
It isn't the lack of pvp people that's the problem. It's the abundance of pvp people who drive everyone else out of the game that is.
Games like LOL and world of tanks, CS, TF2 etc, show there are plenty of people who want the pvp competition. Many of those players also play mmos. Unfortunately in an mmo there is a much more personal aspect to the pvp. It's very hard to ruin someones fun in those other types of games. Win or lose you just move on the next battle. The worst thing that can happen is someone types stupid things at you.
In an mmo it doesn't end at just a single fight. It's the difference between a boxing match or soccer game, and getting mugged in an alley way. It's not the same type of upset/outrage at what just happened.
I have to agree with this assessment. Even though it's online, virtual and anonymous, it still feels like a violation. Someone else is having their way with you for no other reason that they think it's fun to make your experience miserable.
Recently, I was levleling in SWTOR. You'd think it's one of the most carebare games ever.. I was on a non-PVP server and yet, I was trying to level, But there was a capped player flagged for PVP who followed me around and would stand next to the mobs I had to fight. My companion would use an AOE and flag me, he would kill me. So i put my companion away, but I would end up getting killed by th emobs since I had a handicap forced on me, unable to use my companion or any of my AOE skills. This guy was griefing me in a PVE game on a PVE server.
Why would I ever want to pay for a game that encourages this?
It's funny how players say they want community but the last thing they want in the world is to actually interact with real players in game.
Every gamer is a PVPer. The fact that some choose to stand there like a target dummy unless they get their way doesn't make that statement untrue.
You entered a game in which there is combat. You're killing NPCs, rabbits, yaks, you name it, to acquire things or achieve goals. Swap said mobs for players... what's different? The players are unpredictable and not always killable.
So in a nutshell, players don't like PVP because they don't like unpredictability or the possibility of failure. Sounds like they should be playing a single player game if they prefer not to play with actual players.
It isn't the lack of pvp people that's the problem. It's the abundance of pvp people who drive everyone else out of the game that is.
Games like LOL and world of tanks, CS, TF2 etc, show there are plenty of people who want the pvp competition. Many of those players also play mmos. Unfortunately in an mmo there is a much more personal aspect to the pvp. It's very hard to ruin someones fun in those other types of games. Win or lose you just move on the next battle. The worst thing that can happen is someone types stupid things at you.
In an mmo it doesn't end at just a single fight. It's the difference between a boxing match or soccer game, and getting mugged in an alley way. It's not the same type of upset/outrage at what just happened.
Indeed. Open world PvP is like a parasite, it is a burden to its host. Only when the host dies, it dies too.
Wolves hunting the sheep is unsustainable as a metagame. Eventually, wolves drive out the sheep and hunting other wolves is not so much fun because:
there aren't many wolves out there and...
it would require competition (which open world PvPers don't want)
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
It's funny how players say they want community but the last thing they want in the world is to actually interact with real players in game.
Every gamer is a PVPer. The fact that some choose to stand there like a target dummy unless they get their way doesn't make that statement untrue.
You entered a game in which there is combat. You're killing NPCs, rabbits, yaks, you name it, to acquire things or achieve goals. Swap said mobs for players... what's different? The players are unpredictable and not always killable.
So in a nutshell, players don't like PVP because they don't like unpredictability or the possibility of failure. Sounds like they should be playing a single player game if they prefer not to play with actual players.
What you are describing is what should happen in a PVP game. Unfortunately, it rarely ever works that way. PVP should be a means and a path to progress a character. Win or lose, you move on. PVP should NEVER be used as a means to block and cut off another's ability to progress where one cannot "move on"
In an open world PVP situation, I think most players would be fine if thee were out and about and someone else comes by and kills them. Yep, OK, they lost. But it's over. Only, it's not that simple with griefers. IT's only over when the griefer says it's over. And that usually persists until someone logs off.
The idea of PVP is not to make someone want to log off. If that's what happens in a game, there is a serious design flaw.
I think your problem is can you get enough to agree on how the game should be. Eve is there but many do not like aspects of it. It is like sandbox games...you have to first figure out what it will be.
It isn't the lack of pvp people that's the problem. It's the abundance of pvp people who drive everyone else out of the game that is.
Games like LOL and world of tanks, CS, TF2 etc, show there are plenty of people who want the pvp competition. Many of those players also play mmos. Unfortunately in an mmo there is a much more personal aspect to the pvp. It's very hard to ruin someones fun in those other types of games. Win or lose you just move on the next battle. The worst thing that can happen is someone types stupid things at you.
In an mmo it doesn't end at just a single fight. It's the difference between a boxing match or soccer game, and getting mugged in an alley way. It's not the same type of upset/outrage at what just happened.
Indeed. Open world PvP is like a parasite, it is a burden to its host. Only when the host dies, it dies too.
Wolves hunting the sheep is unsustainable as a metagame. Eventually, wolves drive out the sheep and hunting other wolves is not so much fun because:
there aren't many wolves out there and...
it would require competition (which open world PvPers don't want)
Originally posted by Ryowulf Predators need prey. Gankers need people to gank, but no of them want to be the gankies.
I agree with your first statement, but disagree strongly with your second. I loved getting ganked in EQ2 because I had the tools to deal with the gankers and often turn their advantage against them.
Gankee's are only victims because they allow themselves to be, or because the developers failed to create a fully featured game that allows all players to have fun. If you fail to use the tools you were provided then you deserve to be ganked, but if the developers failed to give you these tools then they deserve to lose customers.
League of Legends isn't OW but it's a PVP game all about ganking the unprepared. Last I heard this was one of the higher population games of this generation and I think serves to prove there are plenty of PVPers.
This is repeated constantly in every discussion about ow pvp, so i want to make a specific thread to discuss that question.
Is really true that there isn't enough fans of ow pvp in the world to sustain and give profit to a big budget MMO?
is there any evidence to that statement?
I haven't heard anyone say there aren't enough OW PvP players in the world. There are 7 billion people in the world. Odds are there will be enought to sustain a single, big budget OW PvP game. The problem there would be getting all of those people to agree on what else, aside from the OW PvP should be in the game.
For instance, if you built an OW PvP based My Little Ponies game, would that appeal to the entire OW PvP crowd? Some of them, sure, but not all of them. If Mortal Online was actually funtional, would it appeal to the entire OW PvP crowd? No, it wouldn't because it has a low magic world and isn't some form of high fantasy or science fiction.
What we do know is that players will pick up a game based on the idea of the game, regardless of how good or bad the game actually is. Nearly a million people bought into AoC, and most of them left shortly afterwards. We can infer from this that AoC is an idea that people want, even if the execution is bad. Compare this to MMOFPS games like Planetside or match based PvP games like LoL where not only a lot of people pick the games up, but a lot of people play them. The idea of these games is something that people really want. Compare this to games where the idea is OW or FFA PvP set in a persistent world and not nearly as many people are willing to buy into the game initially. They'll buy into games where the world isn't persistent, like Rust or DayZ, but make the worlds public and persistent and people just aren't that into the games. Take from that what you will.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
no, theres not enough to sustain it. There is enough to start one, but as gankers and griefers get organised and start screwing up people's game experience on a large scale, they will choke it out.
Devs will avoid making big money ow pvp/ffa pvp games because the ones that are out slowly get choked to death by their own playerbase (darkfall, MO). No noticable amount of new players come in because they are farmed like a resource by older players who have more experience/gear and organisation.
There are a ton of PVPers, but not any that enjoy MMO in an open world setting which encourages unequal play, ganking, exploiting, etc.
There so many better options: rts, mobas, fps
Games that encourage unequal play, ganking, exploiting, etc are games that have failed at execution. You cannot attribute their open world status to this failure. It's true that most open world MMOs have failed in execution when it comes to this topic, but not because they are open world.
The reason pvp fails so poorly is they try to placate the hardcore crowd that wants to be able to grief and gank without any meaning and even more importantly without penalties or "safe" zones. The majority of people who are interested in pvp are not interested in this bullshit, period. So developers think they have to either go hardcore or not at all, which is just lazy.
All we need is open world pvp with meaning and consequences. If you want to gank at will, fine. But there should be a karma system showing you for what you are as long as there were witnesses around to see what you did. If you can kill someone in the middle of town without the guards getting you or bystanders taking the law into their own hands good for you....otherwise expect to be taken out for being stupid enough to kill someone in the middle of a crowded area in town. This allows bad guys to be bad guys, currently most of them want to act the part of bad guy but without the "bad" attached to them for it, which is bs imo.
Originally posted by GeezerGamer Originally posted by DamonVileIt isn't the lack of pvp people that's the problem. It's the abundance of pvp people who drive everyone else out of the game that is.Games like LOL and world of tanks, CS, TF2 etc, show there are plenty of people who want the pvp competition. Many of those players also play mmos. Unfortunately in an mmo there is a much more personal aspect to the pvp. It's very hard to ruin someones fun in those other types of games. Win or lose you just move on the next battle. The worst thing that can happen is someone types stupid things at you.In an mmo it doesn't end at just a single fight. It's the difference between a boxing match or soccer game, and getting mugged in an alley way. It's not the same type of upset/outrage at what just happened.
I have to agree with this assessment.
Why would you seek MOBA PVP experience in an MMO instead of just playing MOBA? Such assessment is false.
People play MMOs for different reasons than they PVP in MOBA. In fact, FFAPVP just does not fit MMO(RPG) concept at all.
Not sure. There are people who enjoy structured, more competititve and skill based PvP. And open world pvp usually boils down to a gankfests, ambushes etc.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
This is repeated constantly in every discussion about ow pvp, so i want to make a specific thread to discuss that question.
Is really true that there isn't enough fans of ow pvp in the world to sustain and give profit to a big budget MMO?
is there any evidence to that statement?
Darkfall, mortal online, xsyon; these are few of those OW PvP games currently played by OW PvP crowd. considering how every one of those games report that they are losing money each quarter, you really don't need any other evidence.
Yeah, lets take bad games as example. Eve and GW2 have plenty of PvPers and they do well because they are well made.
MMO PvP do have some problems, that is true but it isn't because PvP in itself. The problem with the games you mentioned is that they are poorly made low budget indie game (even if Im not sure about Xsyon, never tried it).
There are other problems MMO PvP games face, most of them coming from bad mechanics made for PvE. Levels for example don't really work that well in PvP as they are made in most MMOs at least. The powergap between players just get so big that many fights are auto-win for one player no badly how bad he/she plays. The real problem isn't the levels in themselves but the huge powergap they make, turns off many players.
Another problem is that many games kinda miss a point to actually PvP and clear objectives for the players. Some games like DAoC nailed this though but most games just sets up 2 or more sides and say that the other side is evil, just go and kill them without any reasons, tactical objectives and in some cases not much of a reward either. Lineages focus on wars between bloodpledges/guilds were pretty good as well since you declared war on guilds that annoyed you.
But the biggest problem of most PvP MMOs that don't do well enough is that they aren't fun enough.
There are plenty of gamers that love PvP, just look on the hug FPS market. I don't buy that MMOers are just a bunch of carebears that have 90% PvEers since it is less personal. If 90% of all MMOers (made up number can be 80%, 95% or whatever) it is because most MMOs just don't make PvP good enough or because the best games are PvE focused.
GW2 is not OW PvP game.
EVE is space sim and the only proper space sim in market, there is no comparison between space sim market and hugely saturated mmorpg market. trying to compare EVE to mmorpg is a mistake.
And that fps comparison is also bonkers, different genre; different player base.
DAoC did things right, ok but how many people play daoc now? read a few post above yours and see what i wrote there.
I agree with Jester. GW2 is pretty much irrelevant to this thread. It is simple arena PvP and could be compared to games like Call of Duty etc.
Same with EVE, I think that being a space sim means you can't really compare it to what people traditionally think of as PvP, which is one player character beating on another and killing them. In EVE it is about economy and having a fleet of ships and not just a single character one on one.
So using those two as examples, is really out of context for what the OP is asking. In fact even the OP is confused on this point.
What I don't understand here is why PvP players insist on PvP being open world. Why is not playing Call of Duty enough of a PvP thrill for them? Or Planetside for that matter? Is PvP what these players are truly after because there are many types of it already available.
Honestly I think the only thing that MMO open world PvP offers them is a chance to prey on the weak. That is what they truly wish for. Because in Call of Duty , no one is weak and everyone is looking for a fight. However in a MMO many people are doing other activities, such as crafting, or building, or exploring and it is these activities that PvP players want to disrupt. In other words they want to disrupt someone elses fun. Thats the thrill of open world PvP here.
If players are just talking about PvP as skill and proving it in an MMO then I call BS. It is simply reflexes and practice that wins. And you get that in any number of PvP games including GW2.
The real issue of open world PvP is ganking. And that is why investors and AAA MMO's will always shy away from it IMO.
Having said that I am truly looking forward to "Life is Feudal" To me, this game embraces what an OW PvP sandbox should be like. I am very interested to see how this community reacts to this game. I certainly hope they give it a fair chance unlike the aforementioned Darkfall and Mortal Online, which tried to bring what PvP players said they wanted, but as per usual they simply came and ganked them into MMO oblivion.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Is really true that there isn't enough fans of ow pvp in the world to sustain and give profit to a big budget MMO?
is there any evidence to that statement?
Probably.
Direct evidence? no.
Indirect evidence? Yes. Since a market will always fill the demand .. if there is one, there will already be such a game. Remember that companies do market research.
Originally posted by Boneserino Same with EVE, I think that being a space sim means you can't really compare it to what people traditionally think of as PvP, which is one player character beating on another and killing them. In EVE it is about economy and having a fleet of ships and not just a single character one on one.
Comments
You may as well be saying WOW is a poorly designed game.
Objectively, that just doesn't hold water.
10 years at the top of the western market. Wpvp game, World of Warcraft.
Only about 15% of EVE player base live in 0.0.
Lineage was never really much of a success on western market.
Go figure...
So, you think a company is going to design a big budget open world PVP MMORPG around the concept of encouraging players to pay multiple accounts in order to make any difference?
This. In the Korean market, mmorpgs of all kinds are much more popular. Lineage 1 and Aion, despite their "owpvp" elements, still have huge numbers and are at the top of the lists. Not that Koreans "want" owpvp, just they're usually more hardcore.
But to be fair, is are there even that many sucessfull mmorpgs in the west? RVR focused DAOC and crafting focused SWG didn't even surpass 500k subs as far as i know. If that's incorrect, i'm sorry.
There's WOW, obviously, and some like GW1 and EVE are indeed sucesses, but post wow modern AAA, or even "AA", mmorpgs are almost always pve themeparks. Even Rift, which was very sucessfull at launch, now as gone F2P and seems to be losing players, at a slow pace of course. I'd say only GW2 as been a truly amazing sucess.
OWPVP, IMHO, will never be protitable for companies in the West, but then again, it seems mmorpgs as a whole might not be the best option.
It isn't the lack of pvp people that's the problem. It's the abundance of pvp people who drive everyone else out of the game that is.
Games like LOL and world of tanks, CS, TF2 etc, show there are plenty of people who want the pvp competition. Many of those players also play mmos. Unfortunately in an mmo there is a much more personal aspect to the pvp. It's very hard to ruin someones fun in those other types of games. Win or lose you just move on the next battle. The worst thing that can happen is someone types stupid things at you.
In an mmo it doesn't end at just a single fight. It's the difference between a boxing match or soccer game, and getting mugged in an alley way. It's not the same type of upset/outrage at what just happened.
I have to agree with this assessment. Even though it's online, virtual and anonymous, it still feels like a violation. Someone else is having their way with you for no other reason that they think it's fun to make your experience miserable.
Recently, I was levleling in SWTOR. You'd think it's one of the most carebare games ever.. I was on a non-PVP server and yet, I was trying to level, But there was a capped player flagged for PVP who followed me around and would stand next to the mobs I had to fight. My companion would use an AOE and flag me, he would kill me. So i put my companion away, but I would end up getting killed by th emobs since I had a handicap forced on me, unable to use my companion or any of my AOE skills. This guy was griefing me in a PVE game on a PVE server.
Why would I ever want to pay for a game that encourages this?
It's funny how players say they want community but the last thing they want in the world is to actually interact with real players in game.
Every gamer is a PVPer. The fact that some choose to stand there like a target dummy unless they get their way doesn't make that statement untrue.
You entered a game in which there is combat. You're killing NPCs, rabbits, yaks, you name it, to acquire things or achieve goals. Swap said mobs for players... what's different? The players are unpredictable and not always killable.
So in a nutshell, players don't like PVP because they don't like unpredictability or the possibility of failure. Sounds like they should be playing a single player game if they prefer not to play with actual players.
Indeed. Open world PvP is like a parasite, it is a burden to its host. Only when the host dies, it dies too.
Wolves hunting the sheep is unsustainable as a metagame. Eventually, wolves drive out the sheep and hunting other wolves is not so much fun because:
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
What you are describing is what should happen in a PVP game. Unfortunately, it rarely ever works that way. PVP should be a means and a path to progress a character. Win or lose, you move on. PVP should NEVER be used as a means to block and cut off another's ability to progress where one cannot "move on"
In an open world PVP situation, I think most players would be fine if thee were out and about and someone else comes by and kills them. Yep, OK, they lost. But it's over. Only, it's not that simple with griefers. IT's only over when the griefer says it's over. And that usually persists until someone logs off.
The idea of PVP is not to make someone want to log off. If that's what happens in a game, there is a serious design flaw.
The problem ones don't.
I agree with your first statement, but disagree strongly with your second. I loved getting ganked in EQ2 because I had the tools to deal with the gankers and often turn their advantage against them.
Gankee's are only victims because they allow themselves to be, or because the developers failed to create a fully featured game that allows all players to have fun. If you fail to use the tools you were provided then you deserve to be ganked, but if the developers failed to give you these tools then they deserve to lose customers.
League of Legends isn't OW but it's a PVP game all about ganking the unprepared. Last I heard this was one of the higher population games of this generation and I think serves to prove there are plenty of PVPers.
I haven't heard anyone say there aren't enough OW PvP players in the world. There are 7 billion people in the world. Odds are there will be enought to sustain a single, big budget OW PvP game. The problem there would be getting all of those people to agree on what else, aside from the OW PvP should be in the game.
For instance, if you built an OW PvP based My Little Ponies game, would that appeal to the entire OW PvP crowd? Some of them, sure, but not all of them. If Mortal Online was actually funtional, would it appeal to the entire OW PvP crowd? No, it wouldn't because it has a low magic world and isn't some form of high fantasy or science fiction.
What we do know is that players will pick up a game based on the idea of the game, regardless of how good or bad the game actually is. Nearly a million people bought into AoC, and most of them left shortly afterwards. We can infer from this that AoC is an idea that people want, even if the execution is bad. Compare this to MMOFPS games like Planetside or match based PvP games like LoL where not only a lot of people pick the games up, but a lot of people play them. The idea of these games is something that people really want. Compare this to games where the idea is OW or FFA PvP set in a persistent world and not nearly as many people are willing to buy into the game initially. They'll buy into games where the world isn't persistent, like Rust or DayZ, but make the worlds public and persistent and people just aren't that into the games. Take from that what you will.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
no, theres not enough to sustain it. There is enough to start one, but as gankers and griefers get organised and start screwing up people's game experience on a large scale, they will choke it out.
Devs will avoid making big money ow pvp/ffa pvp games because the ones that are out slowly get choked to death by their own playerbase (darkfall, MO). No noticable amount of new players come in because they are farmed like a resource by older players who have more experience/gear and organisation.
There are a ton of PVPers, but not any that enjoy MMO in an open world setting which encourages unequal play, ganking, exploiting, etc.
There so many better options: rts, mobas, fps
Games that encourage unequal play, ganking, exploiting, etc are games that have failed at execution. You cannot attribute their open world status to this failure. It's true that most open world MMOs have failed in execution when it comes to this topic, but not because they are open world.
The reason pvp fails so poorly is they try to placate the hardcore crowd that wants to be able to grief and gank without any meaning and even more importantly without penalties or "safe" zones. The majority of people who are interested in pvp are not interested in this bullshit, period. So developers think they have to either go hardcore or not at all, which is just lazy.
All we need is open world pvp with meaning and consequences. If you want to gank at will, fine. But there should be a karma system showing you for what you are as long as there were witnesses around to see what you did. If you can kill someone in the middle of town without the guards getting you or bystanders taking the law into their own hands good for you....otherwise expect to be taken out for being stupid enough to kill someone in the middle of a crowded area in town. This allows bad guys to be bad guys, currently most of them want to act the part of bad guy but without the "bad" attached to them for it, which is bs imo.
Problem of PVPers are they "eat" other PVPers to stay alive .
One side win , other side lost , they rage and quit ,
then some change side , they win and other side lost ,
after some battle , lost side give up the game.
Then the the cycle repeated until there aren't many PVPers left.
End of the game.
Some case where players true PVPer , they keep trying until they win ,
but when they win , they other side quit because they can't keep wining so they don't want to lost anymore lol.
True story .
Why would you seek MOBA PVP experience in an MMO instead of just playing MOBA? Such assessment is false.
People play MMOs for different reasons than they PVP in MOBA. In fact, FFAPVP just does not fit MMO(RPG) concept at all.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I agree with Jester. GW2 is pretty much irrelevant to this thread. It is simple arena PvP and could be compared to games like Call of Duty etc.
Same with EVE, I think that being a space sim means you can't really compare it to what people traditionally think of as PvP, which is one player character beating on another and killing them. In EVE it is about economy and having a fleet of ships and not just a single character one on one.
So using those two as examples, is really out of context for what the OP is asking. In fact even the OP is confused on this point.
What I don't understand here is why PvP players insist on PvP being open world. Why is not playing Call of Duty enough of a PvP thrill for them? Or Planetside for that matter? Is PvP what these players are truly after because there are many types of it already available.
Honestly I think the only thing that MMO open world PvP offers them is a chance to prey on the weak. That is what they truly wish for. Because in Call of Duty , no one is weak and everyone is looking for a fight. However in a MMO many people are doing other activities, such as crafting, or building, or exploring and it is these activities that PvP players want to disrupt. In other words they want to disrupt someone elses fun. Thats the thrill of open world PvP here.
If players are just talking about PvP as skill and proving it in an MMO then I call BS. It is simply reflexes and practice that wins. And you get that in any number of PvP games including GW2.
The real issue of open world PvP is ganking. And that is why investors and AAA MMO's will always shy away from it IMO.
Having said that I am truly looking forward to "Life is Feudal" To me, this game embraces what an OW PvP sandbox should be like. I am very interested to see how this community reacts to this game. I certainly hope they give it a fair chance unlike the aforementioned Darkfall and Mortal Online, which tried to bring what PvP players said they wanted, but as per usual they simply came and ganked them into MMO oblivion.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Probably.
Direct evidence? no.
Indirect evidence? Yes. Since a market will always fill the demand .. if there is one, there will already be such a game. Remember that companies do market research.
False assumptions.