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.
Aha... now you've identified the real problem... why are people using PVP or any other method for that matter, to advance their character? Therein lies the problem. You get to max whatever, then what? MMOs are not supposed to be about the destination, they're supposed to be about the journey. The journey is not supposed to end. It's a world... not a stepping stone to something else. If you intend to turn open world PVP or any PVP for that matter into a gear grind, you've defeated the point of playing against other players. Might as well be on a hamster wheel... because that is all you are really doing.
The game is fun if you can go out into the world and find a challenge or amusement in being out in the open world. You take over a town, or a flight path, or whatever. Others show up to try and recover it. More show up. The "fun" escalates. Reading a book in game (i.e. lore) is not playing a game, it's reading a book. Gathering up 10 rats in game (i.e. questing) is not playing the game, it's doing dailies. Exploration... ditto. These are all things that you do while you wait for an opportunity for some fun or make some fun for yourself.
You're out in the world trying to get to the top of some peak... someone comes along and attacks you... keeps you from getting to the top of the peak. A battle ensues. Far more entertaining than if you merely walked up to the top and checked it off some bucket list you have. Far greater achievement too. An opportunity for a tale too. "I remember when I was trying too get to this peak and some bloke tried to kill me. We ended up killing each other several times. In the end, I forgot that I was even trying to get up to the peak. Was good times."
The game is not what the developers created for you, the game is what you create of the world while you are in it.
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
There is a big difference between "a demand" and the kind of demand being implied in this thread.
Also, this is an example of what I was talking about with the OP's lack of internal consistency. Presumably we're discussing PvP, but now it's all about sandboxes and I feel sure that there's going to be an "OW PvP = Sandbox" post or discussion.
**
Oops, wrong thread with the colored part.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The thing is how to make the pvp people levelup in a pvp mmo? That is the question.
You can't have them bg or arena all the time else it is not a mmo. If it is world pvp with no restriction, people will be douch bags by killing lower levels all the time so another fail there because newbies in the game will quit before reaching a good level to fight on there own. And it does not get popular like a themepark mmo's. So it is better for the devs to put there money in themeparks or similar mmo's then to go in the mmofps or mmofps real world sims.
There is some very good real world mmofps sims out there by the way. The best currently is Arma 3. If it is your thing you should give it a try. You won't regret it. Just google the game name and watch some vids.
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.
False assumptions.
Hmm I am afraid you will need to be more specific here. Two words won't suffice to make an argument.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
People who play OW PvP games are the most mule headed, arrogant, stubborn, selfish, anarchistic people in gaming. It's like herding feral cats. Good luck getting a million of them to sign up for the same game.
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
What we are saying is that, the jury is out on whether a game can possibly be created that will satisfy that demand.
And the general consensus is no. Simple as that. If you want reasons, then go back and look at the thousands of these threads that have come before.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
There is a big difference between "a demand" and the kind of demand being implied in this thread.
Also, this is an example of what I was talking about with the OP's lack of internal consistency. Presumably we're discussing PvP, but now it's all about sandboxes and I feel sure that there's going to be an "OW PvP = Sandbox" post or discussion.
Well let's talk numbers then. How about a million? Even half a million is still really good for sustaining a triple A title. I'm sure a game in the future with open world pvp as it's main focus could hit those numbers and EVE is already doing it right now at 500k.
I only brought up sandbox because the same argument is leveled at it and it's just as much rubbish as the original claim in this thread.
What kind of numbers or subs would be needed to sustain a game with either focus? I think there is enough demand to hit half a million on either front with a quality game. There's enough evidence to support that by looking at multiple current MMOs. Saying it's not possible or not true is just plain old false.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Originally posted by Loke666 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.
OP is asking about open world pvp. "PvP Lovers" and "Open World PvP lovers" are two different things. I like PvP too, but only when it is instanced. I love BG / Arena style PvP. Lots of players love that too. But open world pvp is a different thing..
Open world PvP is ganking, nothing else. You may like it. I don't. Majority of players don't like it too because it always turns into a gankfest. No sane person can like that.
If some developer understands that sandbox doesn't mean open world pvp and designes a pve sandbox.. That would be a hit. But.. this deserves another thread to discuss.
Stages of a new mmo: 1) It's just beta. It still has plenty of time before release. 2) It just launched. Give it time. WoW wasn't built in a day. 3) We don't need you anyway. 4) F2P announced. 5)Huge influx of players. 6) Look how much has changed. 7) Cash shop is the only thing developed lately. 8) It has been a long journey and we thank everyone who was part of it. Shutting down in 3 months. (Courtesy of Robokapp.)
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?
Can we get some specifics. What type of open world PvP is this. Is it in the whole game or only in some zones or in a battleground like what GW 2 has . Is it consensual or flagged does it have looting or FFA .
There are a lot of games with open world PvP in restricted zones even ESO has it in Cyrodiil. So we need you to be more specific.
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
There is a big difference between "a demand" and the kind of demand being implied in this thread.
Also, this is an example of what I was talking about with the OP's lack of internal consistency. Presumably we're discussing PvP, but now it's all about sandboxes and I feel sure that there's going to be an "OW PvP = Sandbox" post or discussion.
Well let's talk numbers then. How about a million? Even half a million is still really good for sustaining a triple A title. I'm sure a game in the future with open world pvp as it's main focus could hit those numbers and EVE is already doing it right now at 500k.
I only brought up sandbox because the same argument is leveled at it and it's just as much rubbish as the original claim in this thread.
What kind of numbers or subs would be needed to sustain a game with either focus? I think there is enough demand to hit half a million on either front with a quality game. There's enough evidence to support that by looking at multiple current MMOs. Saying it's not possible or not true is just plain old false.
Its not about numbers, it is about where are those numbers? Sure you can say there are 500 k people playing EVE but what does that mean? It simply means that there are 500 k people playing EVE. It doesn't mean that 500 k would automatically sign up for the next EVE.
Even the themepark games are having trouble maintaining players past the say, one year mark IMO. Which is why we see so many F2P converts early on. It is a fickle market with lots of competition out there. Its going to be a tough sell to investors when there has been little evidence of support for these type of games to date.
I have said here before that PvP advocates are going to have to get out and support some of these games even if they find the game less than their liking. If the group you say is so large, keeps rejecting every game that is thrown their way , then how long do you expect devs to keep trying?
It is their ass that is on the line, not yours!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
All the "OW" MMMORPGs released so far have been plagued with plaethora of problems and they never managed to really recover. I mostly blame the fact that they are done by smaller companies that are blocked by limited finances, limited vision, and/or simply loose their zeal after release, which are almost as a rule - always way too buggy than what masses are willing to tolerate.
EvE while not being exactly OW is on the other hand very OW and shows very good how it needs to be done. On top of it they started small but never lost their zeal - they kept at it and over time made a very small niche into a big and successful game!
The next game company that does what EvE has done but in a fantasy 3D setting will be at least as tripple as popular as EvE is atm.
At the same time we need to realise it is not easy as we are still rather limited with our current available technology.
Oh and one more very important thing. People need to realise MMORPGs don't need to, and shouldn't exclude PvE and PvP. A real OW MMORPG that wants success definitely doesn't exclude neither PvE or PvP from it's world but instead looks for ways to synergize both into a working entirety!
The problem you always run into, and why I feel they'll never really make a seriously successful OW-PvP AAA game, is the PvP community tends to be extremely toxic. Competitive nature aside, the non-stop grief-fest that every OW-PvP game seems to devolve into is anathema to the casual crowd which is where the real money comes from.
I definitely agree with a few posters here: PvP should be the means to fun, not a means to end someone else's fun. That simple. Until you can even the playing field without restricting the OW end of the PvP game, you'll never get the casuals to play and therefore the money will never be there to make the game happen. Why bother playing when all you're going to do is die an annoying death? By extension, why pay to do so? Just not gonna happen for long.
That's something that I feel Planetside 2 actually did pretty well. ANYONE can drop in and be effective. Anyone. You may not be good, but you're certainly not useless. You've got potential to kill anyone you see, all ya gotta do is be able to hit the broad side of a barn with a banjo from the inside. You put that into, say, a fantasy setting? Yeah, that I'd probably play. I'd think a lot of casuals would as well, which would bring the numbers needed to a OW PvP game. You'd inevitably have the hardcore guys who were better than them, but you'd also have enough people to group up and beat the high-skill guys with numbers. You'd have enough people to make the politics matter, provided that was a thing, and you'd have the money to keep content updates coming in smoothly. Zergfest? Maybe. Fun? Certainly.
Part of the population issue is that pvp means for every winner there will be another player loosing the fight. Sooner or later the less skilled players will reduce game time or quit. This results in new winners and loosers and the cycle begins again. At the end the active population that is willing to stay has become too small. Its even worse once ganking or griefing is getting a foothold as it introduces players that actualy have the goal to drive players away from the game.
If you ask me about the possible amount of pvp'ers i would say yes there are enough for a game at launch but the very nature of the owpvp itself will lead to a massive reduction making it unlikely to support a big budget game for a decent period of time.
There are more than enough people to sustain open world pvp in mmos. The problem is that open world pvp has an inevitably high rate of failure the way its been currently developed. Im not a pvp fan but from all sorts of pvp the OW pvp is the one i prefer because im still out there in the world doing my PvE stuff with the risk of pvp encounters.
With that said, i dont know what can be done to fix open world pvp but at this point is completely useless because you dont take risks anymore when leveling out there. You dont randomly enounter people close to your level that are doing the same things as you in the same area that could get you in a fight over a resource or just based on lore, to fight the enemy. Instead all you find now is high level gankers in low level areas ruining everyone's experience. That's just what happens in open world pvp now.
There has to be some way to fix that problem while keeping the risk vs reward in place in the open world pvp. I dont think there is a way.
Here's the fundamental problem with OW PvP in *most* MMOs:
Leveling to cap and/or to effective max (if it's skill based or horizontal in some way)takes, what? 3 weeks+?
OW PvP MMOs are asking people, to spend 3 weeks+ of their time, being ganked without ability to fight back for that entire time.
Why should I, someone who enjoys PvP, voluntarily spend my free time being fodder with the only the hope that I may enjoy the game a month later, while I can instead log in to any MOBA and get my PvP fix without spending a month with someone virtually teabagging me for hours at a time?
There's no incentive to play something like that. If you strip the progression from it (be it vertical or horizontal) then it's not much of an RPG so it won't attract people who like MMORPGs. If people just want arena/BG type PvP, that's everywhere and readily available. So what is OW PvP offering us?
Saying that an OWPVP game can not work because of 'gankers' is like saying that no FPS game could ever have friendly fire because people would just kill their own teams.
Which is bullshit btw, I play plenty of games that have friendly fire (RO2, M&B). Is it because I like to kill my whole team? No... it is because it adds an additional strategic and tactical value to the game when you have to actually think about who you are shooting at instead of just shooting at everything that moves.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
Compared to lets say a large region or continent for pvp? The answer is more victims. Open world has players that did not want choose to pvp or at least would avoid it for a moment.
I know that point isn't everything. An open world can offer some adventures for players that go into enemy territory(solo or small grp and no level advantage) but usualy far outnumbered by thoose players that don't seek the adventure but the easy victory.
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
There is a big difference between "a demand" and the kind of demand being implied in this thread.
Also, this is an example of what I was talking about with the OP's lack of internal consistency. Presumably we're discussing PvP, but now it's all about sandboxes and I feel sure that there's going to be an "OW PvP = Sandbox" post or discussion.
Well let's talk numbers then. How about a million? Even half a million is still really good for sustaining a triple A title. I'm sure a game in the future with open world pvp as it's main focus could hit those numbers and EVE is already doing it right now at 500k.
I only brought up sandbox because the same argument is leveled at it and it's just as much rubbish as the original claim in this thread.
What kind of numbers or subs would be needed to sustain a game with either focus? I think there is enough demand to hit half a million on either front with a quality game. There's enough evidence to support that by looking at multiple current MMOs. Saying it's not possible or not true is just plain old false.
Forget the sandbox thing, that comment was directed at another thread.
The number of subscribers depends on the development resources spent on a game. The more resources spent, the more subscribers needed. This topic is about "big budget" games though.
People keep saying that there hasn't been an OWPvP AAA game or a Sandbox AAA game to prove the point, but it's not necessary. Age of Conan was known to have issues before it released. That didn't stop nearly a million people from signing up. Warhammer Online was kind of the same way. Issues were advertised, complaints were posted, but it didn't matter. People bought the game anyway.
Compare this to Mortal Online or Darkfall. People did not adopt those games the same way they adopted other games. Yes, they had issues, but so has every other MMORPG that has ever released. It doesn't matter because people will buy into a game based on the idea of the game rather than the reality of the game.
We know that people are interested in the idea of PvP too. Even hard core PvP because between Rust and DayZ, a couple to several million people have bought into it. Throw "sandbox" into that mix too. We know people like the idea of sandboxes because of the success of Minecraft, but most Minecraft players are on private servers or playing in single player. This is not an indicator that MMORPGs should be like Minecraft.
Where is the problem then? I think it's at the point where the game world becomes persistent. At that point, players become much less interested in OW PvP, especially with hard core rules. Feelings get hurt, joy is not had, etc. I think this is especially true for sandbox games because with the idea of sandbox and building up a bunch of stuff is the idea of losing all that stuff, and not having a "reset" button built into the game. The world is persistent, which means the loss is persistent too.
Sustaining a big budget OW PvP MMORPG has already been done. Half of all WoW's avatars are on PvP servers. AoC's PvP server is very popular. There seems to be far less interest in an MMORPG that only provides OW PvP. If players can choose between playing with PvP and playing with PvP flags, then they are more likely to try a game, and more likely to try the PvP side of things. Games that only offer one option are less popular, and probably always will be.
So the answer is that a game needs however many players it takes to support the game, pay back the investors and show the kind of profits that people expect. So far, it doesn't look like games focused on OW PvP in a persistent setting are going to offer the kind of financial performance that will attract the "big budget" investors or developers.
**
Concerning Eve; it is exceptional in many ways. Not the least of which is that it is self funded. The idea of the game has grown over time, but like many other games, it is an exception. Very few developers, unless they are working out of their basement, have twelve years to make a game actually work, and become popular. Very few developers are going to be self funded and able to build something the scope of Eve Online. Eve's players certainly show interest in Eve, but does that mean they are interested in OW PvP, Science Fiction, Spreadsheets or scamming people? Eve also has a very large number of players firmly holed up in HiSec space. They aren't participating in OW PvP. Many of them don't like it, especially when a corporation decides they are going to kill all the peaceful miners (does anyone else remember that?). Eve is fairly unique, that's why I'm talking about it down here.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The stupid generalizations against people who enjoy open world pvp are making my brain hurt.
EDIT: You know what'd really funny? PVE players keep saying that sandbox doesn't mean owpvp, which is completly true. I just don't necesarily know how a completly pve sandbox world work.
But to the point, it's funny seeing players assuming open world pvp means gank-fest, as if they don't realize it can be ffa or faction based, criminal system in or out, with or without safe zones, and more importantly, it doesn't mean forced pvp. Wheter or not players can opt in or out is up to the games mechanics.
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
There is a big difference between "a demand" and the kind of demand being implied in this thread.
Also, this is an example of what I was talking about with the OP's lack of internal consistency. Presumably we're discussing PvP, but now it's all about sandboxes and I feel sure that there's going to be an "OW PvP = Sandbox" post or discussion.
Well let's talk numbers then. How about a million? Even half a million is still really good for sustaining a triple A title. I'm sure a game in the future with open world pvp as it's main focus could hit those numbers and EVE is already doing it right now at 500k.
I only brought up sandbox because the same argument is leveled at it and it's just as much rubbish as the original claim in this thread.
What kind of numbers or subs would be needed to sustain a game with either focus? I think there is enough demand to hit half a million on either front with a quality game. There's enough evidence to support that by looking at multiple current MMOs. Saying it's not possible or not true is just plain old false.
Forget the sandbox thing, that comment was directed at another thread.
The number of subscribers depends on the development resources spent on a game. The more resources spent, the more subscribers needed. This topic is about "big budget" games though.
People keep saying that there hasn't been an OWPvP AAA game or a Sandbox AAA game to prove the point, but it's not necessary. Age of Conan was known to have issues before it released. That didn't stop nearly a million people from signing up. Warhammer Online was kind of the same way. Issues were advertised, complaints were posted, but it didn't matter. People bought the game anyway.
Compare this to Mortal Online or Darkfall. People did not adopt those games the same way they adopted other games. Yes, they had issues, but so has every other MMORPG that has ever released. It doesn't matter because people will buy into a game based on the idea of the game rather than the reality of the game.
We know that people are interested in the idea of PvP too. Even hard core PvP because between Rust and DayZ, a couple to several million people have bought into it. Throw "sandbox" into that mix too. We know people like the idea of sandboxes because of the success of Minecraft, but most Minecraft players are on private servers or playing in single player. This is not an indicator that MMORPGs should be like Minecraft.
Where is the problem then? I think it's at the point where the game world becomes persistent. At that point, players become much less interested in OW PvP, especially with hard core rules. Feelings get hurt, joy is not had, etc. I think this is especially true for sandbox games because with the idea of sandbox and building up a bunch of stuff is the idea of losing all that stuff, and not having a "reset" button built into the game. The world is persistent, which means the loss is persistent too.
Sustaining a big budget OW PvP MMORPG has already been done. Half of all WoW's avatars are on PvP servers. AoC's PvP server is very popular. There seems to be far less interest in an MMORPG that only provides OW PvP. If players can choose between playing with PvP and playing with PvP flags, then they are more likely to try a game, and more likely to try the PvP side of things. Games that only offer one option are less popular, and probably always will be.
So the answer is that a game needs however many players it takes to support the game, pay back the investors and show the kind of profits that people expect. So far, it doesn't look like games focused on OW PvP in a persistent setting are going to offer the kind of financial performance that will attract the "big budget" investors or developers.
**
Concerning Eve; it is exceptional in many ways. Not the least of which is that it is self funded. The idea of the game has grown over time, but like many other games, it is an exception. Very few developers, unless they are working out of their basement, have twelve years to make a game actually work, and become popular. Very few developers are going to be self funded and able to build something the scope of Eve Online. Eve's players certainly show interest in Eve, but does that mean they are interested in OW PvP, Science Fiction, Spreadsheets or scamming people? Eve also has a very large number of players firmly holed up in HiSec space. They aren't participating in OW PvP. Many of them don't like it, especially when a corporation decides they are going to kill all the peaceful miners (does anyone else remember that?). Eve is fairly unique, that's why I'm talking about it down here.
You can not simply compare a failed AAA to a an indie game in hype or empty purchases. The MMORPG industry simply has not supported indie games in opening day purchases with any type of MMORPG. Age of Conan may have issues but its playablity and polish are on another level compared to any of those indie MMORPGs. Not to mention the marketing.
Comments
Aha... now you've identified the real problem... why are people using PVP or any other method for that matter, to advance their character? Therein lies the problem. You get to max whatever, then what? MMOs are not supposed to be about the destination, they're supposed to be about the journey. The journey is not supposed to end. It's a world... not a stepping stone to something else. If you intend to turn open world PVP or any PVP for that matter into a gear grind, you've defeated the point of playing against other players. Might as well be on a hamster wheel... because that is all you are really doing.
The game is fun if you can go out into the world and find a challenge or amusement in being out in the open world. You take over a town, or a flight path, or whatever. Others show up to try and recover it. More show up. The "fun" escalates. Reading a book in game (i.e. lore) is not playing a game, it's reading a book. Gathering up 10 rats in game (i.e. questing) is not playing the game, it's doing dailies. Exploration... ditto. These are all things that you do while you wait for an opportunity for some fun or make some fun for yourself.
You're out in the world trying to get to the top of some peak... someone comes along and attacks you... keeps you from getting to the top of the peak. A battle ensues. Far more entertaining than if you merely walked up to the top and checked it off some bucket list you have. Far greater achievement too. An opportunity for a tale too. "I remember when I was trying too get to this peak and some bloke tried to kill me. We ended up killing each other several times. In the end, I forgot that I was even trying to get up to the peak. Was good times."
The game is not what the developers created for you, the game is what you create of the world while you are in it.
Someone would have to be an utter buffoon, completely inept and have zero knowledge of MMOs to even try fielding the notion that there isn't a massive demand for open world pvp. This is like the simple minded people who try to say that there is no demand for sandbox when Minecraft has sold over 20 million copies on PC alone.
It's uninformed, uneducated, clueless drivel to state that there are not enough pvpers to sustain a single game when literally dozens have already been mentioned in this thread.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/the simple mindedness is to assume the success of a lego-type building game is indication of demand for a sandbox MMO.
Are you trying to say there isn't a demand?
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I think what matters is if people are having fun, that's what makes a good game and with a large playerbase.
When I say fun that is fun for everyone including people with a shitty PC, over 100 ping and with a limit among of free time to play the game.
ASROCK Z97 E-ITX
Intel i7 4790k @ 4.5Ghz+KrakenX41
Gigabyte 1070 8GB Mini OC
16GB Crucial 1333mhz 1.3V
SWG 8 Year Vet, WW2OL 8 Year Vet.
Aka Darksparrow Rancorheart(tempest/farstar), Fxmkorp
There is a big difference between "a demand" and the kind of demand being implied in this thread.
Also, this is an example of what I was talking about with the OP's lack of internal consistency. Presumably we're discussing PvP, but now it's all about sandboxes and I feel sure that there's going to be an "OW PvP = Sandbox" post or discussion.
**
Oops, wrong thread with the colored part.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The thing is how to make the pvp people levelup in a pvp mmo? That is the question.
You can't have them bg or arena all the time else it is not a mmo. If it is world pvp with no restriction, people will be douch bags by killing lower levels all the time so another fail there because newbies in the game will quit before reaching a good level to fight on there own. And it does not get popular like a themepark mmo's. So it is better for the devs to put there money in themeparks or similar mmo's then to go in the mmofps or mmofps real world sims.
There is some very good real world mmofps sims out there by the way. The best currently is Arma 3. If it is your thing you should give it a try. You won't regret it. Just google the game name and watch some vids.
Hmm I am afraid you will need to be more specific here. Two words won't suffice to make an argument.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
What we are saying is that, the jury is out on whether a game can possibly be created that will satisfy that demand.
And the general consensus is no. Simple as that. If you want reasons, then go back and look at the thousands of these threads that have come before.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Well let's talk numbers then. How about a million? Even half a million is still really good for sustaining a triple A title. I'm sure a game in the future with open world pvp as it's main focus could hit those numbers and EVE is already doing it right now at 500k.
I only brought up sandbox because the same argument is leveled at it and it's just as much rubbish as the original claim in this thread.
What kind of numbers or subs would be needed to sustain a game with either focus? I think there is enough demand to hit half a million on either front with a quality game. There's enough evidence to support that by looking at multiple current MMOs. Saying it's not possible or not true is just plain old false.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/OP is asking about open world pvp. "PvP Lovers" and "Open World PvP lovers" are two different things. I like PvP too, but only when it is instanced. I love BG / Arena style PvP. Lots of players love that too. But open world pvp is a different thing..
Open world PvP is ganking, nothing else. You may like it. I don't. Majority of players don't like it too because it always turns into a gankfest. No sane person can like that.
If some developer understands that sandbox doesn't mean open world pvp and designes a pve sandbox.. That would be a hit. But.. this deserves another thread to discuss.
Stages of a new mmo: 1) It's just beta. It still has plenty of time before release. 2) It just launched. Give it time. WoW wasn't built in a day. 3) We don't need you anyway. 4) F2P announced. 5)Huge influx of players. 6) Look how much has changed. 7) Cash shop is the only thing developed lately. 8) It has been a long journey and we thank everyone who was part of it. Shutting down in 3 months. (Courtesy of Robokapp.)
Can we get some specifics. What type of open world PvP is this. Is it in the whole game or only in some zones or in a battleground like what GW 2 has . Is it consensual or flagged does it have looting or FFA .
There are a lot of games with open world PvP in restricted zones even ESO has it in Cyrodiil. So we need you to be more specific.
Its not about numbers, it is about where are those numbers? Sure you can say there are 500 k people playing EVE but what does that mean? It simply means that there are 500 k people playing EVE. It doesn't mean that 500 k would automatically sign up for the next EVE.
Even the themepark games are having trouble maintaining players past the say, one year mark IMO. Which is why we see so many F2P converts early on. It is a fickle market with lots of competition out there. Its going to be a tough sell to investors when there has been little evidence of support for these type of games to date.
I have said here before that PvP advocates are going to have to get out and support some of these games even if they find the game less than their liking. If the group you say is so large, keeps rejecting every game that is thrown their way , then how long do you expect devs to keep trying?
It is their ass that is on the line, not yours!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
All the "OW" MMMORPGs released so far have been plagued with plaethora of problems and they never managed to really recover. I mostly blame the fact that they are done by smaller companies that are blocked by limited finances, limited vision, and/or simply loose their zeal after release, which are almost as a rule - always way too buggy than what masses are willing to tolerate.
EvE while not being exactly OW is on the other hand very OW and shows very good how it needs to be done. On top of it they started small but never lost their zeal - they kept at it and over time made a very small niche into a big and successful game!
The next game company that does what EvE has done but in a fantasy 3D setting will be at least as tripple as popular as EvE is atm.
At the same time we need to realise it is not easy as we are still rather limited with our current available technology.
Oh and one more very important thing. People need to realise MMORPGs don't need to, and shouldn't exclude PvE and PvP. A real OW MMORPG that wants success definitely doesn't exclude neither PvE or PvP from it's world but instead looks for ways to synergize both into a working entirety!
The problem you always run into, and why I feel they'll never really make a seriously successful OW-PvP AAA game, is the PvP community tends to be extremely toxic. Competitive nature aside, the non-stop grief-fest that every OW-PvP game seems to devolve into is anathema to the casual crowd which is where the real money comes from.
I definitely agree with a few posters here: PvP should be the means to fun, not a means to end someone else's fun. That simple. Until you can even the playing field without restricting the OW end of the PvP game, you'll never get the casuals to play and therefore the money will never be there to make the game happen. Why bother playing when all you're going to do is die an annoying death? By extension, why pay to do so? Just not gonna happen for long.
That's something that I feel Planetside 2 actually did pretty well. ANYONE can drop in and be effective. Anyone. You may not be good, but you're certainly not useless. You've got potential to kill anyone you see, all ya gotta do is be able to hit the broad side of a barn with a banjo from the inside. You put that into, say, a fantasy setting? Yeah, that I'd probably play. I'd think a lot of casuals would as well, which would bring the numbers needed to a OW PvP game. You'd inevitably have the hardcore guys who were better than them, but you'd also have enough people to group up and beat the high-skill guys with numbers. You'd have enough people to make the politics matter, provided that was a thing, and you'd have the money to keep content updates coming in smoothly. Zergfest? Maybe. Fun? Certainly.
Part of the population issue is that pvp means for every winner there will be another player loosing the fight. Sooner or later the less skilled players will reduce game time or quit. This results in new winners and loosers and the cycle begins again. At the end the active population that is willing to stay has become too small. Its even worse once ganking or griefing is getting a foothold as it introduces players that actualy have the goal to drive players away from the game.
If you ask me about the possible amount of pvp'ers i would say yes there are enough for a game at launch but the very nature of the owpvp itself will lead to a massive reduction making it unlikely to support a big budget game for a decent period of time.
There are more than enough people to sustain open world pvp in mmos. The problem is that open world pvp has an inevitably high rate of failure the way its been currently developed. Im not a pvp fan but from all sorts of pvp the OW pvp is the one i prefer because im still out there in the world doing my PvE stuff with the risk of pvp encounters.
With that said, i dont know what can be done to fix open world pvp but at this point is completely useless because you dont take risks anymore when leveling out there. You dont randomly enounter people close to your level that are doing the same things as you in the same area that could get you in a fight over a resource or just based on lore, to fight the enemy. Instead all you find now is high level gankers in low level areas ruining everyone's experience. That's just what happens in open world pvp now.
There has to be some way to fix that problem while keeping the risk vs reward in place in the open world pvp. I dont think there is a way.
Here's the fundamental problem with OW PvP in *most* MMOs:
Leveling to cap and/or to effective max (if it's skill based or horizontal in some way)takes, what? 3 weeks+?
OW PvP MMOs are asking people, to spend 3 weeks+ of their time, being ganked without ability to fight back for that entire time.
Why should I, someone who enjoys PvP, voluntarily spend my free time being fodder with the only the hope that I may enjoy the game a month later, while I can instead log in to any MOBA and get my PvP fix without spending a month with someone virtually teabagging me for hours at a time?
There's no incentive to play something like that. If you strip the progression from it (be it vertical or horizontal) then it's not much of an RPG so it won't attract people who like MMORPGs. If people just want arena/BG type PvP, that's everywhere and readily available. So what is OW PvP offering us?
Saying that an OWPVP game can not work because of 'gankers' is like saying that no FPS game could ever have friendly fire because people would just kill their own teams.
Which is bullshit btw, I play plenty of games that have friendly fire (RO2, M&B). Is it because I like to kill my whole team? No... it is because it adds an additional strategic and tactical value to the game when you have to actually think about who you are shooting at instead of just shooting at everything that moves.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
Compared to lets say a large region or continent for pvp? The answer is more victims. Open world has players that did not want choose to pvp or at least would avoid it for a moment.
I know that point isn't everything. An open world can offer some adventures for players that go into enemy territory(solo or small grp and no level advantage) but usualy far outnumbered by thoose players that don't seek the adventure but the easy victory.
Forget the sandbox thing, that comment was directed at another thread.
The number of subscribers depends on the development resources spent on a game. The more resources spent, the more subscribers needed. This topic is about "big budget" games though.
People keep saying that there hasn't been an OWPvP AAA game or a Sandbox AAA game to prove the point, but it's not necessary. Age of Conan was known to have issues before it released. That didn't stop nearly a million people from signing up. Warhammer Online was kind of the same way. Issues were advertised, complaints were posted, but it didn't matter. People bought the game anyway.
Compare this to Mortal Online or Darkfall. People did not adopt those games the same way they adopted other games. Yes, they had issues, but so has every other MMORPG that has ever released. It doesn't matter because people will buy into a game based on the idea of the game rather than the reality of the game.
We know that people are interested in the idea of PvP too. Even hard core PvP because between Rust and DayZ, a couple to several million people have bought into it. Throw "sandbox" into that mix too. We know people like the idea of sandboxes because of the success of Minecraft, but most Minecraft players are on private servers or playing in single player. This is not an indicator that MMORPGs should be like Minecraft.
Where is the problem then? I think it's at the point where the game world becomes persistent. At that point, players become much less interested in OW PvP, especially with hard core rules. Feelings get hurt, joy is not had, etc. I think this is especially true for sandbox games because with the idea of sandbox and building up a bunch of stuff is the idea of losing all that stuff, and not having a "reset" button built into the game. The world is persistent, which means the loss is persistent too.
Sustaining a big budget OW PvP MMORPG has already been done. Half of all WoW's avatars are on PvP servers. AoC's PvP server is very popular. There seems to be far less interest in an MMORPG that only provides OW PvP. If players can choose between playing with PvP and playing with PvP flags, then they are more likely to try a game, and more likely to try the PvP side of things. Games that only offer one option are less popular, and probably always will be.
So the answer is that a game needs however many players it takes to support the game, pay back the investors and show the kind of profits that people expect. So far, it doesn't look like games focused on OW PvP in a persistent setting are going to offer the kind of financial performance that will attract the "big budget" investors or developers.
**
Concerning Eve; it is exceptional in many ways. Not the least of which is that it is self funded. The idea of the game has grown over time, but like many other games, it is an exception. Very few developers, unless they are working out of their basement, have twelve years to make a game actually work, and become popular. Very few developers are going to be self funded and able to build something the scope of Eve Online. Eve's players certainly show interest in Eve, but does that mean they are interested in OW PvP, Science Fiction, Spreadsheets or scamming people? Eve also has a very large number of players firmly holed up in HiSec space. They aren't participating in OW PvP. Many of them don't like it, especially when a corporation decides they are going to kill all the peaceful miners (does anyone else remember that?). Eve is fairly unique, that's why I'm talking about it down here.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In this case they do as your "argument" was nothing but baseless assumption...false assumption.
The stupid generalizations against people who enjoy open world pvp are making my brain hurt.
EDIT: You know what'd really funny? PVE players keep saying that sandbox doesn't mean owpvp, which is completly true. I just don't necesarily know how a completly pve sandbox world work.
But to the point, it's funny seeing players assuming open world pvp means gank-fest, as if they don't realize it can be ffa or faction based, criminal system in or out, with or without safe zones, and more importantly, it doesn't mean forced pvp. Wheter or not players can opt in or out is up to the games mechanics.
You can not simply compare a failed AAA to a an indie game in hype or empty purchases. The MMORPG industry simply has not supported indie games in opening day purchases with any type of MMORPG. Age of Conan may have issues but its playablity and polish are on another level compared to any of those indie MMORPGs. Not to mention the marketing.