What a lot of western people don`t understand and also aren`t used to in an mmo. is that Archeage requires being in a group to be safe. its so simple. the more people you level with, the better time you will have. if you play solo you are asking to be taken advantage of.
i leveled with 2 other people (i leveled as primeval) archer/shadow/aura, we had 0 trouble leveling and when we did get into fights it was vs other groups so it made for awesome back and forth PvP.
The problem with FFA PvP/PK is the change mentality of gamers and the shear lack of respect and honor.
I remember playing L2 many years back and often getting PK'ed by higher level players just for the laughs. I'd respawn, run back to the levelling spot and the player would move on and let me continue whatever I was doing.
Nowdays when higher level player PKs you he/she will stand next to your corpse/spot and wait for you to come back to kill you again. It's this nolife activity that has completely ruined the whole FFA system.
This is why we need restrictions, penalties and other kinds of measures to prevent harrassing or simply trolling players in such FFA scenarios.
Your problem is expecting the majority to work in a rational and reasonable manner.
The best Open World PvP I ever saw was the one used in SWG where people had Open World PvP including attacking each others fortifications with a opt in or out flag.
Some people kept it always active and some had it forced active (Jedi) but basically PvP was a lot of fun and people who wanted to just enjoy the game without PvP could do so.
I agree with you completely. SWG had the best system that catered to all types of people. Want to craft in peace without the possibility of being ganked? No problem. Want to level your character's skills in peace without the possibility of being ganked? No problem. Want to explore the worlds and kill mobs without the possibility of being ganked? No problem.
One still had to flag himself for PvP to do faction missions but that only makes sense if you're working for the Rebellion or the Empire. The worlds and places to do faction missions were so vast that even someone who didn't want to PvP could easily not be detected as being flagged for PvP. This made going to remote locations to find those hoping to to do faction missions undetected fun if you know what I mean.
Would you like to assist your faction members who are PvP'ing by healing them or something but you don't want to PvP? Too darn bad. If you take assist your faction in the Galactic Civil War you're automatically flagged for PvP. No staying on the porch even though you're trying to play in the yard.
Want to kill Rebel scum players who also want to smash your Empirical face? No problem. Would you like to get huge PvP battles on and kill each other all night long like Lionel Richie? No problem.
This is a good post on the part of the OP, who is trying to find solutions to the problems that we share.
My thought on open world PvP, with or without full looting, is that it requires a kind of player we haven't seen in a long time: a kind of player who puts the integrity of the game first, even when it means giving up some kind of advantage. And, honestly, both so-called "gankers" and so-called "carebears" are guilty of not adhering to this principle. Both sides, I say, need to stop that kind of foot-stamping towards different play styles and different ways to have fun, if we are ever going to get something more interesting than WoW to play. Instead, we ought to figure out what each side wants, and what each side is willing to do to get what we all want.
So, my question is, what are so-called "gankers" willing to submit to in order to have open-world PvP? Are they willing to adhere to roleplaying conventions (OOC and IC protocols)? Are they willing to submit to item decay? Are they willing to submit to full travel? Are they willing to submit to the suspension of disbelief and the lore? Are they willing to refrain from alt buffers and bots? Are they willing to submit to an open-guild policy, where the vetting is based on RP considerations, and not other things (TS/vent use? Statistical proficiency in class, etc.?) If not, then there's really no "carrot" for other playstyles, who are trying to justify why they should submit to the "stick" of ganking.
What is offered here by jonrd463--and I applaud him for it--is a call for us to find a way to make FFA PvP work again. However, in my experience, this can't be accomplished through game mechanics or design features. This can ONLY be accomplished if we can regain, and foster within ourselves, some of that inner discipline and inner responsibility to make the game work for all.
We have to take responsibility for the integrity of the game, and not just take responsibility for the power of our "toons," clans and guilds.
You hit the nail on the head. A lot of the problem stems from the lack of respect for the RPG part of the MMORPG. I don't care what flavor of RP a person is into, teabagging the body of a victim while spamming "#rekt" in general chat are in no way, shape, or form in keeping with a character in a fictional universe.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Games are entertainment products. If people are not having fun, they complain. Games are not supposed to be worlds, not to mentioned realistic ones.
Not true.
Some games are meant to be worlds. The problem is when these types of game are played by people that only see them as entertainment products. When a game is design to be a living world it need people to play it as such. But when people treat it just like a game it is ruined.
The main problem I see with most MMO's today is that they are designed to be entertainment products rather then worlds which means they feel fake, lifeless, and bland. And people that accept fake, lifeless and bland worlds are paying for them.
I would go so far as to state that designers have the best intentions when designing MMO's to make them feel as real as possible and like a 'real world' but because they are also a business are hampered in doing so. Given freedom I would bet on most designers would try and get as realistic as resources could allow.
The problem then would be getting people to play the game as a real world simulation rather then as they do now, some throwaway 5 minutes piece of entertainment where they don't have to have any responsibility or care for others.
Both points are true. Some games are meant to be worlds, but for the purposes of entertainment. Always for the purposes of entertainment. If it were just to live in a world, period, I would submit the person with that perspective might want to consider counseling to find out just what the root of his disassociation with real life is.
But regarding that world, it needs balance. As I said in the OP, there is always room for PK, and always room for carebears. You just can't convince many of the players that there's also a time and place, instead of the Pavlovian reflex of "ENEMY SIDE! KILL!"
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Don't like FFA PvP, don't play the games (few) that have it, there is plenty of other options to play.
Well, yes, that's exactly what people have done. The reason OW PvPers continue to cry is because those players did in fact find something else to play. Which put the OW PvPers in a place where very few games cater to them and so they're upset that more people don't want that playstyle.
What they want are victims. They don't actually want to cater to "carebears" as the ignorant call them, they want people who aren't looking to pvp at all times so they have someone to gank.
Notice the massive popularity of PvP games. LoL, Dota2, SC2, FPS games. Who do you think is playing those games? Yeah, many many "carebears". The truth is, most of us love PvP and we engage in it regularly. But the vast majority have repeatedly made it clear (by voting with their wallets) that they don't want "PvP" that involves lopsided encounters.
Tell that to DayZ/Arma, Planetside 2, and even GW2's WVW and ESO's Cyrodiil.
"But those aren't open world pvp, so it doesn't matter because of reasons".
The thing with those games is that players can opt in, and out in a way. OWPVP is simply pvp that happens without being zoned off the world in the traditional RVR/BG. We just don't have any that does it. Again, it doens't mean forced, it's a matter of game design. It's like saying owpvp can't be faction based and must be FFA.
As for the whole victim mentality, there lies the issue. Players look at being ganked, not even griefing, as some horrible experience they can't deal with, when it's just, again, a bunch of pixels.
Seriosuly, if players get "ganked", aka killed, by a bunch of mobs they're cool with it, but if a single players pk's them one single time, a sh**storm starts. I just don' get why.
Killed in context is one thing. A player decides to run a trade route through dangerous territory knows he's taking a risk. A player tending to his garden who is suddenly attacked by a zerg of PKers saying crap like "Look at this scrub!" is a whole other deal.
Mobs are a known risk that are relatively easy to work around. The same unpredictability of human players that makes faction v. faction engagements so fun also, by default, gives the PKer an advantage over someone who isn't out to start a fight.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Don't like FFA PvP, don't play the games (few) that have it, there is plenty of other options to play.
Well, yes, that's exactly what people have done. The reason OW PvPers continue to cry is because those players did in fact find something else to play. Which put the OW PvPers in a place where very few games cater to them and so they're upset that more people don't want that playstyle.
What they want are victims. They don't actually want to cater to "carebears" as the ignorant call them, they want people who aren't looking to pvp at all times so they have someone to gank.
Notice the massive popularity of PvP games. LoL, Dota2, SC2, FPS games. Who do you think is playing those games? Yeah, many many "carebears". The truth is, most of us love PvP and we engage in it regularly. But the vast majority have repeatedly made it clear (by voting with their wallets) that they don't want "PvP" that involves lopsided encounters.
Tell that to DayZ/Arma, Planetside 2, and even GW2's WVW and ESO's Cyrodiil.
"But those aren't open world pvp, so it doesn't matter because of reasons".
The thing with those games is that players can opt in, and out in a way. OWPVP is simply pvp that happens without being zoned off the world in the traditional RVR/BG. We just don't have any that does it. Again, it doens't mean forced, it's a matter of game design. It's like saying owpvp can't be faction based and must be FFA.
As for the whole victim mentality, there lies the issue. Players look at being ganked, not even griefing, as some horrible experience they can't deal with, when it's just, again, a bunch of pixels.
Seriosuly, if players get "ganked", aka killed, by a bunch of mobs they're cool with it, but if a single players pk's them one single time, a sh**storm starts. I just don' get why.
Killed in context is one thing. A player decides to run a trade route through dangerous territory knows he's taking a risk. A player tending to his garden who is suddenly attacked by a zerg of PKers saying crap like "Look at this scrub!" is a whole other deal.
Mobs are a known risk that are relatively easy to work around. The same unpredictability of human players that makes faction v. faction engagements so fun also, by default, gives the PKer an advantage over someone who isn't out to start a fight.
A player that tends to his garden in a pvp zone or during war time must know getting PK'ed is a possibility therefore, no sympathy is given to poor decision making.
Players that make comments like "Look at this scrub" while engaging in a 4v1 is expected because they are cowards who would otherwise keep their mouths shut if the situation warranted an opportunity to lose.
A player that isn't looking for a fight must take the necessary precautions to avoid the fights instead of putting themselves in confrontational situation and wishing and hoping NOT to be engaged ... it doesn't work like that.
You are referring to a context where pve players are playing in an open pvp zone - that's a moot point, that's obvious. The issue is that the majority of pve players do not want to play on such games (and don't). But pvp players think that open pvp zones should be more popular - they are not. It's a niche and open pvp players need to face facts.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
A player that tends to his garden in a pvp zone or during war time must know getting PK'ed is a possibility therefore, no sympathy is given to poor decision making.
Players that make comments like "Look at this scrub" while engaging in a 4v1 is expected because they are cowards who would otherwise keep their mouths shut if the situation warranted an opportunity to lose.
A player that isn't looking for a fight must take the necessary precautions to avoid the fights instead of putting themselves in confrontational situation and wishing and hoping NOT to be engaged ... it doesn't work like that.
Exactly. The gardener made the poor decision of playing the game in the first place. If he/she wants to tend to a garden in peace, he/she should find a sandbox game without non-consensual PvP and play that instead. Non-consensual PvP games are designed specifically for gankers and people who do not like that playstyle should play other games.
Yup exactly, I don't actually understand what the problem is, open world pvp go to eve, archage etc. if you don't want open world pvp don't okay those games. Can't gave it both ways ( and that applies to both carebears and gankmonkeys)
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
A player that tends to his garden in a pvp zone or during war time must know getting PK'ed is a possibility therefore, no sympathy is given to poor decision making.
Players that make comments like "Look at this scrub" while engaging in a 4v1 is expected because they are cowards who would otherwise keep their mouths shut if the situation warranted an opportunity to lose.
A player that isn't looking for a fight must take the necessary precautions to avoid the fights instead of putting themselves in confrontational situation and wishing and hoping NOT to be engaged ... it doesn't work like that.
Exactly. The gardener made the poor decision of playing the game in the first place. If he/she wants to tend to a garden in peace, he/she should find a sandbox game without non-consensual PvP and play that instead. Non-consensual PvP games are designed specifically for gankers and people who do not like that playstyle should play other games.
So you're saying that if a game offered gardening as a viable leveling class or tradeskill, people shouldn't play it?
And to General-Zod (kickass name, btw), what if the game is open PVP with no safe zones? Is a player expected to build a fortress just to protect a small patch of land or that griefers should be able to raze that land with impunity?
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
I'm surprised no one's commented on the idea of permadeath as an ultimate punishment for bad in-game behavior. As the discussion has unfolded, it seems to have focused on the idea of player behavior being the reason why things are the way they are, but what if the game had a system that acted somewhat as an advocate for the griefed player?
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Being an honorable player puts me at a serious disadvantage in every PvP game I've played since City of Heroes put in PvP zones way back when. At one point, unscrupulous tactics would get you shunned by the game community until noone would touch you with a 10 foot pole. Now, it's standard fare and until that gets fixed, OW PvP is dead to me.
Drop twitch reflex gameplay for something that actually requires a brain. Fix the idiotically caustic community that inevitably crops up in every OW PvP game I've played for a good long while now. Get a handle on character development: Characters should be important, not what gear you're carrying. Address these issues in a game, then we can talk about good PvP.
Games are entertainment products. If people are not having fun, they complain. Games are not supposed to be worlds, not to mentioned realistic ones.
Not true.
Some games are meant to be worlds. The problem is when these types of game are played by people that only see them as entertainment products. When a game is design to be a living world it need people to play it as such. But when people treat it just like a game it is ruined.
The main problem I see with most MMO's today is that they are designed to be entertainment products rather then worlds which means they feel fake, lifeless, and bland. And people that accept fake, lifeless and bland worlds are paying for them.
I would go so far as to state that designers have the best intentions when designing MMO's to make them feel as real as possible and like a 'real world' but because they are also a business are hampered in doing so. Given freedom I would bet on most designers would try and get as realistic as resources could allow.
The problem then would be getting people to play the game as a real world simulation rather then as they do now, some throwaway 5 minutes piece of entertainment where they don't have to have any responsibility or care for others.
You just made my point in saying "played by people only see them as entertianment product". It is up to the individual customers to decide what they are, not you.
and even if the devs "want" the game to be a world, so what? Players can use entertainment products as they see fit. And if devs dont make sth they like, they go away.
And i dont see a problem except you dont like it .. Which is your problem, not mine, not the devs'
Originally posted by jonrd463 I'm surprised no one's commented on the idea of permadeath as an ultimate punishment for bad in-game behavior. As the discussion has unfolded, it seems to have focused on the idea of player behavior being the reason why things are the way they are, but what if the game had a system that acted somewhat as an advocate for the griefed player?
Because such a game will have no market? The only successful pd game is d3, and only because pd is an option.
Originally posted by Bladestrom You are referring to a context where pve players are playing in an open pvp zone - that's a moot point, that's obvious. The issue is that the majority of pve players do not want to play on such games (and don't). But pvp players think that open pvp zones should be more popular - they are not. It's a niche and open pvp players need to face facts.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar And they do. And then others come to the board wondering why almost all ffa owpvp games are small and niche.
No No No
I know games like these are niche... Everybody understands this.
I'm a legitimate pvp'er that enjoys a good fight and challenge and there is no enjoyment of killing low level players or gardeners period.
I doesn't matter if games are seeming with players if they are just there to grow crops and fight scripts.
Only way Permadeath would work is if characters are cheap and disposable, which the permadeath'd player would just create a new one and start right back up to what they were doing. Which, ultimately, would defeat the purpose.
I don't really think there's any new discussion taking place here, and people who've been championing or attempting to debunk OW PvP since the beginning of the conversation (almost fifteen years ago) have read all of this many times over. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that one of the most FFA MMO's for the time, UO, could never have existed in the world we have today, in which PvE and PvP players literally had so few options for online games, they were forced to coexist with one another. In a way, that's also what made the game so successful for a time, in that the wolves of any free for all environment need sheep to prey upon, and with the changes bringing Trammel and Felucca into the mix essentially proved that the sheep don't want any part of a game world in which they cannot control their encounters with other players, but we've known all of this for a very, very long time.
If it were up to me, we'd still be coexisting, but with the freedom of choice brought by so many products to choose from, there's no reason to force the cohabitation of two generalized sects of players, who can't stand one another, into the same virtual world; instead, you can cherry pick your experience. Part of me is glad that exists, and another part of me wants to tell the open world PvP detractors to grow a thicker skin, but I know the problem is more complicated than that.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Don't like FFA PvP, don't play the games (few) that have it, there is plenty of other options to play.
Well, yes, that's exactly what people have done. The reason OW PvPers continue to cry is because those players did in fact find something else to play. Which put the OW PvPers in a place where very few games cater to them and so they're upset that more people don't want that playstyle.
What they want are victims. They don't actually want to cater to "carebears" as the ignorant call them, they want people who aren't looking to pvp at all times so they have someone to gank.
Notice the massive popularity of PvP games. LoL, Dota2, SC2, FPS games. Who do you think is playing those games? Yeah, many many "carebears". The truth is, most of us love PvP and we engage in it regularly. But the vast majority have repeatedly made it clear (by voting with their wallets) that they don't want "PvP" that involves lopsided encounters.
Tell that to DayZ/Arma, Planetside 2, and even GW2's WVW and ESO's Cyrodiil.
"But those aren't open world pvp, so it doesn't matter because of reasons".
The thing with those games is that players can opt in, and out in a way. OWPVP is simply pvp that happens without being zoned off the world in the traditional RVR/BG. We just don't have any that does it. Again, it doens't mean forced, it's a matter of game design. It's like saying owpvp can't be faction based and must be FFA.
As for the whole victim mentality, there lies the issue. Players look at being ganked, not even griefing, as some horrible experience they can't deal with, when it's just, again, a bunch of pixels.
Seriosuly, if players get "ganked", aka killed, by a bunch of mobs they're cool with it, but if a single players pk's them one single time, a sh**storm starts. I just don' get why.
I guess I'll just take my carebear victim mentality and continue to go PvP in PvP games against people who are ready to PvP and you can go "PvP" people who are a fraction of your character's power because you're super tough bro.
I was under the impression that there already are open world full-loot pvp games out. There are certainly more in development right now thanks to a lot of successful kickstarters. Isn't Star Citizen - the 47 million kickstarter success story - supposed to be open world/full loot pvp? I seem to recall sandbox full loot pvp games being all the rage on kickstarter and more than a few were successfully funded.
Plus Nosgoth, Black Desert Online, Repopulation, ArchAge, Age of Wushu, Dark Fall, etc
Playing Now: The Secret World, Guild Wars 2, Neverwinter
A player that tends to his garden in a pvp zone or during war time must know getting PK'ed is a possibility therefore, no sympathy is given to poor decision making.
Players that make comments like "Look at this scrub" while engaging in a 4v1 is expected because they are cowards who would otherwise keep their mouths shut if the situation warranted an opportunity to lose.
A player that isn't looking for a fight must take the necessary precautions to avoid the fights instead of putting themselves in confrontational situation and wishing and hoping NOT to be engaged ... it doesn't work like that.
Exactly. The gardener made the poor decision of playing the game in the first place. If he/she wants to tend to a garden in peace, he/she should find a sandbox game without non-consensual PvP and play that instead. Non-consensual PvP games are designed specifically for gankers and people who do not like that playstyle should play other games.
So you're saying that if a game offered gardening as a viable leveling class or tradeskill, people shouldn't play it?
And to General-Zod (kickass name, btw), what if the game is open PVP with no safe zones? Is a player expected to build a fortress just to protect a small patch of land or that griefers should be able to raze that land with impunity?
(forgive me for the lateness, i'm at work)
No
I believe the number one issue with owpvp games is no tangible punishment for the pk'er. Another problem is there isn't enough tools for the player to properly defend homesteads, houses or forts from attackers. Structures are so hard and time consuming to build yet so easy to tear down.
A resolution for this all depends on the design of the game...
Comments
What a lot of western people don`t understand and also aren`t used to in an mmo. is that Archeage requires being in a group to be safe. its so simple. the more people you level with, the better time you will have. if you play solo you are asking to be taken advantage of.
i leveled with 2 other people (i leveled as primeval) archer/shadow/aura, we had 0 trouble leveling and when we did get into fights it was vs other groups so it made for awesome back and forth PvP.
Make friends. Have fun. Gank everyone.
LOL!
Yeah, there is an innumerable amount situations I "don't want" to deal with...
What exactly are you saying!? We should just remove them all?
The problem with FFA PvP/PK is the change mentality of gamers and the shear lack of respect and honor.
I remember playing L2 many years back and often getting PK'ed by higher level players just for the laughs. I'd respawn, run back to the levelling spot and the player would move on and let me continue whatever I was doing.
Nowdays when higher level player PKs you he/she will stand next to your corpse/spot and wait for you to come back to kill you again. It's this nolife activity that has completely ruined the whole FFA system.
This is why we need restrictions, penalties and other kinds of measures to prevent harrassing or simply trolling players in such FFA scenarios.
I agree with you completely. SWG had the best system that catered to all types of people. Want to craft in peace without the possibility of being ganked? No problem. Want to level your character's skills in peace without the possibility of being ganked? No problem. Want to explore the worlds and kill mobs without the possibility of being ganked? No problem.
One still had to flag himself for PvP to do faction missions but that only makes sense if you're working for the Rebellion or the Empire. The worlds and places to do faction missions were so vast that even someone who didn't want to PvP could easily not be detected as being flagged for PvP. This made going to remote locations to find those hoping to to do faction missions undetected fun if you know what I mean.
Would you like to assist your faction members who are PvP'ing by healing them or something but you don't want to PvP? Too darn bad. If you take assist your faction in the Galactic Civil War you're automatically flagged for PvP. No staying on the porch even though you're trying to play in the yard.
Want to kill Rebel scum players who also want to smash your Empirical face? No problem. Would you like to get huge PvP battles on and kill each other all night long like Lionel Richie? No problem.
Such a great system. Such great memories.
You hit the nail on the head. A lot of the problem stems from the lack of respect for the RPG part of the MMORPG. I don't care what flavor of RP a person is into, teabagging the body of a victim while spamming "#rekt" in general chat are in no way, shape, or form in keeping with a character in a fictional universe.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Both points are true. Some games are meant to be worlds, but for the purposes of entertainment. Always for the purposes of entertainment. If it were just to live in a world, period, I would submit the person with that perspective might want to consider counseling to find out just what the root of his disassociation with real life is.
But regarding that world, it needs balance. As I said in the OP, there is always room for PK, and always room for carebears. You just can't convince many of the players that there's also a time and place, instead of the Pavlovian reflex of "ENEMY SIDE! KILL!"
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Killed in context is one thing. A player decides to run a trade route through dangerous territory knows he's taking a risk. A player tending to his garden who is suddenly attacked by a zerg of PKers saying crap like "Look at this scrub!" is a whole other deal.
Mobs are a known risk that are relatively easy to work around. The same unpredictability of human players that makes faction v. faction engagements so fun also, by default, gives the PKer an advantage over someone who isn't out to start a fight.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
A player that tends to his garden in a pvp zone or during war time must know getting PK'ed is a possibility therefore, no sympathy is given to poor decision making.
Players that make comments like "Look at this scrub" while engaging in a 4v1 is expected because they are cowards who would otherwise keep their mouths shut if the situation warranted an opportunity to lose.
A player that isn't looking for a fight must take the necessary precautions to avoid the fights instead of putting themselves in confrontational situation and wishing and hoping NOT to be engaged ... it doesn't work like that.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Exactly. The gardener made the poor decision of playing the game in the first place. If he/she wants to tend to a garden in peace, he/she should find a sandbox game without non-consensual PvP and play that instead. Non-consensual PvP games are designed specifically for gankers and people who do not like that playstyle should play other games.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
So you're saying that if a game offered gardening as a viable leveling class or tradeskill, people shouldn't play it?
And to General-Zod (kickass name, btw), what if the game is open PVP with no safe zones? Is a player expected to build a fortress just to protect a small patch of land or that griefers should be able to raze that land with impunity?
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Being an honorable player puts me at a serious disadvantage in every PvP game I've played since City of Heroes put in PvP zones way back when. At one point, unscrupulous tactics would get you shunned by the game community until noone would touch you with a 10 foot pole. Now, it's standard fare and until that gets fixed, OW PvP is dead to me.
Drop twitch reflex gameplay for something that actually requires a brain. Fix the idiotically caustic community that inevitably crops up in every OW PvP game I've played for a good long while now. Get a handle on character development: Characters should be important, not what gear you're carrying. Address these issues in a game, then we can talk about good PvP.
You just made my point in saying "played by people only see them as entertianment product". It is up to the individual customers to decide what they are, not you.
and even if the devs "want" the game to be a world, so what? Players can use entertainment products as they see fit. And if devs dont make sth they like, they go away.
And i dont see a problem except you dont like it .. Which is your problem, not mine, not the devs'
Because such a game will have no market? The only successful pd game is d3, and only because pd is an option.
No No No
I know games like these are niche... Everybody understands this.
I'm a legitimate pvp'er that enjoys a good fight and challenge and there is no enjoyment of killing low level players or gardeners period.
I doesn't matter if games are seeming with players if they are just there to grow crops and fight scripts.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I don't really think there's any new discussion taking place here, and people who've been championing or attempting to debunk OW PvP since the beginning of the conversation (almost fifteen years ago) have read all of this many times over. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that one of the most FFA MMO's for the time, UO, could never have existed in the world we have today, in which PvE and PvP players literally had so few options for online games, they were forced to coexist with one another. In a way, that's also what made the game so successful for a time, in that the wolves of any free for all environment need sheep to prey upon, and with the changes bringing Trammel and Felucca into the mix essentially proved that the sheep don't want any part of a game world in which they cannot control their encounters with other players, but we've known all of this for a very, very long time.
If it were up to me, we'd still be coexisting, but with the freedom of choice brought by so many products to choose from, there's no reason to force the cohabitation of two generalized sects of players, who can't stand one another, into the same virtual world; instead, you can cherry pick your experience. Part of me is glad that exists, and another part of me wants to tell the open world PvP detractors to grow a thicker skin, but I know the problem is more complicated than that.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
I was under the impression that there already are open world full-loot pvp games out. There are certainly more in development right now thanks to a lot of successful kickstarters. Isn't Star Citizen - the 47 million kickstarter success story - supposed to be open world/full loot pvp? I seem to recall sandbox full loot pvp games being all the rage on kickstarter and more than a few were successfully funded.
Plus Nosgoth, Black Desert Online, Repopulation, ArchAge, Age of Wushu, Dark Fall, etc
Playing Now: The Secret World, Guild Wars 2, Neverwinter
Playing soon: Landmark beta, Swordman beta
(forgive me for the lateness, i'm at work)
No
I believe the number one issue with owpvp games is no tangible punishment for the pk'er. Another problem is there isn't enough tools for the player to properly defend homesteads, houses or forts from attackers. Structures are so hard and time consuming to build yet so easy to tear down.
A resolution for this all depends on the design of the game...