Originally posted by mgilbrtsnSeem to be splitting hairs a bit. FFA PvP is just fine IMO
I am suggesting that game developers not call themselves FFA, and instead call themselves Player Created Factions (PCF) with friendly fire enabled, and they would get both a more accurate acronym, and a more positive response.
Which means you can attack anyone anywhere... which is what free for all means. All you are doing is describing the exact same situation with more words, and it is not a better explanation, you are literally just using more words.
Full Definition of FREE-FOR-ALL: a competition, dispute, or fight open to all comers and usually with no rules : brawl; also : a chaotic situation resembling a free-for-all especially in lacking rules or structure The reason I post this is because whenever a FFA game is mentioned on this site, there's always a poster or two posting with the misconception that FFA means they are alone and everyone will be out to kill them. This is NOT the reality in a FFA MMO. While players do have the option to attack you, many are governed by rules set in place by player etiquette. IE, DO NOT ATTACK YOUR TEAM. These players say they would never play a "Free For All" game, but are perfectly happy in a game where literally 50% of the server is designated to kill on sight based on arbitrary server rulesets. In FFA games, such as Darkfall, EvE, Albion, and Das Tal, there is clear political structure. The FFA misconception could be easily cleared up with a better definition on how these games are structured. Having friendly fire enabled does not mean the game is FFA, and you will get nowhere by playing alone in these games.
Naw. No one thinks they will be alone all the time. They do think that they can be attacked anywhere anytime whether they are alone or not. And they are right.
There is no misconception. It means you can be attacked anywhere anytime by anyone.
People do attack their own team. It happens quite frequently, by accident, on purpose, for disputes... so once again they can be attacked anywhere, anytime by anyone.
There is no misconception. You are again just using more words to describe the exact same situation.
Agreed. I have sent out dozens of surveys and pored through countless studies over the past decade or so, and I don't believe I've ever come across anything to indicate that gamers are mislead by or have a misconception about the term "FFA PVP".
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
What if no guild will take me, Lustmord? Is it FFA then? See, the problem with this kind of "guild-centric" order is that there's really no incentive for anyone to be inclusive of anyone else. Guilds are exclusive by definition, and they are under no obligation to take everyone. They are exclusive, private clubs that exist for the sake of their members. And that's really a development problem of the first rank. Because the devs have got to give the person who throws down money on the service something enjoyable. When they can't get it, because the few powerguilds who run things get picky and snooty, there's a problem that is beyond the scope of a developer to correct. You mention that these guilds enforce etiquette, but etiquette seems to encompass a lot of requirements that are, quite frankly, unrealistic...things like mandatory VOIP use, having a character built a certain way, in-depth interviews and so forth. Which makes me wonder if these FFA games you are describing are accessible to all, or merely a select few who are willing to sacrifice their autonomy just to satisfy a guild's demands. A lot of this kind of thing can be mitigated by centering PvP around NPC factions. NPC factions allow players to organize themselves, while giving players incentives to work with others who may not game the same way they do.
That's a fair argument, but there are elite guilds in every game. There are also open recruiting guilds in every game. The equalizing factor for average players against leets is to throw more bodies at them.
As for requiring VOIP, that's a weak argument. It's a requirement to play the game properly in the 21st century. That's like saying requiring you to use a Mouse in addition to your keyboard is too much to ask.
Usually, it's not the FFA that is the misnomer but rather the "PvP."
"Player vs. Player" implies that there is a competition - that both sides are participating in this conflict and that both sides have the desire to do so. That "desire" may imply a direct wish to participate in this particular fight or a wish to participate in a larger scale fight; I say this because a person in a moba match does not wish to be ganked, but does wish to participate in the larger PvP match as a whole, thus validating their current conflict.
In most "FFA PvP" MMOs, PvP is often non-consensual. At that point, it ceases to be Player VERSUS Player, and rather becomes something more along the lines of Player Griefing Player (though that is certainly not a perfect label).
Usually, it's not the FFA that is the misnomer but rather the "PvP."
"Player vs. Player" implies that there is a competition - that both sides are participating in this conflict and that both sides have the desire to do so. That "desire" may imply a direct wish to participate in this particular fight or a wish to participate in a larger scale fight; I say this because a person in a moba match does not wish to be ganked, but does wish to participate in the larger PvP match as a whole, thus validating their current conflict.
In most "FFA PvP" MMOs, PvP is often non-consensual. At that point, it ceases to be Player VERSUS Player, and rather becomes something more along the lines of Player Griefing Player (though that is certainly not a perfect label).
What he said... maybe there are some FFA players that play for real equal fights, and I'm betting most of the pro FFA posters here would like to think they're part of this group, but really aren't, but from my experience, most of them are bottomfeeders who only care about attacking less advanced characters to ruin their experience, or just because they're massive dbags.
Usually, it's not the FFA that is the misnomer but rather the "PvP."
"Player vs. Player" implies that there is a competition - that both sides are participating in this conflict and that both sides have the desire to do so. That "desire" may imply a direct wish to participate in this particular fight or a wish to participate in a larger scale fight; I say this because a person in a moba match does not wish to be ganked, but does wish to participate in the larger PvP match as a whole, thus validating their current conflict.
In most "FFA PvP" MMOs, PvP is often non-consensual. At that point, it ceases to be Player VERSUS Player, and rather becomes something more along the lines of Player Griefing Player (though that is certainly not a perfect label).
As much as i know it is non-consensual in MOBAs, too. Or with other words said.. if you join a pvp server or pvp game, be it a moba, a fps shooter, or a mmorpg, you wish "obviously" to participate in a larger scale fight.. and therefore PvP stand.
It just that some players, especially MMORPG players, do have the misconseption that when they join a pvp game/server it have to be a pve game/server.. i have to wonder if that happens in MOBAs, too?
Originally posted by Beatnik59
What if no guild will take me, Lustmord? Is it FFA then?
See, the problem with this kind of "guild-centric" order is that there's really no incentive for anyone to be inclusive of anyone else. Guilds are exclusive by definition, and they are under no obligation to take everyone. They are exclusive, private clubs that exist for the sake of their members.
And that's really a development problem of the first rank. Because the devs have got to give the person who throws down money on the service something enjoyable. When they can't get it, because the few powerguilds who run things get picky and snooty, there's a problem that is beyond the scope of a developer to correct.
You mention that these guilds enforce etiquette, but etiquette seems to encompass a lot of requirements that are, quite frankly, unrealistic...things like mandatory VOIP use, having a character built a certain way, in-depth interviews and so forth. Which makes me wonder if these FFA games you are describing are accessible to all, or merely a select few who are willing to sacrifice their autonomy just to satisfy a guild's demands.
A lot of this kind of thing can be mitigated by centering PvP around NPC factions. NPC factions allow players to organize themselves, while giving players incentives to work with others who may not game the same way they do.
A very good point i absolutely agree with.
That is most probably one of the biggest, unsolved problems of nowadays territorial control pvp games(mostly ffa).
However, to only have static NPC factions and base pvp around that, pvp obviously lose meaning, and more often than not it only becomes about flipping castles(GW2, ESO, even DAoC) without any purpose.
In my humble opinion you need both.. NPC factions and player made factions. And ideally the NPC factions should be able to be partially controlled/influenced from players(some kind of player councils, but with rather fix rulesets) and even more behaive similar to player factions, as conquering and protecting their interests and their lands.. with other words the requirement of meaningful AI, and in that case emotional/emergent AI(like Storybricks).
Imagine EvE Online, where the NPC factions actually expand their territory or fight against each other, where players can partake in the decision making of those NPC factions? But would be nevertheless open for all players and with that the starting point for all new players, for all players not willingly to invest that much time to play with those more restrictive clans and so on and so forth.
I would really like to see something like that.. hopefully it will happen at one point.
Originally posted by Lustmord For this reason, "FFA" would be a better acronym for "Friendly Fire (for) All". And is friendly fire a bad thing in a game? I would argue No. Friendly Fire rewards skill and teamwork, while punishing mistakes and poor execution.
This part caught my eye. I enjoy "Friendly Fire." I like the concept. I like the "realness" of it. In tabletop gaming, Friendly Fire was easily handled, face to face. In MMOs, that lack of face to face interaction is detrimental. It allows anonymity to shield "prick players."
It punishes the wrong players for their stupidity, in my opinion. It punishes the other players in that stupid player's group.
I do not know how it could be handled well in an MMO setting.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Friendly fire is not handled the same in all FFA PVP MMOs.
In DAOC you could never attack or damage your guild mates. In fact, you could not attack other players if they were grouped with you, even if not in your guild.
EVE on the other hand will allow you to attack your corp or alliance mates and on rare occasions when one of them pissed me off I ended up killing them. (Oops,sorry, my bad, was an accident, here let me pay for your ship...was worth it)
In high sec, you can kill your corp mates with no penalty, leads to something called awoxing on occasion, but if you attack random fleet members Concord will kill you. But in 0.0 and lowsec, you can get away with it just fine.
In EVE, today's friend can be tomorrows enemy, unlike faction based combat where your own side can't attack you no matter how much they want to.
I don't think anyone is confused, in a FFA server at almost any time someone, most anyone may try to kill you, and there is no comparison to that with faction based game design.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yeah, I don't think there is much confusion over what FFA PvP means. There may be a misunderstanding of the rules in a particular game, but not in general.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Agreed. I have sent out dozens of surveys and pored through countless studies over the past decade or so, and I don't believe I've ever come across anything to indicate that gamers are mislead by or have a misconception about the term "FFA PVP".
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That's a fair argument, but there are elite guilds in every game. There are also open recruiting guilds in every game. The equalizing factor for average players against leets is to throw more bodies at them.As for requiring VOIP, that's a weak argument. It's a requirement to play the game properly in the 21st century. That's like saying requiring you to use a Mouse in addition to your keyboard is too much to ask.
Usually, it's not the FFA that is the misnomer but rather the "PvP."
"Player vs. Player" implies that there is a competition - that both sides are participating in this conflict and that both sides have the desire to do so. That "desire" may imply a direct wish to participate in this particular fight or a wish to participate in a larger scale fight; I say this because a person in a moba match does not wish to be ganked, but does wish to participate in the larger PvP match as a whole, thus validating their current conflict.
In most "FFA PvP" MMOs, PvP is often non-consensual. At that point, it ceases to be Player VERSUS Player, and rather becomes something more along the lines of Player Griefing Player (though that is certainly not a perfect label).
What he said... maybe there are some FFA players that play for real equal fights, and I'm betting most of the pro FFA posters here would like to think they're part of this group, but really aren't, but from my experience, most of them are bottomfeeders who only care about attacking less advanced characters to ruin their experience, or just because they're massive dbags.
As much as i know it is non-consensual in MOBAs, too. Or with other words said.. if you join a pvp server or pvp game, be it a moba, a fps shooter, or a mmorpg, you wish "obviously" to participate in a larger scale fight.. and therefore PvP stand.
It just that some players, especially MMORPG players, do have the misconseption that when they join a pvp game/server it have to be a pve game/server.. i have to wonder if that happens in MOBAs, too?
A very good point i absolutely agree with.
That is most probably one of the biggest, unsolved problems of nowadays territorial control pvp games(mostly ffa).
However, to only have static NPC factions and base pvp around that, pvp obviously lose meaning, and more often than not it only becomes about flipping castles(GW2, ESO, even DAoC) without any purpose.
In my humble opinion you need both.. NPC factions and player made factions. And ideally the NPC factions should be able to be partially controlled/influenced from players(some kind of player councils, but with rather fix rulesets) and even more behaive similar to player factions, as conquering and protecting their interests and their lands.. with other words the requirement of meaningful AI, and in that case emotional/emergent AI(like Storybricks).
Imagine EvE Online, where the NPC factions actually expand their territory or fight against each other, where players can partake in the decision making of those NPC factions? But would be nevertheless open for all players and with that the starting point for all new players, for all players not willingly to invest that much time to play with those more restrictive clans and so on and so forth.
I would really like to see something like that.. hopefully it will happen at one point.
It punishes the wrong players for their stupidity, in my opinion. It punishes the other players in that stupid player's group.
I do not know how it could be handled well in an MMO setting.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
In DAOC you could never attack or damage your guild mates. In fact, you could not attack other players if they were grouped with you, even if not in your guild.
EVE on the other hand will allow you to attack your corp or alliance mates and on rare occasions when one of them pissed me off I ended up killing them. (Oops,sorry, my bad, was an accident, here let me pay for your ship...was worth it)
In high sec, you can kill your corp mates with no penalty, leads to something called awoxing on occasion, but if you attack random fleet members Concord will kill you. But in 0.0 and lowsec, you can get away with it just fine.
In EVE, today's friend can be tomorrows enemy, unlike faction based combat where your own side can't attack you no matter how much they want to.
I don't think anyone is confused, in a FFA server at almost any time someone, most anyone may try to kill you, and there is no comparison to that with faction based game design.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.