Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
PvP Gamebreakers?
Mardukk
Member RarePosts: 2,222
As a fan of Darkfall, with open world and full loot PvP, I was wondering what is the primary PvP system that is a gamebreaker for most people out there. I'm obviously asking PvP fans with this question. Open world full loot is not a popular niche of the genre and I'm wondering at which point we lose these people. Are we having more people check out at the mention of open world no looting PvP or is open world fine but looting (partial or full) is a no go?
Comments
It depend on the "loot" , if the game allow you to loot to the point where the one who lost have to quit the game then it gamebreaker.
Best is damage the equipments (no drop equipments) and drop the item on bag which are consume able + % of the gold player carry .
Of course it go with limit bag slots and big bank that allow you to keep gold .
All I know is people are cowards, and there won't be much "PvP" around if there's a chance to lose something. Its going to be mostly just ganks and zerging. The frequency of engagements drops, good engagements become extremely rare... -I just get bored. The good is not as good and the bad is just overwhelming. It's not worth it.
Or maybe I've played the wrong games, maybe nobody has done open world PvP "right" yet, maybe I'm expecting too much or something.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I like the way EVE Handles open world PvP. It works well there. And, I think there are a few reasons for that, that developers who want to look at making a game with open world PvP should take some points from. Some of those points could be:
1) The more open your PvP is. The bigger your world needs to be.
In EVE it is possible to get ganked anywhere (except inside stations...which are effectively hubs). But, the Play area is so massive. That if you do get ganked. You will likely never see that same player again. They are not going to spawn camp you. They are not likely to continually hunt you as a preferred trolling target. And, if one area doesn't seem very safe...you have an entire cluster to choose from to do similar activities in. Also, having such a large world size makes it easier for their to be player faction controlled areas, or turfs. So, some places have a higher expectancy for that kind of play then others. And someone can simply avoid those known...'bad sides of town' in order to mostly remain safe.
2) Accept that open world PvP allows for things that are normally against an MMO's Rules or Code of conduct.
It's kind of dumb for a games management to allow no end to player killing and then place a caveat on circumstances, like "well if they tricked you into following them where you could be killed, that's a no no." or "If they scammed you out of something and used the mechanics of death to do so, that's against the rules"....That simply doesn't work. If you are okay with people killing eachother as much as they want. You have to also be okay with the fact that there will be related disreputable behavior. It's a give a mouse a cookie thing. And, in EVE, Scamming (for instance) is considered 'a valid strategy'.
3) Players need to be able to easily know where is dangerous and why. They need to constantly be aware of what their current level of risk is.
This takes surprise out of the equation. Players that have a constant awareness of what they are risking and make the conscious choice to do so, don't complain as much. People get the most angry when they didn't see it coming or don't understand why or how it happened. In EVE there is a sort of hollow graphic TV in the stations quarters that broadcasts news. It shows the player systems in conflict, places where a lot of ganking has happened recently, dangerous NPC areas. Stuff they can get involved in etc. Also, every system has a security status, which lets the player know how dangerous it is to be there past a certain amount of time. Or without backup. And there are space billboards at every gate showing players the Most Wanted People. There are warnings when wanted people enter a system.
I would think that open world is by far the main problem. If there are no safe zones, and one can be attacked at any time anywhere, then few people want to play that type of game.
The most successful games with PvP are like DAOC: you willingly enter an open world PvP area to fight over keeps and relics. But you can also play safely in many other areas.
There seems to be a special attraction to some of being able to attack another player who doesn't want to fight. But there are few of them, and nobody else wants to play that type of game. Looting is just a detail.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
This exact problem surfaced in EQ2 when they implemented player titles for PVP. As soon as players realized they could lose their title if they died they basically quit PVPing.
If you are going to a pvp game, make it full pvp. Safe zones should be handled like they are in eve. Developers just rather ignore the calls for meaningful pvp than put the effort to create a pvp system that encourages all types of players.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Handling it right as an open world can be tough. Looking back at EVE, a player is not likely to be attacked in a high security solar system. Because, the game has these auto police in high security areas, that would likely take them out shortly after. Loosing your ship because you wanted to be a jerk, and no longer being welcomed in high security space, isn't usually worth it. The game also has a bounty placing system. Which if jacked up high enough. Can make any player who people generally don't like a tasty target. And, EVE is a fairly old game with respectable sized player base.
Another example I can think of that had an interesting system for regulating this was Kingdom of Sand. They had a tag system. There were Warriors, who could attack all other Warriors with no provocation. There were Combatants who could attack or be attacked by Warriors or other Combatants. But, only with good cause (for instance, as roleplay demands sometimes as an eventuality). And, there were Non-Combatants. And, they could not attack or be attacked by anyone. Further more they couldn't engage (or had to break such engagement) in role play that looked like it was leading to a fight.
Now, the only thing keeping people from attacking out side of the rules, was what their tag said (it was just respect for the rule for fear of the punishment if you didn't...nothing physically kept any one from attacking someone else). And, that system worked beautifully. Players were paid in and didn't want to be banned because they broke a rule. And, they could always just change their tag any time when outside of combat.
So, while it can be difficult to handle open world PvP fairly. It can be done if they don't insert a generic system for managing it. But, instead come up with some decent ideas. Or borrow from really good ideas and change them to fit their game. And, they can do it without splitting a player base.
For me the lack of PVP free or "mostly" free areas like empire space in Eve Online where pvp is still possible, but pretty easy to avoid at the same time.
I'm a huge fan of PVP, but most people need the ability to relax a bit and just do some casual things. With Darkfall 1 there was little you could do without being very watchful until the population began to decrease. Pre population decrease of course.
In DFUW the safe zones were implemented wrong. They need to be bigger (the whole world needs to be bigger) with the ability for clans to declare war and the ability to attack with consequence. Perhaps the return of NPC city towers.
A lot of people wouldn't agree with this, but it's my opinion.
I agree with this. Give me a place to fight when I want and give me something worth fighting for. All we really get from developers is the random ganks by optimal builds or Zergs steamrolling. Haven't seen a team oriented pvp system since daoc. I blame all the "solo able" content and game designs.
I haven't spent much time in EvE but this system seems to allow for an even better level of freedom and protection than DFUW has currenlty. Even though DFUW has complete 100% safezones, there isn't much to accomplish in those zones.
I was attempting to figure out where we lose people. And it seems that we probably lose most people with open world PvP and somehow taking out full loot and making inventory loot wouldn't make a big difference. Although games like Archeage open another can of worms with no player looting. You just respawn and run back to your zerg. This will not work for castle sieging when they add it. DF definitely has the sieging mechanics right as you can't just throw your body at people and not lose anything. It's just a shame more people don't take the plunge and give some of these games a try. These are the ture MMO's as they stress group play. People wouldn't believe some of the epic moments you can have when you hear the enemy siege force charging you, attempting to take your city. You will likely literally shake from the adrenaline ( which doesn't help in games that require aiming like DFUW lol).
I'm a diehard PvE person that thrives on risk vs reward through PvE EQ1 or DF PvP. It is a shame we have never seen another MMO generate the amount of risk vs reward that EQ1 did through PvE only. With rare spawns, important complex unique loot tables and the power of the mobs in general, it has never been replicated.
I do agree that open world, even without player looting, doesn't work well in small walled in worlds like we have seen in themeparks in the last 10 years. Luckily it appears that EvE, DF and Archeage all realized this and made large open seamless worlds.
I'm neither a sociopath, a kid, nor a deranged lunatic. I like consequences when I PvP. I see that you're quite opinionated, and enjoy isolating a certain group of people and labeling them all as sociopaths. Perhaps you should examine yourself a bit more deeply, Doctor.
the most important word in what I says was...non-consensual...
I have no issue with pvp, what I find bothersome is wanting to pvp people who are not interested in pvping because they are chooping wood or something