The entire game has to be designed differently. The gold/gear sinks/faucets, the content, etc. I mean seriously just think about the content in any given mmo. In a game like Darkfall the content is fighting other players. That's where the devs' time is spent. If you were to turn off pvp, you'd have a shitty pve game because the devs' didn't spend much time on pve, because that's not what the game is about.
So building things, having emergent gameplay is not appealing at all to pve players?
This seems like a total non sequitor. I assume pve players want good pve, right? So if you have a game where the devs' time is spent on things that AREN'T pve, then the pve will suffer. So when you simply "turn off" pvp on a pve server, and you're left with bad pve....... what do you think is going to happen?
Conversely think of a themepark game that is designed around pve. You have taunts and charms and fears etc
Can be balanced in a pvp setting. Taunts included, warhammer had a good way of making this work and it's a pity I haven't seen it like that since.
"Can be" doesn't mean anything. The point is you have to significantly change your game. You cannot build a game that works *well* as both pvp and non-pvp. If you're talking about a massive overhaul of the game design to turn it into something else, then that's just a different game.
because the game is designed primarily to be pve focused. The progression in a pve game is you get stronger so you can fight bigger things and you just get stronger and stronger and stronger forever. But if you turn pvp on in a game like that, all of a sudden the people who play the most will win every fight
People who play the most in ANY GAME will likely win every fight, whether that has to do with resource/gear acquisition or just plain experience. That is how gaming works.
Horizontal progression! - That's what I was looking for. So it's a big deal to you that people are kept on an even playing field in spite of the amount of time investment. Okay, that says it all for me.
This has nothing to do with what *I* want. I'm giving you reasons why the two types of game are not compatible. In a non-pvp game you get stronger and beat up on the mobs, and that's fine because the mobs don't have feelings or desires of their own. In a pvp game you have to decide who is going to win a fight. Are the people who are the highest level going to win the fight? The people with the best gear? The people with the most friends? The people with the most skill?
Some kid spending 15 hours a day grinding in WoW isn't going to affect the experience of some casual middle aged dad playing 2 hours a night. It's ok that the kid gets super strong and can beat up on mobs, because in a pve game you're competing with the environment. In a pvp game you're competing with other players and all of a sudden that kid is beating up on the casual dad, not mobs.
Sorry didn't mean to make it sound offensive or anything, I mean there's probably a way to avoid power creep but in a full loot owpvp setting, there's going to be power bloat in organized groups anyways.
I think what is good to do is to brainstorm what would make an ideal pve sandbox game and figure out progression that would translate well to pvp. Call me a naive optimist, but I am still convinced that this can be done.
Well keep an eye on The Repopulation. They're trying to do something like what you're describing. There is going to be a hardcore server and a normal server. The normal server doesn't have pvp turned off completely, but it's a flagging system and I believe there is no loot. We'll see if both of the servers work well.
A big part of a lot of sandbox games is freedom. With that comes the freedom to kill players/loot them so that will attract gankers. Even going back to old school MUDs which often include permadeath, some players will just get off on ruining someone else's fun - killing a character they spent years on.
Personally, I like freedom in a sandbox styled game, so I don't think it should go away. If you want to curb random PKing, a better approach is to add consequences. Someone murder a member of their own nation/faction? Hold a trial and exile them if found guilty. If a player becomes kill on site to many of the main nations in the game, life will become harder for them. Unable to buy from the better crafters, harder to travel throughout the world, etc.
Why is it that when an NPC kills you randomly its "part of the game" but if another human does it, it's ruining fun or ganking? WTF is ganking anyway? People have used the word in some many ways now.
Is ganking when somebody out levels you and kills you because of gear score? I understand not liking this. It's a traditional PVE element that needs to go away from open world PVP games.
Is ganking when you're out numbered and you don't like it?
Ok, here's your list of games I remember reading about from the Game List here.
Das Tal and Life is Feudal Watched videos on it on YT and the comments had them in there about full loot. Found the game typing in MMO 2015 in search. You don't hear much about Das Tal otherwise though recently they got some press talking about Archeage and it made it into the forum here. I commented there about having seen the game and considered the art style charming but nothing else about the system. I can't find those column/news type of threads unless they are in recent posts - you can go thru my history if you really want to find it.
There, 6 games that I can get you a memory of reading about full loot being either their plan or a subject of expecting it.
Camelot Unchained I haven't seen say it's going to be full loot - that one I've remarked several times about following. You don't see me say I'm following any of the others but I've certainly listened to info about them. You also don't see me blasting them daily so keep the whole thing in perspective though it's easy to think the worst of people.
I thought the first page answer of it's easier to create content when players create it was creative at least. If I got nothing else out of this it was that.
Yup six games at least and thats about 5 too many. These developers are all copy cats. They all seem to do the same thing at he same time. Remember when "dynamic content' was the end all be all? rightnow it is zombie survival games, how many of those have been released or soon to be released? Next is going ot be the full loot PvP 'sand box' approach. Once those fail they will move on to the next thing.
Like I said development is way behind the times and it cant keep up with what people want and as soon as the first type of the new genre hits its already too late. So whatever game on that list hits first will have the bulk of the players once that fails all the late comers will deal with the stigma of another failed attempt at reinventing MMOs. That stigma used to be somewhat curbed by developer cred, but even that isnt enough anymore as developer cred has crashed across the whole market.
This just reinforces what I have said for the past few years gamers are trying to hyper sepcify their MMOs into a niche type class, but there are so many kickstarters and guys begging for money and a lot of them actually get it they just piggy back on other guys ideas and hope their version is slightly better than the other guys and they can milk a few bucks from it.
That is really the main problem, rather than these guys going out and working for an established company and contributing to a project that might be decent theyre all going the self employed we can do it ourselves route and since kickstarters and fundraisers are working in a lot of cases they just ride that wave. Doesnt mean theyre making a good game just means some guy is good enough to raise money and sound like he can deliver a decent product. Still havent seen one yet. The only kickstarter MMO with any real tangible results is The Repopulation and even that one had limited kickstarter money but is now aso getting funding from the paid alpha and beta stages. Some have obviously made more money but none of those have anything to show for all that money. So the delivering of an MMO is still a dubious undertaking for most of them.
Its like the deadbeat who gets fired from his job for never showing up on time. He can do the work he just isnt committed enough to do it well. So he goes into business for himself and makes a little bit of money here and there, enough to support himself and have some money to spend but not nearly enough to be considered successful or support a family. Sooner or later those guys grow up (some dont) but many do and when they do they realize what they have to do. Problem is there are more dead beats than committed developers and the money is just too easy for them to raise right now to dissuade the dead beats form giving it a go thus perpetuating the cycle.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar That's right. The players are restricting other players freedom. The moment a players hinders another, the second player had less freedom. They are no longer free to do what they wanted. Only the pvp player remains free to do what they want.
Yet, the game rules allow that. So, in essence, the game is restricting or giving freedoms through their ruleset. It is up to each individual player whether they exercise that freedom or not, though.
But, as said before, OWPvP has its rules. Don't like them, don't play, which is how I exercise my freedom
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Some freedoms are incompatible with each other.
Exactly. One's freedom to smoke clashes with another person's freedom to breath smoke-free air.
- 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
Originally posted by zzax Originally posted by QuirhidThe right thing to do is compromise; and that means restrictions.
Compromise is worst thing that can happen, we need two subgenres:
- PvE candylands for handicapped PvE players
- FFA sandboxes for PvP players
THIS is why I despise PvP so much. Ignorant attitudes that label me "handicapped" because I dislike bashing in other human beings heads in.
Sign me, Proud "Handicapped" Candylander.
- 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
Originally posted by Mud_Monster A big part of a lot of sandbox games is freedom. With that comes the freedom to kill players/loot them so that will attract gankers. Even going back to old school MUDs which often include permadeath, some players will just get off on ruining someone else's fun - killing a character they spent years on.Personally, I like freedom in a sandbox styled game, so I don't think it should go away. If you want to curb random PKing, a better approach is to add consequences. Someone murder a member of their own nation/faction? Hold a trial and exile them if found guilty. If a player becomes kill on site to many of the main nations in the game, life will become harder for them. Unable to buy from the better crafters, harder to travel throughout the world, etc.
I agree. But most PvP intensive players will whine at ANY consequences for their actions. "I want... MY FREEDOM!" (To hell with anyone else's.)
- 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
Originally posted by Quirhid The right thing to do is compromise; and that means restrictions.
Compromise is worst thing that can happen, we need two subgenres:- PvE candylands for handicapped PvE players - FFA sandboxes for PvP players
THIS is why I despise PvP so much. Ignorant attitudes that label me "handicapped" because I dislike bashing in other human beings heads in.Sign me, Proud "Handicapped" Candylander.
So if I called you handicapped for hating ice cream would you despise ice cream?Why does some turdgobbler on the internet talking smack have any bearing on what you despise?I don't hate PVE just because some people label me a skilless psychopath for PVPing in games.
Nope. Your one, singular opinion matters not. However, I have seen zzax's attitude far too often from self-proclaimed "great PvP players", who feel camping players 10+ levels below them, calling their "guild" to gang up on same 10+ levels lower players, and/or waiting in the wings while a PvE player fights an NPC mob to jump in after and get the easy kill. Yea, great PvP players. All of them.
It compounds already getting beat up by other players with sore winners, even more sore losers, and the disdain freely shown (tea bagging and corpse camping comes to mind) to players who enjoy a different way to play.
zzax is not alone in his PvP attitude.
- 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
Simple solutions are always the simplest. Make a PvE server and a PvP server.
This is basically the worst possible solution. Make the game that sucks at both.
I don't follow this conclusion, how exactly would it suck at both? How is not possible for them to do this without mucking it up, can you elaborate on that?
Because a good game will be designed around either the inclusion or exclusion of pvp. If it's possible to simply have a pvp server and a non-pvp server than that means the game couldn't have been designed around having pvp and designed around not having it. The games would have to be vastly different from each other, and that point, why not just make different games?
That seems to be where the argument is bottle necking Holo, it seems they are stuck on talking about a game where PvP is a addon feature and we are talking about a game designed around PvP as the main feature.
A game that is built around territory and resource control is not going to make sense if they had a PvE server, just as if you had a game built around following a story from ! to ? PvP is not going to make much sense.
My response inside this quote were white and are now red for this response. Some of the OP's remarks changed to yellow to highlight what I am talking about.
The appeals to emotion, circular reasoning, the usage of absolute statements, and the construction of strawman arguments.
Gankers are existent in full loot games. To claim otherwise is untruth. Everyone is not a ganker or else gankers wouldn't have victims to have emotion. The logic is just. Gankers are still bad, they don't bring anything to the table but pain to others.
I never once claimed that "Gankers' are not existent in full loot games. And claiming 'Gankers' as bad is subjective and emotional and the statement you use is again a absolute one.
"I never felt comfortable with full-loot or ganking people over and over trying to keep them stuck in a spot." (emotion coupled with strawman argument again)
Yes, I expressed emotion that I did not want to participate in hurting others as my sole entertainment. Especially in unfair situations. I have been consistent with that throughout the thread. I offered dicussion on policing tactics which is an attempt to resolve a problem instead of simply complain about it and wallowing. The latter would be emotional, the person trying to get an answer and offer solutions is not crying in their beer. They are trying to understand and overcome something.
Is removing your chess piece from the board (Ganking) "hurting you or others." You brandy the term 'unfair;' fairness is subjective. Any move that can be made in a game is an available move period.
The use of ad hominem attacks.
"There must be some book out there putting the two together or is it just the way a psychopath imagines a game - everyone is only there to be a loot box."
Psychopath is a clinical term that has a core diagnosis of lacking empathy. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone elses shoes and feel guilt hurting them because you would not wish to be hurt yourself. Psychopaths exist in the population and usually they conform to societies larger guilt feeling because they agree that they don't want to worry about others hurting their loved ones when they leave the house to get dinner so they agree to participate in the rules of the land even though they would have no guilt to trespass against them. Psychopath is no more of an insult than saying autistic or paralyzed, all deal with the brain and its connections.
Is removing one persons chess piece from the board by way of (Ganking) objectively fit the term "Psychopath?" Do "'gankers" have brain issues? What you are doing with that logic is setting up a strawman and I would hazard to add as well that there is the usage of ad hominem.
On gankers, "characteristics of cowardice."
What differentiates a ganker from someone just doing PVP. How did the word come about if not based on cowardice. Ganking has always meant someone taking advantage. Define a ganker another way. Tell me what a ganker is and what a ganking action is without it involving some form of being a coward?
This is the most common Urban Dictionary use of ganker - now give us your definition since yours deviates without explanation.
The term 'Ganking' is a tactic period. There is no objective 'cowardice' involved in the use of this tactic. There is nothing 'underhanded' etc involved. Once again 'underhanded' is a emotional word that is subjective. Open world games that allow Pvp involve every possible tactic usage of the way to achieve one party defeating another period.
Abridged version of OP's response not in the quote box continues.
Attacking a foe when you have the advantage is a tactic period. When people assign emotional ire to this tactic by labeling it 'underhanded or cowardly' they are making a subjective value judgment.
A open world pvp game is not real life. Please divorce the idea that a game world has the same terms one can use to explain equal behavior in the real life world; games and real life are not the same period.
Think of it more akin to a chess match. You logged in to the chest board and if you are 'ganked' you were out moved period. People often do not see or plan for events happening in all sorts of games. The response to this should be embracing the threat of the unknown.
The onus is on the person who died in the 'gank' attack not the attacker and any negative feelings attached to this scene should be along the lines of, "what can I do to diminish or avoid this scene again." You heard me right. Open world games means that you the human when playing a character need to prepare mentally to understand that it is a game where threat exists.
Think multiple moves ahead of every step you make in game. Politic inside the game to create forces to diminish non desired pvp. This could involve a force of people who patrol zones, hunt down blacklisted players, and make war on guilds employ tactics one does not like. These are moves the player can create for themselves that use the game board as it is designed outside artificial rules.
Simple solutions are always the simplest. Make a PvE server and a PvP server.
This is basically the worst possible solution. Make the game that sucks at both.
I don't follow this conclusion, how exactly would it suck at both? How is not possible for them to do this without mucking it up, can you elaborate on that?
Because a good game will be designed around either the inclusion or exclusion of pvp. If it's possible to simply have a pvp server and a non-pvp server than that means the game couldn't have been designed around having pvp and designed around not having it. The games would have to be vastly different from each other, and that point, why not just make different games?
That seems to be where the argument is bottle necking Holo, it seems they are stuck on talking about a game where PvP is a addon feature and we are talking about a game designed around PvP as the main feature.
A game that is built around territory and resource control is not going to make sense if they had a PvE server, just as if you had a game built around following a story from ! to ? PvP is not going to make much sense.
I agree. It seems there are two kinds of people on their side of the argument:
1. The kind of person that thinks we just want to fight other people and so in that case "hey, why not just have arenas or separate zones for pvp or flagging?" The answer is obviously because it's not just about the fights, if it were I would just play sc2 or quake. It's about having a sense of danger and risk.
2. The kind of person who thinks we want an ow pvp game because we want to murder other players and ruin their day. That we "get off" on dominating other players, we love to bind camp them, etc.
This is the particularly harmful type of person because you CANNOT talk to them. Everything you say they will read through the lense of "this person is a psychopath and will say anything to get a game made where they can grief other players." It really is despicable the kind of talk that is allowed on these boards. Jean-luc in almost every post he's made in this thread has been using words like this, and it's just fucking terrible that he's allowed to do it. It adds nothing to the discussion and is only insulting.
That's because of that minority that FFA PvP games don't and will never work.
Except for when they do!
People seem to think that "smaller demographic" or "niche" means "unsuccessful." Also, Jean-Luc deliberately uses the term FFA PvP (which basically doesn't exist in any game) so that he doesn't have to explain for ow pvp games like EVE, UO, etc.
Truth is there are successful hardcore MMOs, and there are about to be a lot more. Games like Albion, The Repopulation, Crowfall, etc. All of these are going to have some form of ow pvp and looting involved.
The right thing to do is compromise; and that means restrictions.
That means VERY HARSH restrictions, which would reflect real life punishment for murder, adapted to the game of course.
But no game had the balls to do that yet.
As I've said to you countless times, having "real life punishment" doesn't make sense in a game because the crimes people are committing aren't comparable to the real life versions of those crimes. You get life in prison for murder in real life because in real life when you murder somebody, they don't come back.
Originally posted by Azaron_Nightblade
Originally posted by shalissar
Originally posted by zzax
Originally posted by rodarin
Simple solutions are always the simplest. Make a PvE server and a PvP server.
This is basically the worst possible solution. Make the game that sucks at both.
I don't follow this conclusion, how exactly would it suck at both? How is not possible for them to do this without mucking it up, can you elaborate on that?
When I see a response like zzax's I assume his reasoning went as follows:
PvE Server: OMG, I can't grief noobs!
PvP Server: Ugh, now I'm facing people that actually WANT to fight me.
Well said
PvP becomes way less fun for those people without harmless crafters to kill, and with only PvPers facing them (and most likely beating them to a pulp). They like to be the predator of the innocent, not the prey.
Reminds me my days in UO. When we were arriving with a couple of friends, the noob gankers up to "dread lords" were running away like chicken. Those people don't want fair fights, they want to win over people having little to no chance to fight back. That's because of that minority that FFA PvP games don't and will never work.
Ah yes. A guy points out that a company trying to do two separate game types at the same time will likely fail at both and all of a sudden he's a piece of shit griefer who only fights people who have no chance of fighting back. You really should be ashamed at how much you destroy these discussions.
That's because of that minority that FFA PvP games don't and will never work.
Except for when they do!
None did so far. Still waiting.
And please don't say "EvE". Do you really want to call a "PvP success" a game where over 3 players out of 4 never leave high security areas (that's from CCP themself, not some forum rumor) ?
Yes I count it.
EVE is a great success and it is a game with integrated and meaningful PVP in all areas of the game. Any viewpoint that says otherwise is a viewpoint that is far too myopic to be taken seriously.
I get that you hate this sort of game and you want the world to be such that this type of game you hate is just so fundamentally flawed it can't work anywhere.
But thats not the case.
EVE Online absolutely disproves the notion. Any argument that it doesn't is just so much bending and contorting of the truth that it isn't worth having.
Yet that truth you seem to love so much, as stated not by a forum poster, not by some website, but by the developers of the game, is that most people in the game never engage in PvP and stay in areas where they can avoid it.
If that doesn't ring a bell, then let's guess who is bending and distorting the truth...
You've side stepped the point.
That most players try to avoid PVP and the developers confirm this has nothing to do with whether or not the game is both successful and has integrated PVP.
Think of Mortal Online. Most players hang out under the guards all day every day. Yet everyone who isn't being completely obtuse agrees Mortal Online is a game with integrated open pvp (or however you want to word it, we all know what i'm talking about when i say open pvp).
So once again. EVE Online is an example that disproves your original point. Bringing up tangential arguments about where people hang out in that successful game with integrated open PVP is irrelevant.
That's because of that minority that FFA PvP games don't and will never work.
Except for when they do!
None did so far. Still waiting.
And please don't say "EvE". Do you really want to call a "PvP success" a game where over 3 players out of 4 never leave high security areas (that's from CCP themself, not some forum rumor) ?
Yes I count it.
EVE is a great success and it is a game with integrated and meaningful PVP in all areas of the game. Any viewpoint that says otherwise is a viewpoint that is far too myopic to be taken seriously.
I get that you hate this sort of game and you want the world to be such that this type of game you hate is just so fundamentally flawed it can't work anywhere.
But thats not the case.
EVE Online absolutely disproves the notion. Any argument that it doesn't is just so much bending and contorting of the truth that it isn't worth having.
Yet that truth you seem to love so much, as stated not by a forum poster, not by some website, but by the developers of the game, is that most people in the game never engage in PvP and stay in areas where they can avoid it.
If that doesn't ring a bell, then let's guess who is bending and distorting the truth...
Can you give me a source on that? I'm actually very curious to see the underlying data. Is this most people who have ever played the game never left high sec? Because that's not surprising at all. I'm sure most people who played the game never got past the tutorial. I'd be more interested in a statistic about how many long-term players never leave high-sec.
But either way, EVE is a game with full loot (or at least you lose everything you have on you) ow pvp and it is successful. If they have 400k subs and only 100k live in low or null sec, that's still quite a few people. What point are you even trying to make?
EvE is an example that proves my point. That pure FFA PvP games don't work, and for games with a PvP component to be successful, they need a strong PvE part where people are quite safe of any PvP interference.
Which is the whole point of this thread. And which people like Richard Garriot understood 15+ years ago.
But either way, EVE is a game with full loot (or at least you lose everything you have on you) ow pvp and it is successful. If they have 400k subs and only 100k live in low or null sec, that's still quite a few people. What point are you even trying to make?
Doubful. I havent logged in in months but it was at its height then and most people I saw were like 60K online, and dont think because there were 60K online meant there are 500K people playing it, because everyone stays logged into that game 24/7 on all their accounts.
The numbers for EVE are as fake as they can get. I had 4 accounts I played at the same time. I had about a trillion ISK and a few dozen Plex when I just stopped bothering.
I think I said it in another post somewhere that in the 5 years I played I lost one single ship on my 'non low sec' account, and even on the account I took chances with I lost less than a dozen ships. That was when I was running with a decent corporation and we did quite a bit of low sec stuff.
So continually putting EVE up there as some success story is not that relevant. its a 12 year old game with no lifers and spread sheet guys playing it trying to be the next big internet hero by doing something that becomes urban legend. I know guys that dwarf me in ISK and PLEX (one guy I know had over 200 PLEX thats about 3000 in real life cash.) I used to have almost 100 myself but I sold a bunch when they hit a billion (bought them years ago for 250-300 million but stopped playing then for awhile too). So right now EVE is a game where a few people trade in PLEX and CCP seeds the game also allowing long time rich people(in game rich) who havent hoarded PLEX like most of us have to continue to play for free. Sure a few people might actually subscribe to it but I suspect the number of people spending real life money in that game on PLEX or subs is a small minority of players. Simply because its an old established game that has die hards playing it that take advantage of every short term spurt in players and resources that hit the game every once in awhile.
Comments
This seems like a total non sequitor. I assume pve players want good pve, right? So if you have a game where the devs' time is spent on things that AREN'T pve, then the pve will suffer. So when you simply "turn off" pvp on a pve server, and you're left with bad pve....... what do you think is going to happen?
"Can be" doesn't mean anything. The point is you have to significantly change your game. You cannot build a game that works *well* as both pvp and non-pvp. If you're talking about a massive overhaul of the game design to turn it into something else, then that's just a different game.
This has nothing to do with what *I* want. I'm giving you reasons why the two types of game are not compatible. In a non-pvp game you get stronger and beat up on the mobs, and that's fine because the mobs don't have feelings or desires of their own. In a pvp game you have to decide who is going to win a fight. Are the people who are the highest level going to win the fight? The people with the best gear? The people with the most friends? The people with the most skill?
Some kid spending 15 hours a day grinding in WoW isn't going to affect the experience of some casual middle aged dad playing 2 hours a night. It's ok that the kid gets super strong and can beat up on mobs, because in a pve game you're competing with the environment. In a pvp game you're competing with other players and all of a sudden that kid is beating up on the casual dad, not mobs.
Well keep an eye on The Repopulation. They're trying to do something like what you're describing. There is going to be a hardcore server and a normal server. The normal server doesn't have pvp turned off completely, but it's a flagging system and I believe there is no loot. We'll see if both of the servers work well.
Couldn't agree more.
So this thread is about to go nuclear:
Why is it that when an NPC kills you randomly its "part of the game" but if another human does it, it's ruining fun or ganking? WTF is ganking anyway? People have used the word in some many ways now.
Is ganking when somebody out levels you and kills you because of gear score? I understand not liking this. It's a traditional PVE element that needs to go away from open world PVP games.
Is ganking when you're out numbered and you don't like it?
Is ganking this? http://youtu.be/8Y5_Kuw1tXM
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yup six games at least and thats about 5 too many. These developers are all copy cats. They all seem to do the same thing at he same time. Remember when "dynamic content' was the end all be all? rightnow it is zombie survival games, how many of those have been released or soon to be released? Next is going ot be the full loot PvP 'sand box' approach. Once those fail they will move on to the next thing.
Like I said development is way behind the times and it cant keep up with what people want and as soon as the first type of the new genre hits its already too late. So whatever game on that list hits first will have the bulk of the players once that fails all the late comers will deal with the stigma of another failed attempt at reinventing MMOs. That stigma used to be somewhat curbed by developer cred, but even that isnt enough anymore as developer cred has crashed across the whole market.
This just reinforces what I have said for the past few years gamers are trying to hyper sepcify their MMOs into a niche type class, but there are so many kickstarters and guys begging for money and a lot of them actually get it they just piggy back on other guys ideas and hope their version is slightly better than the other guys and they can milk a few bucks from it.
That is really the main problem, rather than these guys going out and working for an established company and contributing to a project that might be decent theyre all going the self employed we can do it ourselves route and since kickstarters and fundraisers are working in a lot of cases they just ride that wave. Doesnt mean theyre making a good game just means some guy is good enough to raise money and sound like he can deliver a decent product. Still havent seen one yet. The only kickstarter MMO with any real tangible results is The Repopulation and even that one had limited kickstarter money but is now aso getting funding from the paid alpha and beta stages. Some have obviously made more money but none of those have anything to show for all that money. So the delivering of an MMO is still a dubious undertaking for most of them.
Its like the deadbeat who gets fired from his job for never showing up on time. He can do the work he just isnt committed enough to do it well. So he goes into business for himself and makes a little bit of money here and there, enough to support himself and have some money to spend but not nearly enough to be considered successful or support a family. Sooner or later those guys grow up (some dont) but many do and when they do they realize what they have to do. Problem is there are more dead beats than committed developers and the money is just too easy for them to raise right now to dissuade the dead beats form giving it a go thus perpetuating the cycle.
But, as said before, OWPvP has its rules. Don't like them, don't play, which is how I exercise my freedom
Exactly. One's freedom to smoke clashes with another person's freedom to breath smoke-free air.- 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
- PvE candylands for handicapped PvE players
- FFA sandboxes for PvP players
THIS is why I despise PvP so much. Ignorant attitudes that label me "handicapped" because I dislike bashing in other human beings heads in.
Sign me,
Proud "Handicapped" Candylander.
- 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
- PvE candylands for handicapped PvE players
- FFA sandboxes for PvP players
THIS is why I despise PvP so much. Ignorant attitudes that label me "handicapped" because I dislike bashing in other human beings heads in.
Sign me,
Proud "Handicapped" Candylander.
Try being called a psychopath, a murderer, a griefer, etc in every one of these threads.So if I called you handicapped for hating ice cream would you despise ice cream?
Why does some turdgobbler on the internet talking smack have any bearing on what you despise?
I don't hate PVE just because some people label me a skilless psychopath for PVPing in games.
- 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
See.. PVP enthusiasts aren't the only ones who generalize and defame an entire group of people based on what they enjoy.
Its almost like everyone does it and we're all the same.
It compounds already getting beat up by other players with sore winners, even more sore losers, and the disdain freely shown (tea bagging and corpse camping comes to mind) to players who enjoy a different way to play.
zzax is not alone in his PvP attitude.
- 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
That seems to be where the argument is bottle necking Holo, it seems they are stuck on talking about a game where PvP is a addon feature and we are talking about a game designed around PvP as the main feature.
A game that is built around territory and resource control is not going to make sense if they had a PvE server, just as if you had a game built around following a story from ! to ? PvP is not going to make much sense.
Except for when they do!
Abridged version of OP's response not in the quote box continues.
Attacking a foe when you have the advantage is a tactic period. When people assign emotional ire to this tactic by labeling it 'underhanded or cowardly' they are making a subjective value judgment.
A open world pvp game is not real life. Please divorce the idea that a game world has the same terms one can use to explain equal behavior in the real life world; games and real life are not the same period.
Think of it more akin to a chess match. You logged in to the chest board and if you are 'ganked' you were out moved period. People often do not see or plan for events happening in all sorts of games. The response to this should be embracing the threat of the unknown.
The onus is on the person who died in the 'gank' attack not the attacker and any negative feelings attached to this scene should be along the lines of, "what can I do to diminish or avoid this scene again." You heard me right. Open world games means that you the human when playing a character need to prepare mentally to understand that it is a game where threat exists.
Think multiple moves ahead of every step you make in game. Politic inside the game to create forces to diminish non desired pvp. This could involve a force of people who patrol zones, hunt down blacklisted players, and make war on guilds employ tactics one does not like. These are moves the player can create for themselves that use the game board as it is designed outside artificial rules.
I agree. It seems there are two kinds of people on their side of the argument:
1. The kind of person that thinks we just want to fight other people and so in that case "hey, why not just have arenas or separate zones for pvp or flagging?" The answer is obviously because it's not just about the fights, if it were I would just play sc2 or quake. It's about having a sense of danger and risk.
2. The kind of person who thinks we want an ow pvp game because we want to murder other players and ruin their day. That we "get off" on dominating other players, we love to bind camp them, etc.
This is the particularly harmful type of person because you CANNOT talk to them. Everything you say they will read through the lense of "this person is a psychopath and will say anything to get a game made where they can grief other players." It really is despicable the kind of talk that is allowed on these boards. Jean-luc in almost every post he's made in this thread has been using words like this, and it's just fucking terrible that he's allowed to do it. It adds nothing to the discussion and is only insulting.
People seem to think that "smaller demographic" or "niche" means "unsuccessful." Also, Jean-Luc deliberately uses the term FFA PvP (which basically doesn't exist in any game) so that he doesn't have to explain for ow pvp games like EVE, UO, etc.
Truth is there are successful hardcore MMOs, and there are about to be a lot more. Games like Albion, The Repopulation, Crowfall, etc. All of these are going to have some form of ow pvp and looting involved.
As I've said to you countless times, having "real life punishment" doesn't make sense in a game because the crimes people are committing aren't comparable to the real life versions of those crimes. You get life in prison for murder in real life because in real life when you murder somebody, they don't come back.
Ah yes. A guy points out that a company trying to do two separate game types at the same time will likely fail at both and all of a sudden he's a piece of shit griefer who only fights people who have no chance of fighting back. You really should be ashamed at how much you destroy these discussions.
Yes I count it.
EVE is a great success and it is a game with integrated and meaningful PVP in all areas of the game. Any viewpoint that says otherwise is a viewpoint that is far too myopic to be taken seriously.
I get that you hate this sort of game and you want the world to be such that this type of game you hate is just so fundamentally flawed it can't work anywhere.
But thats not the case.
EVE Online absolutely disproves the notion. Any argument that it doesn't is just so much bending and contorting of the truth that it isn't worth having.
You've side stepped the point.
That most players try to avoid PVP and the developers confirm this has nothing to do with whether or not the game is both successful and has integrated PVP.
Think of Mortal Online. Most players hang out under the guards all day every day. Yet everyone who isn't being completely obtuse agrees Mortal Online is a game with integrated open pvp (or however you want to word it, we all know what i'm talking about when i say open pvp).
So once again. EVE Online is an example that disproves your original point. Bringing up tangential arguments about where people hang out in that successful game with integrated open PVP is irrelevant.
Can you give me a source on that? I'm actually very curious to see the underlying data. Is this most people who have ever played the game never left high sec? Because that's not surprising at all. I'm sure most people who played the game never got past the tutorial. I'd be more interested in a statistic about how many long-term players never leave high-sec.
But either way, EVE is a game with full loot (or at least you lose everything you have on you) ow pvp and it is successful. If they have 400k subs and only 100k live in low or null sec, that's still quite a few people. What point are you even trying to make?
You're making this more complicated than it is.
Lets back it up for simplicity's sake.
You say "FFA PvP games don't work"
So which is EVE. Not FFA PVP or not working?
Doubful. I havent logged in in months but it was at its height then and most people I saw were like 60K online, and dont think because there were 60K online meant there are 500K people playing it, because everyone stays logged into that game 24/7 on all their accounts.
The numbers for EVE are as fake as they can get. I had 4 accounts I played at the same time. I had about a trillion ISK and a few dozen Plex when I just stopped bothering.
I think I said it in another post somewhere that in the 5 years I played I lost one single ship on my 'non low sec' account, and even on the account I took chances with I lost less than a dozen ships. That was when I was running with a decent corporation and we did quite a bit of low sec stuff.
So continually putting EVE up there as some success story is not that relevant. its a 12 year old game with no lifers and spread sheet guys playing it trying to be the next big internet hero by doing something that becomes urban legend. I know guys that dwarf me in ISK and PLEX (one guy I know had over 200 PLEX thats about 3000 in real life cash.) I used to have almost 100 myself but I sold a bunch when they hit a billion (bought them years ago for 250-300 million but stopped playing then for awhile too). So right now EVE is a game where a few people trade in PLEX and CCP seeds the game also allowing long time rich people(in game rich) who havent hoarded PLEX like most of us have to continue to play for free. Sure a few people might actually subscribe to it but I suspect the number of people spending real life money in that game on PLEX or subs is a small minority of players. Simply because its an old established game that has die hards playing it that take advantage of every short term spurt in players and resources that hit the game every once in awhile.