No open world PvP mmos with PK/griefing possibilities like old days? (AC2 - Darktide)

Onchant

Every wolf needs a sheep once and a while. And there are tons of wolves waiting out there.
But no game for them?
- I guess all the sheeps went to WoW to stay safe and be bored like f***.

I love starting as a sheep. Getting PK'd. Just makes me want to level up even harder to get my revenge and kill the other wolves. And some sheeps. I like the player-made tactics, diplomacy and rules there are in a open world pvp/pk game.

Are there no open world sandbox games where you are free to do what you want? Kill your teammates if thats what you want. Mess around with your friends like knockbacking them over cliffs. Hunt down a noob who talks trash in General Chat about you and slay his a**.

Really? No games out there? And I don't want a Runescape or 2d Diablo kind of game. I want a new Vanguard, Asherons Call 2, Dark and Light kind of game.

Onchant

Besides Darkfall.

Beatnik59

You know, every time we long for a FFA PvP game again (and I admit, I personally would not be opposed to trying one), we always seem to justify it on the needs of the gankers: that gankers need victims, that gankers provide some sort of "interest" in what is going on that can't be duplicated in other forms.


But have we ever considered this from the opposite perspective?  Have we ever considered that perhaps--just perhaps--we ought to approach this not as a question of "what can we do to make a game that gives PvPers what they want?" but, rather, "what can we do to make a game that PvP victims want, what those 'carebears' want so that they will tolerate the occasional gank from time to time?"


We want sheep, but we refuse--on ideological grounds of what this genre ought to be--to give them good grass.  We long for the days of 'clearcutting', and complain when the devs put in restrictions to save the forest.


Victims, as a rule, don't like to get ganked, and that's not going to change.  So then, what are the things they do like--the things that PKers and combat folk don't like--that we can give them?


So tell me, PKers, what are the incentives you can give to your victims?  Do you offer a superior roleplay environment where everybody (even the PKers) engage in character play instead of min/maxing and playing for lulz?  Do you offer superior crafting and building opportunities, so that you really can achieve the highest places in the community by engaging in non-combat, cooperative, constructive play?


If so, you might be able to slip in FFA PvP, since the non combat "sheep" will be having too much fun to care about the occasional gank.  But knowing PvP folks like I do, they really aren't all that imaginative of what other playstyles want to even care about such 'carebear' hooks.

YoungCaesar

Beatnik59 said:

You know, every time we long for a FFA PvP game again (and I admit, I personally would not be opposed to trying one), we always seem to justify it on the needs of the gankers: that gankers need victims, that gankers provide some sort of "interest" in what is going on that can't be duplicated in other forms.


But have we ever considered this from the opposite perspective?  Have we ever considered that perhaps--just perhaps--we ought to approach this not as a question of "what can we do to make a game that gives PvPers what they want?" but, rather, "what can we do to make a game that PvP victims want, what those 'carebears' want so that they will tolerate the occasional gank from time to time?"


We want sheep, but we refuse--on ideological grounds of what this genre ought to be--to give them good grass.  We long for the days of 'clearcutting', and complain when the devs put in restrictions to save the forest.


Victims, as a rule, don't like to get ganked, and that's not going to change.  So then, what are the things they do like--the things that PKers and combat folk don't like--that we can give them?


So tell me, PKers, what are the incentives you can give to your victims?  Do you offer a superior roleplay environment where everybody (even the PKers) engage in character play instead of min/maxing and playing for lulz?  Do you offer superior crafting and building opportunities, so that you really can achieve the highest places in the community by engaging in non-combat, cooperative, constructive play?


If so, you might be able to slip in FFA PvP, since the non combat "sheep" will be having too much fun to care about the occasional gank.  But knowing PvP folks like I do, they really aren't all that imaginative of what other playstyles want to even care about such 'carebear' hooks.

What can you do to hook carebears to FFA pvp games? Make pvp optional! Its the only thing they want, they see open pvp and uninstall. Not saying its bad to have other stuff other than pvp in these games, but trying to cater to all audiences will end up backfiring, as you will alienate your only true niche playerbase.

To the OP, you have 2 choices: Darkfall and Mortal Online. DF is almost dead, I think theres like 100 players online only and MO just released on steam, altho its slowly losing players (from 1k at release to 500-600 now). Both are buggy as hell and have shit game designers, but its your only choice for oldschool open world pvp mmos.

Quirhid

From a PvPer standpoint, FFA PvP is just boring as hell. The slow pacing, the (usual) grind, the one-sided engagements... I can't stand it. Its too little for too much effort.

I want good quality action and I want it as densely as possible.

eye_m

Good riddance to the genre if you ask me.  Go ahead and like what you like, but I can't help but smile when I hear this gamestyle is failing.  Cheers

goboygo

If Darkfall or Mortal Online dont work for you then you really dont want one, you just want to start playing another one so you can find a reason to quit it until another one comes so you can start and quit that one too.

Those two game are exactly what you describe, so why arent they good enough for you?

Bigdaddyx

Wolf? sheep? what the hell you  on about? there are just gamers who want to have fun. It is because of attitude like yours why FFA PVP games are shit now days. Good riddance i would say..

filmoret

H1Z1

d_20

goboygo said:

If Darkfall or Mortal Online dont work for you then you really dont want one, you just want to start playing another one so you can find a reason to quit it until another one comes so you can start and quit that one too.

Those two game are exactly what you describe, so why arent they good enough for you?

This^

tixylix

I'd really say your only hope for that type of PVP was from Dayz in 2012, shame it has come and gone but the developers ruined it with SA.

ArChWind

There will never be a good formula that will work in a MMO. If you want action then go look at like filmoret said H1Z1 or one of those because this is better in many ways to sate the need to kill each other.

Besides the action I faster paced and not requiring extensive min/max leveling and all the extra crap that goes with a PvE game play.

If you look at the metrics for these as compared to MMORPG PvP games they have 100 times the population.

Axehilt

I find the majority of people who are serious about PVP are playing pure PVP games which are about skill (MOBA, RTS, FPS, Fighting, etc)

There isn't a huge audience interested in casual gank-based PVP, and there's almost nobody who wants their PVE intruded upon by crappy casual PVP.

So the result is this style of gameplay is mostly gone.  You have the occasional exception like ESO's Imperial City DLC that recently released, but that's a tiny minority compared with players playing skill-based PVP games.

Tamanous

The reason why Darktide was great was because it was set within an actual RPG world with lore and many things to do. I find the concept falls short once developers try to strip everything that is pve out and balance things out like a large version of mini-game pvp.

Short of the few indie classic style mmorpgs in the works that may offer something similar perhaps Crowfall and Camelot Unchained may offer a similar experience. They are are at least trying to make pvp games heavy with lore and many things to do other than just run around killing. The good news is that Mark Jacobs for CU has always stated that he likes making different server versions and even in a RvR game it could offer some variety.

My dream too is to have a massively open mmorpg that is entirely focused on open world pve with great lore that just so happens to offer pvp within it. I lost count of a how many times I have said this: the best pvp comes from having great pve driving it just like in the entire history of the human race. Some day developers will learn this is true and stop weeding out the conflict. Even Wow had very fun open world pvp before they stripped it instead of nurtured it. AC had some of the best mmorpg pvp because it was set within a massive, lore rich world that created it's own reasons for conflict. It didn't need artificial mechanics to make players go places and do things.

nariusseldon

Beatnik59 said:

But have we ever considered this from the opposite perspective?  Have we ever considered that perhaps--just perhaps--we ought to approach this not as a question of "what can we do to make a game that gives PvPers what they want?" but, rather, "what can we do to make a game that PvP victims want, what those 'carebears' want so that they will tolerate the occasional gank from time to time?"

The answer is probably nothing. If there is something, devs would have already figured that out long time ago. Why would anyone would be tolerate enough to be a victim when there are so many other choices of entertainment? No one needs to tolerate anything in entertainment. I think that is the lesson. If you don't eliminate what they don't like, at least as an option (e.g. long travel), they leave. They don't need your game. Your game need them more ... in today's world.

Quizzical

Beatnik59 said:

You know, every time we long for a FFA PvP game again (and I admit, I personally would not be opposed to trying one), we always seem to justify it on the needs of the gankers: that gankers need victims, that gankers provide some sort of "interest" in what is going on that can't be duplicated in other forms.


But have we ever considered this from the opposite perspective?  Have we ever considered that perhaps--just perhaps--we ought to approach this not as a question of "what can we do to make a game that gives PvPers what they want?" but, rather, "what can we do to make a game that PvP victims want, what those 'carebears' want so that they will tolerate the occasional gank from time to time?"


We want sheep, but we refuse--on ideological grounds of what this genre ought to be--to give them good grass.  We long for the days of 'clearcutting', and complain when the devs put in restrictions to save the forest.


Victims, as a rule, don't like to get ganked, and that's not going to change.  So then, what are the things they do like--the things that PKers and combat folk don't like--that we can give them?


So tell me, PKers, what are the incentives you can give to your victims?  Do you offer a superior roleplay environment where everybody (even the PKers) engage in character play instead of min/maxing and playing for lulz?  Do you offer superior crafting and building opportunities, so that you really can achieve the highest places in the community by engaging in non-combat, cooperative, constructive play?


If so, you might be able to slip in FFA PvP, since the non combat "sheep" will be having too much fun to care about the occasional gank.  But knowing PvP folks like I do, they really aren't all that imaginative of what other playstyles want to even care about such 'carebear' hooks.

The problem is, you offer the sheep some good stuff in a FFA PVP game, and then some other game offers them the same good stuff without the PVP and they go play that other game instead of yours.  If you make it easy to go gank people to attract the would be gankers, you scare away the PVE people who they want to gank.

You could take the approach that Uncharted Waters Online takes:  there is open PVP in much of the game world, and non-PVPers have strong incentives to go into the PVP areas, but ganking is still hard.

1.  It's very hard to catch someone who knows that you're after him and is trying not to be caught.  Ports and landing points are safe from PVP.  People can log off in 15 seconds so long as they don't give any game input in that time--then log back on at a time of their choosing with the same position and velocity as before.  Even if you can get close enough to start a battle, if the defender escapes the battle circle before being boarded or sunk, you can't attack him again for a while.  So even if the pirate is ten times as powerful as his target, you still have to catch the target to do anything to him.

2.  Piracy is expensive.  If you're a pirate, strong NPC ships will attack you.  Ports allied with the nations you've attacked will refuse you entry, apart from an exorbitant fee.  There are no safe waters for pirates, anywhere in the world--meaning that there are a lot of places where you can't attack others, but they can attack you.  If you're a pirate and someone sinks you, he collects a bounty from you.  If you don't have the money on you, it takes it from your bank.  If you don't have the money in your bank, the game vendors your stuff to get the money.

3.  While you can flip piracy on very easily by attacking a non-pirate and winning the battle, you can't just flip piracy off.  You have to wear off your notoriety at a rate of 0.1% per minute--and only time spent online and at sea counts.  If you want to get back a white name after a single instance of piracy, you're looking at several hours at sea.  If you've committed many offenses, it can be much, much worse than that.

4.  There are item mall items to make players unattackable ($2 for one day, and a player can see a pirate about to attack and pop a "blue flag" item).  There are likewise tributes that players can use to instantly end a battle with a pirate, though they're expensive.

So the upshot is that, while most people can attack you in much of the world--including where a lot of PVE players will spend the majority of their time at sea--piracy isn't terribly common.  Pirates can often catch people who aren't paying attention, which is actually fairly common when it takes half an hour to get to where you're going.  But PVE players who really want to not be ganked can nearly always avoid it.

The real question is whether that's good enough for the "wolves", or whether you need abundant, easy prey to like a game.  You could try UWO if you want.  But if you're set on piracy, be prepared to shell out quite a bit in the item mall.

Sovrath

nariusseldon said:

Beatnik59 said:

But have we ever considered this from the opposite perspective?  Have we ever considered that perhaps--just perhaps--we ought to approach this not as a question of "what can we do to make a game that gives PvPers what they want?" but, rather, "what can we do to make a game that PvP victims want, what those 'carebears' want so that they will tolerate the occasional gank from time to time?"

Why would anyone would be tolerate enough to be a victim when there are so many other choices of entertainment? No one needs to tolerate anything in entertainment.

Pretty much this. Why would anyone stick around in a game where they weren't happy. Oh sure, there are more pve minded players who will put up with being fodder but I bet most don't and most don't play those games.

However, as the OP does hint at, he likes being a "sheep" only to level up and then attack those who attacked him.

Maybe the answer is that no such game is going to speak to pve players but it would speak to players who like this type of game and who would "use" their "being pk'ed" experience to fuel their leveling as well as their social interactions.

time007

Beatnik59 said:

You know, every time we long for a FFA PvP game again (and I admit, I personally would not be opposed to trying one), we always seem to justify it on the needs of the gankers: that gankers need victims, that gankers provide some sort of "interest" in what is going on that can't be duplicated in other forms.


But have we ever considered this from the opposite perspective?  Have we ever considered that perhaps--just perhaps--we ought to approach this not as a question of "what can we do to make a game that gives PvPers what they want?" but, rather, "what can we do to make a game that PvP victims want, what those 'carebears' want so that they will tolerate the occasional gank from time to time?"


We want sheep, but we refuse--on ideological grounds of what this genre ought to be--to give them good grass.  We long for the days of 'clearcutting', and complain when the devs put in restrictions to save the forest.


Victims, as a rule, don't like to get ganked, and that's not going to change.  So then, what are the things they do like--the things that PKers and combat folk don't like--that we can give them?


So tell me, PKers, what are the incentives you can give to your victims?  Do you offer a superior roleplay environment where everybody (even the PKers) engage in character play instead of min/maxing and playing for lulz?  Do you offer superior crafting and building opportunities, so that you really can achieve the highest places in the community by engaging in non-combat, cooperative, constructive play?


If so, you might be able to slip in FFA PvP, since the non combat "sheep" will be having too much fun to care about the occasional gank.  But knowing PvP folks like I do, they really aren't all that imaginative of what other playstyles want to even care about such 'carebear' hooks.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm because most PvP in games end up catering to carebears. They start saying, well we introduced this new aspect where you are penalized with X% skill loss if you attack someone X levels below you. Then they remove all rewards from open PvP kills and boost Arena/BG PVP rewards.  

So what you recommend in your post happens every single game just about hah.

kaiser3282

goboygo said:

If Darkfall or Mortal Online dont work for you then you really dont want one, you just want to start playing another one so you can find a reason to quit it until another one comes so you can start and quit that one too.

Those two game are exactly what you describe, so why arent they good enough for you?

Both games have tons of problems, the biggest being incompetent developers (which causes tons of other problems). For every thing each of those games does right it does 3 or 4 things wrong. Still waiting for the day someone releases a game which reaches the potential that both MO and DF had if only they were made by a quality team.

Until then, as much as I have enjoyed parts of both games, it just isn't worth putting up with everything that also ruined the games and there are games that offer much better quality experiences, though unfortunately without the PvP, territory control, etc offered in those. A mix of both for a change would be amazing. An actual fully functional, well fleshed out version of DF with all the promised features, intuitive UI and mechanics, and smooth fast paced combat.

Gestankfaust

"What can you do to hook carebears to FFA pvp games?"

LOL...wow

Why do you need to? Can't hang with your own kind? So you need sheep to pad your stats?

Axehilt

Beatnik59 said:

But have we ever considered this from the opposite perspective?  Have we ever considered that perhaps--just perhaps--we ought to approach this not as a question of "what can we do to make a game that gives PvPers what they want?" but, rather, "what can we do to make a game that PvP victims want, what those 'carebears' want so that they will tolerate the occasional gank from time to time?"

A recent free to play thread went like this...

• How badass does a game have to be to compete with free?
• Answer: Really badass.
• And if you made such a game free?
• Answer: You can't compete with that.

Except in this case it's:

• How badass does a game have to be for PVErs to want to put up with ganking?
• Answer: Really badass.
• And if you made such a game without ganking?
• Answer: You can't compete with that.

Generalizing here, of course, as there is a minor niche interested in that type of casual PVP, but the majority of players are either in it for PVE quality (which ganking detracts from) or PVP quality (which is best found in other genres.)

irnbru69

YES =D

Official Old school Runescape is releasing a mode called Dead Man Mode, Its basically runescape 07 with pvp any where at any time. Theres also a rs3 version called DarkScape its out now but it probably wont be as entertaining as deadman mode. You lose exp on death unless you protect your skills, your level up x5 faster and to top it off when you kill some one you get a key drop + his equiped gear, you take this key  to the bank and it opens a chest which contains items from that players bank, for you to loot.

hmm its a bit of a weird one and do realize runescape is not every ones cup of tea but thought I would mention it.

Deivos

Taking the simple concept of Bartle into account, you'd want a game that focuses on adventure and exploration. Something that is rather often neglected by PvP focused games. You tend to lose those aspects in favor of the "sandbox style PvP" or inversely very controlled PvP experiences. The ground where players are doing a lot of "go forth and uncover amazing things", tinkering about with game mechanics, and something that gives a player context to their efforts.

You're trying to attract the kind of players that aren't just tolerant of a gank, but somewhat view that as an extension of the challenge in a game. Can't call that an exceptionally large market of players, but it's still subjectively there.

d_20

The closest any pvp game has come to attracting a significant number of pve players is ArcheAge. It gives carebears lots of things they like: safe zones, farming, trade runs, houses, crafting, cosmetic items, etc.

But still, that game has some serious flaws. Not enough housing (also bots and exploiters). Also, pve players have down to a science the way to avoid pvp zones. That's how the game was when I played it. I'm not sure how it is now.

jmcdermottuk

They're called FPS games. When it comes to MMO's they just don't work. Those victims that you're so keen to gank just get fed up and move on to another game, leaving you and all the other gankers to feed on each other.

Surprisingly enough, most players of MMO's just want to log in and have fun for a few hours and being repeatedly killed isn't fun. At least not for them. You might find it hilarious but rest assured your victims are probably not laughing along with you. They are in fact, logging out and cancelling their accounts.

You are your own worst enemy. You berate carebears for not playing in your FFA PvP game and yet when they do, you harass them to the point of quitting and then you complain that there's nobody left to victimise.

Is it any wonder that FFA PvP games are in the minority? Or that they all tend to have low populations? The only ones that have any kind of success are those that impose some form of restriction to specifically deter ganking, like EVE has.

The simple truth is that the kind of game you like just isn't that popular with the general MMO crowd. But fear not! There's always Battlefield! Or is that too much of an even playing field for your average ganker?

Yaevindusk

The genre itself has grown too much, and those who enjoy being ganked by talentless max levels who only prey on lower levels have -- big shock -- been severely outnumbered to the point of obscurity in favor of 2v2, 3v3, 5v5 and so on and so forth.  Even playing fields, and a hatred of P2W tactics as a whole (when it comes to cash shops in games).

Back when Ultima Online was going, the community was niche enough to make it work.  Most people were rather helpful, and there were four factions you could join and leave at any given time.  Guilds could wage war on each other, the factions fought, as well as there being red PKers.  Full loot PvP.

But there were also various other systems that were soon implemented like Knights of Justice, PKers being unable to enter towns, nobody getting PK marks from killing pickpockets or PKers... bounties for Pkers.  So on and so forth.  All out war was your main fight, and there were a few randoms that endured constantly being hunted by people on the same "level" as them -- who they had really no idea how to fight as they normally picked on lower "levels" (I say levels so people better understand as opposed to going into the skill system) -- so they could get virtue points among other things.

Game worlds tend not to have pure Anarchy in terms of lore and societies, and therefore severe punishments must be given to PKers.  Even to the point of massive rewards for the 99% of other people who might then hunt them in Inquisitions.  The Pkers or "Reds" as they were called, still benefited from having a character that was such.  They could ambush trade routes or miners and the like, getting all of their ore and weapons and armor if they were also blacksmiths.  Still be feared by every newbie in the game.  But they were true outlaws and were hunted and treated as such.  Farmed for points for the "virtuous" even to the point where guild mates would create a red for their friends to farm or to find out where other reds hid or had houses, forcing them to sell their house or quit the game due to the Inquisition.

Not fun for the Pker?  It's very much a realistic setting, though.  You were technically a true "badass" if you were a Red since it was difficult to be one and not get your butt handed to you.  Which also resulted in Red Guilds (and red player built towns using the housing system) and the like and large skirmishes, and even use of Guild War functions as a whole.  In fact, I made a few friends that were reds back in the day.  They weren't your stereotypically "LAWL NUB LOLOLOL" trolls of today, but exceedingly polite people who just wanted to play the game as reds and PvP a lot.  They also had a sense of honor about them in not wasting their time or increasing their punishment by ganking obvious new players that had nothing of value on them.

In essence... the player type was much different back then.  People just wanted to play together or create rivalries and use the game systems for entertainment as opposed to be jerks or laugh at other's misfortune (though no doubt that probably happened a bit, as well.  Though usually not without penalties and bounties and wars using the systems available and tended to favor the "innocent" by virtue of the game's society's laws).  Things such as people even creating "Ambassador" characters and going to a guild castle that you're at war at for a discussion could take place.  With none of the other guild attacking you if they're notified of such.  Bringing a couple armed guard with you and them letting you go without being attacked -- even fending off a random red that might attack you since they're responsible for your safe passage.