Statements like this one is why I think its important for you all to define and with examples (if possible) what a pvp only MMORPG is. because best I can tell no such thing has ever existed.
You keep asking for this but you will never get it Sean. There is no such animal. A PvP only MMO is an FPS/MOBA. Players who are really interested in competitive PvP do not play MMORPGs. If the more dynamic and competitive PvP is to be found in FPSs and MOBAs, why would anyone want to PvP in an MMORPG? The predominant interest that PvP-centric players have with MMORPGs is the "gank" and "sheep" factor. Without those two dynamics in MMORPGs, PvP-centric players would be virtually non-existent in the genre. Perfect proof of this can be found everywhere in MMORPGs that feature a mixture of PvE and PvP. Once the PvE players leave these games the game sets off on a slow decline phase before its eventual death.
There are two reasons why developers include PvP in MMORPGs. One is the obvious profit potential from tapping that FPS/MOBA pool of players, and the second is because it is easier to develop MMORPGs with PvP as an endgame focus because developing content is hella expensive and with PvP as an end game players are the content. So no a PvP only MMORPG has never existed because by their very nature MMORPGs are about players role playing a character and uniting in adventure and journey against an NPC virtual world. Injecting PvP into this equation serves only to fracture that experience, not enhance it.
I don't believe it's the PvP that fractures the experience. It's the people who like to role play psychopaths. In the real world they get away with it a couple times before they are taken out of the equation for good. In these games they just keep going and going like the Energizer Bunny.
I believe most MMORPGer's like both in their game of choice. It's the very few Asshats that ruin the experience for most.
I agree with what you say in theory. My intent is not to paint with a broad brush because I know there are lot of decent players who enjoy PvP, but in reality PvP in MMORPGs never really work out as intended. It's sort of like communism. It may look good on paper, but fails miserably in execution.
Another predominant factor is that those "psychopathic role players" outnumber the decent PvP player by a ratio of about 50 to 1, and that's probably an understated ratio. It's not the PvP element, it's the breakdown of the PvP mentality that brings an overwhelming toxicity to the genre.
There are two reasons why developers include PvP in MMORPGs. One is the obvious profit potential from tapping that FPS/MOBA pool of players, and the second is because it is easier to develop MMORPGs with PvP as an endgame focus because developing content is hella expensive and with PvP as an end game players are the content. So no a PvP only MMORPG has never existed because by their very nature MMORPGs are about players role playing a character and uniting in adventure and journey against an NPC virtual world. Injecting PvP into this equation serves only to fracture that experience, not enhance it.
I don't believe it's the PvP that fractures the experience. It's the people who like to role play psychopaths. In the real world they get away with it a couple times before they are taken out of the equation for good. In these games they just keep going and going like the Energizer Bunny.
I believe most MMORPGer's like both in their game of choice. It's the very few Asshats that ruin the experience for most.
I agree with what you say in theory. My intent is not to paint with a broad brush because I know there are lot of decent players who enjoy PvP, but in reality PvP in MMORPGs never really work out as intended. It's sort of like communism. It may look good on paper, but fails miserably in execution.
I enjoy both and I like both in my games. I love OWPvP by far the most.
Attitude is such an important factor.
I can only rely on experiences. I've played many a PvE server and many a PvP server. Many of my most memorable PvP experiences were played on PvE servers. Many of the participants just had really great attitudes. It just seemed to be more about having innocent fun and less about competition. Thinking about things like The Scarlet Monestary always makes me smile.
what about this idea and let me know why it would not work.
guild vs guild pvp warfare only.
small squad random PVP basically not allowed
It'd be possible, but the main problems would be undermining the purpose of guilds, and matchmaking. If guilds are a requirement to play the game, that implies the game will make joining a guild incredibly convenient, which would undermine the typical purpose of guilds as player-controlled social organizations. And those organizations will be extremely volatile if matches require a lot of players, because if you log in and there aren't enough players to queue for a match you're going to jump ship and join another guild that does have enough (and this problem increases with match size -- it's not too hard to have a guild where 5 players are consistently online for 5v5 matches, but it's much harder to have guilds where 40+ players are consistently online for 40v40 matches or larger.)
If guild size increased dramatically you would end up being not much different from Planetside 2 where you can't play the game without being part of one of the game's 3 preset factions, but you still have player-controlled social organizations (outfits.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Who's saying anything about copying failed models? You seem to be holding a very broad brush in your hands. You have to be very careful when you stroke it, because you'll wipe out a whole shit load of things that you shouldn't have.
If something's mediocre it means the ones responsible for making it did a shitty job.
The person I was responding to was describing a failed model and calling it "the future". So everyone but you is talking about copying a failed model. Simulation games have always underperformed compared to gameplay-focused games, and the term "virtual world" implies a simulation-focused game.
And yes it is the author's responsibility to not do a shitty job on a game -- and part of that entails learning from the past by not repeating those mistakes.
Simulation games have failed? Just one example... two words... The Sims. It is one of the best selling games of all time having sold over 175 million copies as of 2013. So nice try but no fly.
Who's saying anything about copying failed models? You seem to be holding a very broad brush in your hands. You have to be very careful when you stroke it, because you'll wipe out a whole shit load of things that you shouldn't have.
If something's mediocre it means the ones responsible for making it did a shitty job.
The person I was responding to was describing a failed model and calling it "the future". So everyone but you is talking about copying a failed model. Simulation games have always underperformed compared to gameplay-focused games, and the term "virtual world" implies a simulation-focused game.
And yes it is the author's responsibility to not do a shitty job on a game -- and part of that entails learning from the past by not repeating those mistakes.
Simulation games have failed? Just one example... two words... The Sims. It is one of the best selling games of all time having sold over 175 million copies as of 2013. So nice try but no fly.
As a single player game, The Sims is very successful.
But The Sims online failed. So the persistent virtual world kind of sims .. not so successful.
Who's saying anything about copying failed models? You seem to be holding a very broad brush in your hands. You have to be very careful when you stroke it, because you'll wipe out a whole shit load of things that you shouldn't have.
If something's mediocre it means the ones responsible for making it did a shitty job.
The person I was responding to was describing a failed model and calling it "the future". So everyone but you is talking about copying a failed model. Simulation games have always underperformed compared to gameplay-focused games, and the term "virtual world" implies a simulation-focused game.
And yes it is the author's responsibility to not do a shitty job on a game -- and part of that entails learning from the past by not repeating those mistakes.
Simulation games have failed? Just one example... two words... The Sims. It is one of the best selling games of all time having sold over 175 million copies as of 2013. So nice try but no fly.
As a single player game, The Sims is very successful.
But The Sims online failed. So the persistent virtual world kind of sims .. not so successful.
Sims Online was poorly designed. It literally tried to make Sims 1 or 2 a direct MMO port.
The reality is that npc ai is going to be comparable to player skills very soon, unless dumbed down on purpose by developers. What happens when there is "no more loot pinata?" and the npcs are ripping your face off the same as players?
Simulation games have failed? Just one example... two words... The Sims. It is one of the best selling games of all time having sold over 175 million copies as of 2013. So nice try but no fly.
The Sims isn't a simulation-focused game.
A truly simulation-focused game about life doesn't exist (nor would be it be particularly successful.)
In a simulation-focused life game, people wouldn't just randomly gather in your front yard eager to make life-long friendships with your character. You couldn't fast-forward work, and instead it would be 8+ real hours of tedious chores; it wouldn't be fun because the chores wouldn't be designed to be fun. There would be countless other ways that The Sims would be far less game-like and far more simulation-like, but the point is The Sims definitely isn't a simulation-focused game. It's a little closer to that end of the spectrum than some games, but it's still focusing on the game mechanics which produce interesting decisions and skipping over the rest.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Who's saying anything about copying failed models? You seem to be holding a very broad brush in your hands. You have to be very careful when you stroke it, because you'll wipe out a whole shit load of things that you shouldn't have.
If something's mediocre it means the ones responsible for making it did a shitty job.
The person I was responding to was describing a failed model and calling it "the future". So everyone but you is talking about copying a failed model. Simulation games have always underperformed compared to gameplay-focused games, and the term "virtual world" implies a simulation-focused game.
And yes it is the author's responsibility to not do a shitty job on a game -- and part of that entails learning from the past by not repeating those mistakes.
Simulation games have failed? Just one example... two words... The Sims. It is one of the best selling games of all time having sold over 175 million copies as of 2013. So nice try but no fly.
As a single player game, The Sims is very successful.
But The Sims online failed. So the persistent virtual world kind of sims .. not so successful.
Sims Online was poorly designed. It literally tried to make Sims 1 or 2 a direct MMO port.
So? .. still there is no successful SIM game with a persistent virtual world. I am not the one who wants to prove that a persistent virtual world SIM game is going to be successful.
You GOT IT @op and i have been saying it for years.
Really the entire marketing scheme by developers is all about money and not about gaming.Devs want your FREE money but you don't have a say lol.Devs want as many customers as possible and will LIE to tell you it caters to everyone.
Truth is that PVP is sort of laughable when comes ot game design,it is the MUCH cheaper idea to pull of than PVE.SO it is ALWAYS going to be easy to add in pvp to any game with little to no effort.
Then the constant rebuilds to balance pvp is again little effort,just statistics,it is not like rebuilding models and animations and textures,just simple math.point being ,don'tr expect the trend to stop anytime soon as it is just too easy to add in pvp.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Who's saying anything about copying failed models? You seem to be holding a very broad brush in your hands. You have to be very careful when you stroke it, because you'll wipe out a whole shit load of things that you shouldn't have.
If something's mediocre it means the ones responsible for making it did a shitty job.
The person I was responding to was describing a failed model and calling it "the future". So everyone but you is talking about copying a failed model. Simulation games have always underperformed compared to gameplay-focused games, and the term "virtual world" implies a simulation-focused game.
And yes it is the author's responsibility to not do a shitty job on a game -- and part of that entails learning from the past by not repeating those mistakes.
Simulation games have failed? Just one example... two words... The Sims. It is one of the best selling games of all time having sold over 175 million copies as of 2013. So nice try but no fly.
As a single player game, The Sims is very successful.
But The Sims online failed. So the persistent virtual world kind of sims .. not so successful.
Sims Online was poorly designed. It literally tried to make Sims 1 or 2 a direct MMO port.
So? .. still there is no successful SIM game with a persistent virtual world. I am not the one who wants to prove that a persistent virtual world SIM game is going to be successful.
Most of the early tablets were failures. Does that mean that tablets now aren't successful. Just because one half ass attempt at a Sims MMO failed doesn't mean another one done right at the right time can't succeed.
Simulation games have failed? Just one example... two words... The Sims. It is one of the best selling games of all time having sold over 175 million copies as of 2013. So nice try but no fly.
The Sims isn't a simulation-focused game.
A truly simulation-focused game about life doesn't exist (nor would be it be particularly successful.)
In a simulation-focused life game, people wouldn't just randomly gather in your front yard eager to make life-long friendships with your character. You couldn't fast-forward work, and instead it would be 8+ real hours of tedious chores; it wouldn't be fun because the chores wouldn't be designed to be fun. There would be countless other ways that The Sims would be far less game-like and far more simulation-like, but the point is The Sims definitely isn't a simulation-focused game. It's a little closer to that end of the spectrum than some games, but it's still focusing on the game mechanics which produce interesting decisions and skipping over the rest.
That's like saying a racing sim isn't a sim because it lacks 100% authentic real life mechanics and background actions happening in realtime.
Simulation games have failed? Just one example... two words... The Sims. It is one of the best selling games of all time having sold over 175 million copies as of 2013. So nice try but no fly.
The Sims isn't a simulation-focused game.
A truly simulation-focused game about life doesn't exist (nor would be it be particularly successful.)
In a simulation-focused life game, people wouldn't just randomly gather in your front yard eager to make life-long friendships with your character. You couldn't fast-forward work, and instead it would be 8+ real hours of tedious chores; it wouldn't be fun because the chores wouldn't be designed to be fun. There would be countless other ways that The Sims would be far less game-like and far more simulation-like, but the point is The Sims definitely isn't a simulation-focused game. It's a little closer to that end of the spectrum than some games, but it's still focusing on the game mechanics which produce interesting decisions and skipping over the rest.
That's a lot of assumptions that are very simply not true.
Simulations rely on the matter of, well, simulating things, yes. But they are not bound by being completely defined by our reality when creating a simulated world or game of any sort. Instead, most simulation games focus on specific elements.
Many simulation games exist as flight and vehicle sims are still rather popular. Farming simulators of all things seem to sell as well. And the reality of the matter is that simulating elements of life in a game world has been gaining prevalence with the growth of hardware and AI complexity since the start of computer gaming.
It's the driving force behind the "Radiant AI" Bethesda constantly tries to improve in their titles. A mechanic where NPCs actually have personality, preferences, and life-cycles which the player can interact with and influence to make the world more "alive".
Is it "simulation-focused"? No, but the principles of simulating elements of the game world to create a more active and interesting world and opening emergent gameplay through the agency displayed by the AI within the game is something that's been a goal of many developers.
Besides which, I don't think you even know what you're defining as simulation focused versus not. All games are, fundamentally, games, and are using the chosen mechanics to drive a gameplay user experience. A simulator doesn't emulate life just to be a "life simulator". It does it because it is using those mechanics to create a gaming experience out of them. So no game under the context you seem to have setup is going to be focused on making a simulator solely for the sake of simulating things, a sim-focused game means that that there is a large amount of gameplay content driven the the simulated world mechanics.
To which that is exactly where the gameplay from The Sims comes from. They aren't scripting every event you experience to happen, they are setting the simulation rules and mechanics and letting the world run with some user influence to create fun in the emergent gameplay of these mechanics interacting.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
That's like saying a racing sim isn't a sim because it lacks 100% authentic real life mechanics and background actions happening in realtime.
You think The Sims was intended as a realistic life simulation?
Whether something is a game or a simulation has to do with its focus. The Sims very obviously focused on interesting decisions (gameplay) rather than realism.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's like saying a racing sim isn't a sim because it lacks 100% authentic real life mechanics and background actions happening in realtime.
You think The Sims was intended as a realistic life simulation?
Whether something is a game or a simulation has to do with its focus. The Sims very obviously focused on interesting decisions (gameplay) rather than realism.
No, it was intended to be a life simulator none the less. It's just set in the Sims world which the setting isn't this world. Just like mech games are simulations but don't have real world settings nor "realistic." I consider pooping, changing diapers, working, and etc to be a life simulator.
You went on a tangent that if it didn't meet all realistic standards it wasn't simulation. What's a game is vs.simulation is subjective if there is any difference. My view is that a simulation attempts to emulate realistic approach in a setting over pure fun. Like in sports games it attempts to have more realism like injuries, fouls and etc. Non sim games have anything goes or no rules like going out of bounds.
So? .. still there is no successful SIM game with a persistent virtual world. I am not the one who wants to prove that a persistent virtual world SIM game is going to be successful.
Most of the early tablets were failures. Does that mean that tablets now aren't successful. Just because one half ass attempt at a Sims MMO failed doesn't mean another one done right at the right time can't succeed.
But it also does not mean that a new one will succeed. You simply has no proof that it will. Note that i did NOT say it will fail for sure .. i merely say that "there is no successful SIM game with a persistent virtual world" .. a fact that clearly will not support any assertions that a future one will be successful.
And why would devs take any risks when there are plenty of other better ideas to sink their investments in? It is not like they are steve jobs.
Comments
I agree with what you say in theory. My intent is not to paint with a broad brush because I know there are lot of decent players who enjoy PvP, but in reality PvP in MMORPGs never really work out as intended. It's sort of like communism. It may look good on paper, but fails miserably in execution.
Another predominant factor is that those "psychopathic role players" outnumber the decent PvP player by a ratio of about 50 to 1, and that's probably an understated ratio. It's not the PvP element, it's the breakdown of the PvP mentality that brings an overwhelming toxicity to the genre.
Attitude is such an important factor.
I can only rely on experiences. I've played many a PvE server and many a PvP server. Many of my most memorable PvP experiences were played on PvE servers. Many of the participants just had really great attitudes. It just seemed to be more about having innocent fun and less about competition. Thinking about things like The Scarlet Monestary always makes me smile.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
guild vs guild pvp warfare only.
small squad random PVP basically not allowed
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
why would that be a problem?
that is not what I am talking about by the way regarding disallow. are you just confused?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If guild size increased dramatically you would end up being not much different from Planetside 2 where you can't play the game without being part of one of the game's 3 preset factions, but you still have player-controlled social organizations (outfits.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Basically if you dont want to pvp dont join a guild or join one with 'want to war' off and that is that done...simple
what I am adovating here is radical.
which is...
if you want to pvp then you should only be allowed to fight those who want to pvp.
I know its out there but sleep on it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"small squad random pvp basicaly not allowed"
How are you going to disallow that? You said you want to disallow it, not me.
bit flag for each player. pvp allowed, pvp not allowed is that ok?
because that is what I am trying to get at although admit not as well at first
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Like playing on a PvE server in a two or more faction game and flagging yourself if you're in the mood for some PvP
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
bitflag on each player.
done...completed..over..finished...nomore...stick a fork in the subject and turn it over its....done...no?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But The Sims online failed. So the persistent virtual world kind of sims .. not so successful.
nah .. it is much more convenient to just play a pvp only game like LoL instead, with the added benefit that the playing level is leveled.
No one says you have to do your gaming in only one game.
Life IS Feudal
A truly simulation-focused game about life doesn't exist (nor would be it be particularly successful.)
In a simulation-focused life game, people wouldn't just randomly gather in your front yard eager to make life-long friendships with your character. You couldn't fast-forward work, and instead it would be 8+ real hours of tedious chores; it wouldn't be fun because the chores wouldn't be designed to be fun. There would be countless other ways that The Sims would be far less game-like and far more simulation-like, but the point is The Sims definitely isn't a simulation-focused game. It's a little closer to that end of the spectrum than some games, but it's still focusing on the game mechanics which produce interesting decisions and skipping over the rest.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Really the entire marketing scheme by developers is all about money and not about gaming.Devs want your FREE money but you don't have a say lol.Devs want as many customers as possible and will LIE to tell you it caters to everyone.
Truth is that PVP is sort of laughable when comes ot game design,it is the MUCH cheaper idea to pull of than PVE.SO it is ALWAYS going to be easy to add in pvp to any game with little to no effort.
Then the constant rebuilds to balance pvp is again little effort,just statistics,it is not like rebuilding models and animations and textures,just simple math.point being ,don'tr expect the trend to stop anytime soon as it is just too easy to add in pvp.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
That's like saying a racing sim isn't a sim because it lacks 100% authentic real life mechanics and background actions happening in realtime.
Simulations rely on the matter of, well, simulating things, yes. But they are not bound by being completely defined by our reality when creating a simulated world or game of any sort. Instead, most simulation games focus on specific elements.
Many simulation games exist as flight and vehicle sims are still rather popular. Farming simulators of all things seem to sell as well. And the reality of the matter is that simulating elements of life in a game world has been gaining prevalence with the growth of hardware and AI complexity since the start of computer gaming.
It's the driving force behind the "Radiant AI" Bethesda constantly tries to improve in their titles. A mechanic where NPCs actually have personality, preferences, and life-cycles which the player can interact with and influence to make the world more "alive".
Is it "simulation-focused"? No, but the principles of simulating elements of the game world to create a more active and interesting world and opening emergent gameplay through the agency displayed by the AI within the game is something that's been a goal of many developers.
Besides which, I don't think you even know what you're defining as simulation focused versus not. All games are, fundamentally, games, and are using the chosen mechanics to drive a gameplay user experience. A simulator doesn't emulate life just to be a "life simulator". It does it because it is using those mechanics to create a gaming experience out of them. So no game under the context you seem to have setup is going to be focused on making a simulator solely for the sake of simulating things, a sim-focused game means that that there is a large amount of gameplay content driven the the simulated world mechanics.
To which that is exactly where the gameplay from The Sims comes from. They aren't scripting every event you experience to happen, they are setting the simulation rules and mechanics and letting the world run with some user influence to create fun in the emergent gameplay of these mechanics interacting.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Whether something is a game or a simulation has to do with its focus. The Sims very obviously focused on interesting decisions (gameplay) rather than realism.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You went on a tangent that if it didn't meet all realistic standards it wasn't simulation. What's a game is vs.simulation is subjective if there is any difference. My view is that a simulation attempts to emulate realistic approach in a setting over pure fun. Like in sports games it attempts to have more realism like injuries, fouls and etc. Non sim games have anything goes or no rules like going out of bounds.
But it also does not mean that a new one will succeed. You simply has no proof that it will. Note that i did NOT say it will fail for sure .. i merely say that "there is no successful SIM game with a persistent virtual world" .. a fact that clearly will not support any assertions that a future one will be successful.
And why would devs take any risks when there are plenty of other better ideas to sink their investments in? It is not like they are steve jobs.