Friendly fire as others have said , which I would much prefer be on anyway.
Oh I'd love this - I'd be killing my own for fun all the time.
But this would be exploited in a huge way -players with 2nd accounts that are in the enemy guild/faction and then during battle grief them into losing every time.
Seriously?
Even if you took the time to level up a second character, join a guild and just so happen to be in the right place at the right time. One would probably get away with it once or maybe twice before he's "found out" and marked as a traitor. At that point he would have to delete that character and start all over again, this isn't even remotely feasible.
I also want to add that most MMO features can be exploited in one form or another... PVP or not.
Moving on...
As others previously mentioned, I believe DAoC handled zergs the best with CC. You could even tweek it a little and increase the duration of CC based on the number of players in an area or group.
There are players dedicated to ganking. In BDO some players grinded straight up to 51 so they could start ganking as it was the only part of the game that interested them. AA had forums with tips on ganking. In Aion a player talked about needing to get his morning gank before going going to work that day. So some players only want to gank. And yes they would camp you all day if they could cause that's all they want to do. So just forget doing what you wanted to do that session. That does represent the extreme but there are extreme gamers in every MMO.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
It sounds to me like the OP is more interested in talking about how to address repeated harassment of the same player more than anything else. It's not fun to have even one person continually kill you repeatedly and take your items. You don't need a Zerg for that to happen. That is less about what's fair and more about what is fun for the person being continually harassed while trying to enjoy the game. I guess it also depends on what type of player base you are aiming for. Some people may not care and find it enjoyable to partake in a game where you can harass and be harassed by others.
I see no problem with same game multiple servers with different rules
I dont, be the game your trying to be. Dont divide your staff balancing problems on 3-10 different rule sets. This only waters down your game and makes nobody happy. There should be at most 2 rule sets, PvP and PvE server. One where PvP happens with what the game is shooting for. One for carebears who hate the risk of getting attacked. The best PvP games did just that, like DAoC.
There are players dedicated to ganking. In BDO some players grinded straight up to 51 so they could start ganking as it was the only part of the game that interested them. AA had forums with tips on ganking. In Aion a player talked about needing to get his morning gank before going going to work that day. So some players only want to gank. And yes they would camp you all day if they could cause that's all they want to do. So just forget doing what you wanted to do that session. That does represent the extreme but there are extreme gamers in every MMO.
The point that was made earlier is that players like ones you mentioned are far and few between. As a player that's been playing PvP games for years, I have never been in a situation where another player dictated what I was going do in my gaming session.
I see no problem with same game multiple servers with different rules
I dont, be the game your trying to be. Dont divide your staff balancing problems on 3-10 different rule sets. This only waters down your game and makes nobody happy. There should be at most 2 rule sets, PvP and PvE server. One where PvP happens with what the game is shooting for. One for carebears who hate the risk of getting attacked. The best PvP games did just that, like DAoC.
completely disagree.
Wurm does it and although the population is small so not as easy to get a good baseline it does appear to be working solid. I LOVE how they have set up pve/pvp in wurm. makes total sense and makes about 99% of the problems go away...
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I will use DAoC as an example of a game where the zerg vs 8v8 vs 1v1 debate raged. DAoC had open world rvr pvp with keeps and relics to fight over. The 1v1 players complained that the 8v8 rolled over them and 8v8 complained that the zerg rolled over them. As far as I know DAoC never did anything to solve this. I guess the devs position was that the pvp took place in an open world and therefore it was unpredictable on what type of pvp situation you might come across.
I feel like there is an easy solution to this problem. The frontiers had keeps and relics which were designed for zergs to fight over. However, DAoC had what was called battle grounds. These were mini open world maps that players of lower levels could fight in and not be thrown into the frontier to fight max level pro groups that roamed there. If DAoC had made a battle ground dedicated to 8v8 and another battle ground dedicated to 1v1 it would have kept the three pvp types separated.
The zergs wanted to fight over keeps and relics. The 8v8 crowd just wanted to roam with their group and fight other groups. The 1v1 crowd wanted to hang out in an area and duel. Having the frontier and the two specialized battle grounds would have solved the problem.
I see no problem with same game multiple servers with different rules
I dont, be the game your trying to be. Dont divide your staff balancing problems on 3-10 different rule sets. This only waters down your game and makes nobody happy. There should be at most 2 rule sets, PvP and PvE server. One where PvP happens with what the game is shooting for. One for carebears who hate the risk of getting attacked. The best PvP games did just that, like DAoC.
completely disagree.
Wurm does it and although the population is small so not as easy to get a good baseline it does appear to be working solid. I LOVE how they have set up pve/pvp in wurm. makes total sense and makes about 99% of the problems go away...
Also divides the population between servers. So a game like Wurm that has a small pool of players feels even smaller. MMOs really work best when each server is packed. So as you disagree it does not change the fact, many rule sets take away from the game, more then they give. This has been a fact from EQ1 forward. Too much work for the devs and divides the player base.
I will use DAoC as an example of a game where the zerg vs 8v8 vs 1v1 debate raged. DAoC had open world rvr pvp with keeps and relics to fight over. The 1v1 players complained that the 8v8 rolled over them and 8v8 complained that the zerg rolled over them. As far as I know DAoC never did anything to solve this. I guess the devs position was that the pvp took place in an open world and therefore it was unpredictable on what type of pvp situation you might come across.
I feel like there is an easy solution to this problem. The frontiers had keeps and relics which were designed for zergs to fight over. However, DAoC had what was called battle grounds. These were mini open world maps that players of lower levels could fight in and not be thrown into the frontier to fight max level pro groups that roamed there. If DAoC had made a battle ground dedicated to 8v8 and another battle ground dedicated to 1v1 it would have kept the three pvp types separated.
The zergs wanted to fight over keeps and relics. The 8v8 crowd just wanted to roam with their group and fight other groups. The 1v1 crowd wanted to hang out in an area and duel. Having the frontier and the two specialized battle grounds would have solved the problem.
You played a different DAoC. Me and my mates used to rolls with small teams hunting zergs. AoE CCs, stuns and roots and we could take out an army NP. I have been on many many teams of 8-12 players taking out 30-60 players without a hickup. Once we even face rolled 120+ players with a small group of about 30-40 players and not one person on my side died. Zergs happened in DAoC but there was many tools to use to make them ineffective.
I'm gonna throw this question out there: What are the benefits of non-consensual PvP and do the benefits outway the negatives?
Now I have nothing against PvP. In fact I rather enjoy it. But I only like it when it is competative, rewarding and fun. But non consensual open world PVP is usually none of these. For the poor sod getting ganked during questing it usually leads to the person feeling powerless and having a negative opinion of the game. If it happens too many times people just quit.
To the people who gank they have fun for a while then take a rep hit which leads to either getting killed by a NPC or grinding rep back which isn't much fun either...
The times when it becomes fun all out battles with two faction on a server is actually very very rare. What usually happens is one or two people get ganked and word spreads and everyone else runs away - because alliance are cowards.
Honestly I do not think there is any benefit to non-consensual PvP. I much like you really enjoy PvP but every now and then you come across someone that just wants to do their PvE thing. This happened to me last night in Eve. I jumped a guy popped his ship (let the pod go, I am too nice sometimes) and for the next 30 minutes got hate messages from this guy. Look Eve does not hide it; you play this game you will at some point get ganked that's life deal with it.
So, I never think twice about starting a fight, win or lose it's why we play Eve...right? Well evidently I am wrong. Even in a 1 vs 1 fight, he had the bigger ship (rookies always think bigger is better) and I did not pod him. By Eve standards that is down right carebear. Yet here I am getting hate shot at me for playing the game the way ti was not only designed, but encouraged to be played.
So, my point. I do not like non-consensual PvP, I do not like people that play PvP games and bitch when they get jumped by PvPers who are just playing the game the way it is meant to be played. As I have stated in a previous post, I prefer having to flag for PvP, as that lets everyone know, without a doubt, I am here to get it on and we can have a fight with out bitching about; "I was just trying to pet my giraffe and you murdered me"!
There never will be nor should people even try to 'solve' the issue of being ganked in a PvP game. If it is within the rules of the game, learn to adapt or move on to a game that is more your style.
Edit: DAoC had an awesome system as well, props to them for getting that three factions and designated area's work. Well.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Zergs I would define as any number of players larger than a party/group. Though a party/group is like a zerg if attacking an individual player.
Griefing I would define as harassing or abusing players that aren't trying to enter into conflict with you at that time. Or killing them over and over repeatedly for no reason. Camping and ganking noobs. Stuff like that. The whole reason to play pvp is to compete, but certain people use tactics that destroy fair competition.
Well, for one I do think experience gained should always be divided between group members, no matter how large or small the group.
Is there a way to make it so that only one group may attack a target at a time, unless in a raid or army? And all players are considered a group regardless of whether they have members in that group or not? And when they do from parties, a leader is chosen and they become one group? For individuals who are not in a group to all attack the same target at close range doesn't make sense. How are they supposed to be coordinating their attacks so they don't hit each other? Are they telepathic?
If the game doesn't feature advanced combat realism, such as the possibility of friendly fire, perhaps characters in groups should be slowed and occasionally stunned to simulate the fact that it is almost impossible for multiple attackers to assault one target simultaneously without hitting each other (unless they're all doing ranged attacks from approximately the same direction). Easier to avoid and escape from unless it's an ambush. The slow and occasional stun could be applied to any group or zerging force, whether they be player or npc/AI mob.
It would also be great if there was a programming solution for it. I'm not sure how it would be done, but could the game's AI itself recognize a large roaming band of players as bandits or an invading army? Kingdoms with standing armies and organized monsters (such as orcs) in the wilderness don't usually react well to such forces causing havoc within their borders. They do have scouts, watch towers, ways of detecing invaders. Can force be met with force by the AI itself? Of course, goblins or orcs or any somewhat intelligent demi-human would want to bring overwhelming numbers to most battles. Individuals and small groups may pass unnoticed through enemy territory if they have sufficient skill. Large groups cannot. They make far too much noise.
Any other suggestions?
Please, no just don't have open world pvp answers. That's not productive.
*I know this problem can be solved. People that say it can't either don't want to fix it or have no imagination.
I see no problem with same game multiple servers with different rules
I dont, be the game your trying to be. Dont divide your staff balancing problems on 3-10 different rule sets. This only waters down your game and makes nobody happy. There should be at most 2 rule sets, PvP and PvE server. One where PvP happens with what the game is shooting for. One for carebears who hate the risk of getting attacked. The best PvP games did just that, like DAoC.
completely disagree.
Wurm does it and although the population is small so not as easy to get a good baseline it does appear to be working solid. I LOVE how they have set up pve/pvp in wurm. makes total sense and makes about 99% of the problems go away...
Also divides the population between servers. So a game like Wurm that has a small pool of players feels even smaller. MMOs really work best when each server is packed. So as you disagree it does not change the fact, many rule sets take away from the game, more then they give. This has been a fact from EQ1 forward. Too much work for the devs and divides the player base.
1. pve players playing around pvp player never turns out good so that is not a good way to increase your population.
2. all you have to do is make the map smaller...done..its not like a pve character cant go to the pvp server or back. its really not even remotely as complicated or a problem as you seem to think.
I think you just used to the status quo and you are defending it. that or you just want to smash some pve heads....not sure which.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I see no problem with same game multiple servers with different rules
I dont, be the game your trying to be. Dont divide your staff balancing problems on 3-10 different rule sets. This only waters down your game and makes nobody happy. There should be at most 2 rule sets, PvP and PvE server. One where PvP happens with what the game is shooting for. One for carebears who hate the risk of getting attacked. The best PvP games did just that, like DAoC.
completely disagree.
Wurm does it and although the population is small so not as easy to get a good baseline it does appear to be working solid. I LOVE how they have set up pve/pvp in wurm. makes total sense and makes about 99% of the problems go away...
Also divides the population between servers. So a game like Wurm that has a small pool of players feels even smaller. MMOs really work best when each server is packed. So as you disagree it does not change the fact, many rule sets take away from the game, more then they give. This has been a fact from EQ1 forward. Too much work for the devs and divides the player base.
1. pve players playing around pvp player never turns out good so that is not a good way to increase your population.
2. all you have to do is make the map smaller...done..its not like a pve character cant go to the pvp server or back. its really not even remotely as complicated or a problem as you seem to think.
I think you just used to the status quo and you are defending it. that or you just want to smash some pve heads....not sure which.
I swear 1/2 the time you quote but dont read what people have typed. LOL
I see no problem with same game multiple servers with different rules
I dont, be the game your trying to be. Dont divide your staff balancing problems on 3-10 different rule sets. This only waters down your game and makes nobody happy. There should be at most 2 rule sets, PvP and PvE server. One where PvP happens with what the game is shooting for. One for carebears who hate the risk of getting attacked. The best PvP games did just that, like DAoC.
completely disagree.
Wurm does it and although the population is small so not as easy to get a good baseline it does appear to be working solid. I LOVE how they have set up pve/pvp in wurm. makes total sense and makes about 99% of the problems go away...
Also divides the population between servers. So a game like Wurm that has a small pool of players feels even smaller. MMOs really work best when each server is packed. So as you disagree it does not change the fact, many rule sets take away from the game, more then they give. This has been a fact from EQ1 forward. Too much work for the devs and divides the player base.
1. pve players playing around pvp player never turns out good so that is not a good way to increase your population.
2. all you have to do is make the map smaller...done..its not like a pve character cant go to the pvp server or back. its really not even remotely as complicated or a problem as you seem to think.
I think you just used to the status quo and you are defending it. that or you just want to smash some pve heads....not sure which.
I swear 1/2 the time you quote but dont read what people have typed. LOL
yeah whatever....lol
so basically having the two connected servers as a 'problem' is no different than one server in which one island is pvp and another island or area is not which is fairly common place i would assume (but I dont know for sure)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You could add a proximity damage bonus. Like X number of units within X range of each-other might offer a defensive blocking boost, but lowers susceptibility to AOE so caster types can rain hell on them.
"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
5) No Stealth Doesn't really have anything to do with the zerg, but removing stealth would help a lot with ganking / griefing. Much harder to jump someone if they can see you 100s of metres away!
I don't mind stealth if it's a class-based thing and not everyone gets it. I thought initially it was a good idea in ESO but quickly came to realize what a huge mistake this was. Really, the only one way to help control a zerg is to do what they did in DAoC. Long duration CC and high AoE damage. It didn't stop zerging completely but it gave you means to counter it.
I'm gonna throw this question out there: What are the benefits of non-consensual PvP and do the benefits outway the negatives?
Now I have nothing against PvP. In fact I rather enjoy it. But I only like it when it is competative, rewarding and fun. But non consensual open world PVP is usually none of these. For the poor sod getting ganked during questing it usually leads to the person feeling powerless and having a negative opinion of the game. If it happens too many times people just quit.
To the people who gank they have fun for a while then take a rep hit which leads to either getting killed by a NPC or grinding rep back which isn't much fun either...
The times when it becomes fun all out battles with two faction on a server is actually very very rare. What usually happens is one or two people get ganked and word spreads and everyone else runs away - because alliance are cowards.
agreed.
and I think the gank problem is more pervasive then some in this thread think. That said some mechanics like H1Z1 are just so terrible that the only way to progress is be a ganker. or so I have heard I havent played it
But non-consensual pvp is not really a problem in gaming. Players can and do vote with their feet. There are plenty of pve-only and optional pvp games.
I'm gonna throw this question out there: What are the benefits of non-consensual PvP and do the benefits outway the negatives?
Now I have nothing against PvP. In fact I rather enjoy it. But I only like it when it is competative, rewarding and fun. But non consensual open world PVP is usually none of these. For the poor sod getting ganked during questing it usually leads to the person feeling powerless and having a negative opinion of the game. If it happens too many times people just quit.
To the people who gank they have fun for a while then take a rep hit which leads to either getting killed by a NPC or grinding rep back which isn't much fun either...
The times when it becomes fun all out battles with two faction on a server is actually very very rare. What usually happens is one or two people get ganked and word spreads and everyone else runs away - because alliance are cowards.
agreed.
and I think the gank problem is more pervasive then some in this thread think. That said some mechanics like H1Z1 are just so terrible that the only way to progress is be a ganker. or so I have heard I havent played it
But non-consensual pvp is not really a problem in gaming. Players can and do vote with their feet. There are plenty of pve-only and optional pvp games.
I disagree, at least in 2008 MMOs maybe its changed since but there is a reason why this non-pvp player played Darkfall for 4 years and it has nothing to do with PvP. there wasnt a game that offered what Darkfall did in the non-pvp feature space.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
But non-consensual pvp is not really a problem in gaming. Players can and do vote with their feet. There are plenty of pve-only and optional pvp games.
I disagree, at least in 2008 MMOs maybe its changed since but there is a reason why this non-pvp player played Darkfall for 4 years and it has nothing to do with PvP. there wasnt a game that offered what Darkfall did in the non-pvp feature space.
You can always find one or two gamer with weird taste that cannot find a game to play.
That does not invalidate that millions are choosing to play many non-pvp games. Don't tell me you don't know that games like Fallout 4 & The Division are popular.
This is an answer to the opening post: In direct PvP you can prevent very dense formations with some kind of Area of Effect. Either splash damage or the same effect as a machinegun: A sweep across a battleline of enemy players will do massive damage.
If PvP has more meaning to it, it is instead possible to spread out objectives, and making controlling a single objective inferior to controlling several. This will spread out the battle and make each side smaller at each objective. Coordinating and moving troops around will become important skills, that can bring the PvP to a strategic level, and an inferior force that excels at this, will be able to beat one superior only in numbers.
People zerg when dying doesn't matter. Make dying sting a bit in the game and zerging will go bye bye real fast.
Not accurate at all. In lineage 2 you stood a chance of losing an item and going red. The worse you reputation the better chance you stood of losing stuff. You could also de-level if you lost died enough and when you were red there was one village you could spawn in that was really not close to anywhere else. As I said in a previous post these types of players tend to find each other so on my server we had Red Army. And yes that is all they did, zerg the lower level zones any time they could.
You need to do some research before you throw statements like this around. /advice
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Comments
Even if you took the time to level up a second character, join a guild and just so happen to be in the right place at the right time. One would probably get away with it once or maybe twice before he's "found out" and marked as a traitor. At that point he would have to delete that character and start all over again, this isn't even remotely feasible.
I also want to add that most MMO features can be exploited in one form or another... PVP or not.
Moving on...
As others previously mentioned, I believe DAoC handled zergs the best with CC. You could even tweek it a little and increase the duration of CC based on the number of players in an area or group.
Just a thought
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Wurm does it and although the population is small so not as easy to get a good baseline it does appear to be working solid. I LOVE how they have set up pve/pvp in wurm. makes total sense and makes about 99% of the problems go away...
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I feel like there is an easy solution to this problem. The frontiers had keeps and relics which were designed for zergs to fight over. However, DAoC had what was called battle grounds. These were mini open world maps that players of lower levels could fight in and not be thrown into the frontier to fight max level pro groups that roamed there. If DAoC had made a battle ground dedicated to 8v8 and another battle ground dedicated to 1v1 it would have kept the three pvp types separated.
The zergs wanted to fight over keeps and relics. The 8v8 crowd just wanted to roam with their group and fight other groups. The 1v1 crowd wanted to hang out in an area and duel. Having the frontier and the two specialized battle grounds would have solved the problem.
So, I never think twice about starting a fight, win or lose it's why we play Eve...right? Well evidently I am wrong. Even in a 1 vs 1 fight, he had the bigger ship (rookies always think bigger is better) and I did not pod him. By Eve standards that is down right carebear. Yet here I am getting hate shot at me for playing the game the way ti was not only designed, but encouraged to be played.
So, my point. I do not like non-consensual PvP, I do not like people that play PvP games and bitch when they get jumped by PvPers who are just playing the game the way it is meant to be played. As I have stated in a previous post, I prefer having to flag for PvP, as that lets everyone know, without a doubt, I am here to get it on and we can have a fight with out bitching about; "I was just trying to pet my giraffe and you murdered me"!
There never will be nor should people even try to 'solve' the issue of being ganked in a PvP game. If it is within the rules of the game, learn to adapt or move on to a game that is more your style.
Edit: DAoC had an awesome system as well, props to them for getting that three factions and designated area's work. Well.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
2. all you have to do is make the map smaller...done..its not like a pve character cant go to the pvp server or back. its really not even remotely as complicated or a problem as you seem to think.
I think you just used to the status quo and you are defending it. that or you just want to smash some pve heads....not sure which.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
so basically having the two connected servers as a 'problem' is no different than one server in which one island is pvp and another island or area is not which is fairly common place i would assume (but I dont know for sure)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
That does not invalidate that millions are choosing to play many non-pvp games. Don't tell me you don't know that games like Fallout 4 & The Division are popular.
In direct PvP you can prevent very dense formations with some kind of Area of Effect. Either splash damage or the same effect as a machinegun: A sweep across a battleline of enemy players will do massive damage.
If PvP has more meaning to it, it is instead possible to spread out objectives, and making controlling a single objective inferior to controlling several. This will spread out the battle and make each side smaller at each objective. Coordinating and moving troops around will become important skills, that can bring the PvP to a strategic level, and an inferior force that excels at this, will be able to beat one superior only in numbers.
Well there is also verbal griefing. Both of these can be easily fixed if the developers feel like it. Apparently they don't.
Try holding an army v army fight together with people randomly respawning miles away. Chaos, gamers lurv it.
You need to do some research before you throw statements like this around. /advice
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.