Yes the one poster got it right,make death meaningful,you die you sit out for awhile,you won't be so careless and willing to die if you know you have to sit. Overall problem,zerging ,make combat more strategic,only an idiot in real life would run straight out in the open into 50 other attackers,you would have to be extremely drunk or extremely stupid.So my point is that game design in general is just bad and does not take into account any realism at all.
Sure back in the 1500/1600's you might have had some chivalry and knights and a bunch of idiots running out in the open to serve their king,but time has shown us that was just dumb and that nobody now a days with sane mind would take part in such combat.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Friendly fire usually solves it. Zerglings are generally baddies or idiots, so you can pretty much watch them dwindle their own numbers during a fight with friendly fire.
Zerging, corpse camping, attacking lower level people, attacking people while they're preoccupied with mobs - that's what OWPvP is.
If you take that away, you have battlegrounds/arenas. The entire purpose of OWPvP is so that you can attack other players who aren't prepared or equal to you in some non-skill related manner.
Equal numbers, equal level, prepared to fight other players = Battlegrounds.
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.
I think thanks to Steam and Early Access the options are a lot better but trust me when I say in 2008 (which I assume you didnt play then) pretty much all the tons of pve games where all very much the same and that sameness being this bullshit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I would hardly call that a solution. Maybe not playing, but just dealing with it doesn't make it go away. I am sure it sounded good when you typed it though....
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.
I agree about the players quitting over repeated ganks.
One thing I wanted to address though is the idea of players suffering from negative rep, and that not being fun. That's the point. Stop them from ganking willy nilly by causing them pain.
What that does is still allow to occasional PKing (gank or not) in order to allow the occasional meaningful game play based on the freedom allowed.
An example would be if a player discovers an artifact that allows his cult or faction to cast a unique spell. Other players, if they know he has it, would desire this artifact for their own cult or faction. The idea then, to allow for a "realistic", story like reaction, would be to allow those other players to try to take that artifact from the discoverer. The other players have a choice, "do I gain some negative rep, or just forget about that artifact?"
The point being, game play of a competitive nature and meaningful inside the game can happen. But overdoing that sort of action (PvP) as in ganking leads the character into trouble that the player doesn't want.
And again, this is why I've always said that the penalties for rampant PKing needs to really hurt. But you need some leeway for very low negative rep on players who do it rarely (as in this example) so that this sort of meaningful game play can happen.
Now think about that artifact, once it's secured away by the cult/faction that has it. It's used for a gainful effect. But it's still in the world. Lets say it's hidden in a guild hall and guarded by NPC guards and magics, plus online players at times. Another guild, wanting to take the artifact, do recon and get a good idea of where it is. They can use "warfare" to take it. Or they can try to steal it (without war rules allowing PvP). Again, you can get into PKing if the thieves get caught on to. But it's good game play. This again allows players to perform this action without putting too much negative pain on them if they have to PK a player or two. (As opposed to doing this all the time against all players as in griefing.) The thief players can use their skills in PvE too, ya know.
Or say the owning cult faction of this artifact decides to move it to another hidden location. Again, another cult/faction that gets wind of this can try to steal it, maybe killing a few players.
More game play with meaning. Yet you have far less of the grief type of game play. And for those who do grief regularly, that's where Bounty Hunters can come into play and cause the penalties that really hurt to play their role.
People zerg when dying doesn't matter. Make dying sting a bit in the game and zerging will go bye bye real fast.
You're completely wrong. People zerg ESPECIALLY when dying matters. Just look at Eve's PvP. People go to great lengths to have ZERO chance of losing. That calls for zerging specifically.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
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.
I'd add "specially when it's online with no consequences for them, since most of those are cowards".
I think these people are mentally ill on some level.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
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
Kick the sting of dying up and it makes a lot of sense. The decision is always risk/reward of zerging vs what happens if your character dies. If the penalty is steep enough, a player may think twice before zerging.
And zerging just isn't PVP. Take early EQ, for example, and its 20% exp penalty for dying. I almost never saw someone zerg into a bunch of orcs or something. Folks thought out what the risk/rewards were, and even would wait at a zone line for help or for daylight to come and mobs to change.
You need to think more before you tell folks they need to research. Follow your own advice.
Zerg in a MMORPGs is "safety in numbers". It is precisely what people resort to when death has a sting.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
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
Kick the sting of dying up and it makes a lot of sense. The decision is always risk/reward of zerging vs what happens if your character dies. If the penalty is steep enough, a player may think twice before zerging.
And zerging just isn't PVP. Take early EQ, for example, and its 20% exp penalty for dying. I almost never saw someone zerg into a bunch of orcs or something. Folks thought out what the risk/rewards were, and even would wait at a zone line for help or for daylight to come and mobs to change.
You need to think more before you tell folks they need to research. Follow your own advice.
Zerg in a MMORPGs is "safety in numbers". It is precisely what people resort to when death has a sting.
What could take away this desire for safety in numbers?
-Area effect damage has been mentioned. -How about spawn loot that's fixed, I mean in the sense that it's not going to increase along with those numbers? As like with scaled spawns. That would remove the PvE benefits of zergs. ..... Now that I say that though, I wonder how many gamers read that and say: "I don't like those zergs, but I sure don't want that when ~I~ zerg."
Gamers, after all, want it all. Even if it's impossible.
In old time SWG, you built up "wounds", to the health/action/mind bars that made zerging far less of a useful endevour.
Every time someone killed you in PvP, it would take a bit to get help in recovering from your wounds. Keep zerging someone over and over and you'd eventually be down to 1 point on each bar, and literally any hit, no matter how small, would incap or kill you. Plus you took a hit to equipment condition with each trip to the cloner.
It was not the "perfect" anti-zerg solution, but there probably isn't such a thing in PvP games.
(Much better than the crap like STO where there is literally no penalty. Zerg all day, as much as you want.)
Zerging is a viable strategy, and is fair game in an open world game. To counter it you should stay away or play instanced battlegrounds with match making. If you want fairness, play chess or equivalent.
I dont have a problem with zerging, as all warfare relies on outmatching your enemy in either numbers, equipment or skill. The skilled will kill the unskilled all things equal. The many will kill the few, all things equal. The cannon will overthrow the gun. And the zerg will eat your lonely ass alive. No zerg means rule enforced PvP, and that you will find in small instanced battlegrounds.
I only consider killing someone over and over again griefing and that can be fixed easily: Make the killed avatar spawn somewhere so so so far away.
Well there is also verbal griefing. Both of these can be easily fixed if the developers feel like it. Apparently they don't.
Cure worse than the disease. "I'm dead AND I've got an enormous jog back? Thanks assholes."
Try holding an army v army fight together with people randomly respawning miles away. Chaos, gamers lurv it.
Some people see a disease where there is none. If there is no consequence to dying, then what is dying?
Priest in the back line with healing and resurrection spells, archers in the middle line, knights and heavy cavalry in the front line...
Priest gets ganked by a stealthy assassin, priest respawns miles away, army is toast before he gets back.
Fun! A "realistic army simulation."
If you think ganking is a good mechanic, suit yourself. Otherwise it sounds like a good plan. But where is the zerg?
Knight should always prevail in 1vs1, cause that's who the knight is. Knight and a priest should always prevail in 2vs2, that's what I think at least In 5vs5 a balanced group should prevail. In 20vs20 a group that can protect it's healers and archers should prevail. In a siege you might need portals to bring in reinforcements to prevail.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
I only consider killing someone over and over again griefing and that can be fixed easily: Make the killed avatar spawn somewhere so so so far away.
Well there is also verbal griefing. Both of these can be easily fixed if the developers feel like it. Apparently they don't.
Cure worse than the disease. "I'm dead AND I've got an enormous jog back? Thanks assholes."
Try holding an army v army fight together with people randomly respawning miles away. Chaos, gamers lurv it.
Some people see a disease where there is none. If there is no consequence to dying, then what is dying?
Priest in the back line with healing and resurrection spells, archers in the middle line, knights and heavy cavalry in the front line...
Priest gets ganked by a stealthy assassin, priest respawns miles away, army is toast before he gets back.
Fun! A "realistic army simulation."
That's why my tank always guard the priests or mages in case someone want to have fun . There are case a mage killed more than 3 party (3x7=21) with one hit cause those guy stay too close and get in the AOE lol .
And the stealth are pretty stupid in most game , most game with stealth don't give player skill to counter them .
I only consider killing someone over and over again griefing and that can be fixed easily: Make the killed avatar spawn somewhere so so so far away.
Well there is also verbal griefing. Both of these can be easily fixed if the developers feel like it. Apparently they don't.
Cure worse than the disease. "I'm dead AND I've got an enormous jog back? Thanks assholes."
Try holding an army v army fight together with people randomly respawning miles away. Chaos, gamers lurv it.
Some people see a disease where there is none. If there is no consequence to dying, then what is dying?
Priest in the back line with healing and resurrection spells, archers in the middle line, knights and heavy cavalry in the front line...
Priest gets ganked by a stealthy assassin, priest respawns miles away, army is toast before he gets back.
Fun! A "realistic army simulation."
If you think ganking is a good mechanic, suit yourself. Otherwise it sounds like a good plan. But where is the zerg?
Knight should always prevail in 1vs1, cause that's who the knight is. Knight and a priest should always prevail in 2vs2, that's what I think at least In 5vs5 a balanced group should prevail. In 20vs20 a group that can protect it's healers and archers should prevail. In a siege you might need portals to bring in reinforcements to prevail.
You don't like your presents gift wrapped, do you.
"Zerging" is human nature, especially when there is no tactical reason to split up. It's not a hard tactic to offer a counter for. The simple issue is that MMORPG developers haven't given a fuck for the past several years, and quite honestly... neither have the players.
Also, again I ask... why do the allergic to everything carebear types always inject themselves into these conversations when they have absolutely nothing to add but:
"I'm butt-mangled from someone killing my character while I was picking flowers. Remove all PVP aspects pl0x or I'm writing my congressman!"
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Comments
Priest in the back line with healing and resurrection spells, archers in the middle line, knights and heavy cavalry in the front line...
Overall problem,zerging ,make combat more strategic,only an idiot in real life would run straight out in the open into 50 other attackers,you would have to be extremely drunk or extremely stupid.So my point is that game design in general is just bad and does not take into account any realism at all.
Sure back in the 1500/1600's you might have had some chivalry and knights and a bunch of idiots running out in the open to serve their king,but time has shown us that was just dumb and that nobody now a days with sane mind would take part in such combat.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
~~ postlarval ~~
If you take that away, you have battlegrounds/arenas. The entire purpose of OWPvP is so that you can attack other players who aren't prepared or equal to you in some non-skill related manner.
Equal numbers, equal level, prepared to fight other players = Battlegrounds.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
One thing I wanted to address though is the idea of players suffering from negative rep, and that not being fun.
That's the point. Stop them from ganking willy nilly by causing them pain.
What that does is still allow to occasional PKing (gank or not) in order to allow the occasional meaningful game play based on the freedom allowed.
An example would be if a player discovers an artifact that allows his cult or faction to cast a unique spell. Other players, if they know he has it, would desire this artifact for their own cult or faction. The idea then, to allow for a "realistic", story like reaction, would be to allow those other players to try to take that artifact from the discoverer.
The other players have a choice, "do I gain some negative rep, or just forget about that artifact?"
The point being, game play of a competitive nature and meaningful inside the game can happen. But overdoing that sort of action (PvP) as in ganking leads the character into trouble that the player doesn't want.
And again, this is why I've always said that the penalties for rampant PKing needs to really hurt.
But you need some leeway for very low negative rep on players who do it rarely (as in this example) so that this sort of meaningful game play can happen.
Now think about that artifact, once it's secured away by the cult/faction that has it. It's used for a gainful effect. But it's still in the world. Lets say it's hidden in a guild hall and guarded by NPC guards and magics, plus online players at times.
Another guild, wanting to take the artifact, do recon and get a good idea of where it is.
They can use "warfare" to take it.
Or they can try to steal it (without war rules allowing PvP).
Again, you can get into PKing if the thieves get caught on to. But it's good game play. This again allows players to perform this action without putting too much negative pain on them if they have to PK a player or two. (As opposed to doing this all the time against all players as in griefing.)
The thief players can use their skills in PvE too, ya know.
Or say the owning cult faction of this artifact decides to move it to another hidden location. Again, another cult/faction that gets wind of this can try to steal it, maybe killing a few players.
More game play with meaning.
Yet you have far less of the grief type of game play. And for those who do grief regularly, that's where Bounty Hunters can come into play and cause the penalties that really hurt to play their role.
Once upon a time....
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think these people are mentally ill on some level.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
What could take away this desire for safety in numbers?
-Area effect damage has been mentioned.
-How about spawn loot that's fixed, I mean in the sense that it's not going to increase along with those numbers? As like with scaled spawns. That would remove the PvE benefits of zergs.
.....
Now that I say that though, I wonder how many gamers read that and say:
"I don't like those zergs, but I sure don't want that when ~I~ zerg."
Gamers, after all, want it all. Even if it's impossible.
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
Every time someone killed you in PvP, it would take a bit to get help in recovering from your wounds. Keep zerging someone over and over and you'd eventually be down to 1 point on each bar, and literally any hit, no matter how small, would incap or kill you. Plus you took a hit to equipment condition with each trip to the cloner.
It was not the "perfect" anti-zerg solution, but there probably isn't such a thing in PvP games.
(Much better than the crap like STO where there is literally no penalty. Zerg all day, as much as you want.)
This is why many people simply avoid Open/FFA PvP games instead.
Even if they added friendly fire to OWPVP, people would just all play ranged so they couldn't get hit by it.
I dont have a problem with zerging, as all warfare relies on outmatching your enemy in either numbers, equipment or skill. The skilled will kill the unskilled all things equal. The many will kill the few, all things equal. The cannon will overthrow the gun. And the zerg will eat your lonely ass alive. No zerg means rule enforced PvP, and that you will find in small instanced battlegrounds.
Fun! A "realistic army simulation."
I want to play mass army open world pvp.
But I don't like "zergs".
Uh... whut?
Knight should always prevail in 1vs1, cause that's who the knight is.
Knight and a priest should always prevail in 2vs2, that's what I think at least
In 5vs5 a balanced group should prevail.
In 20vs20 a group that can protect it's healers and archers should prevail.
In a siege you might need portals to bring in reinforcements to prevail.
There are case a mage killed more than 3 party (3x7=21) with one hit cause those guy stay too close and get in the AOE lol .
And the stealth are pretty stupid in most game , most game with stealth don't give player skill to counter them .
Once upon a time....
Also, again I ask... why do the allergic to everything carebear types always inject themselves into these conversations when they have absolutely nothing to add but:
"I'm butt-mangled from someone killing my character while I was picking flowers. Remove all PVP aspects pl0x or I'm writing my congressman!"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯