Sometimes I feel like I am on this one man crusade to "fix" how PvP is implemented in OWPvP games and it gets exhausting. If the entirety of the MMORPG player demographic would just lay down their hatchets and demand what is best for the genre as a whole, it would force developers to develop game's that are representative of the entire demographic thereby ensuring the success of these games and the genre.
Currently, at the forefront of the MMORPG genre's problems is the PvE vs PvP conflict. It is so hateful and polarizing that it, more often than not, dominates a game's topic of conversations and ultimately determines whether a game succeeds or fails. There is no reason why PvE and PvP can not co-exist in an MMORPG. The remedy is simply to make the game fair and competitive for all of its players. As far as PvE vs PvP disagreements are concerned, let the PvP be optional. Making it optional allows the PvE player to engage in PvP on their own terms. In time, there is little doubt that a good majority of those PvE players will engage in that content simply because it allows for progression and an alternative mode of game play.
Take BDO as an example. That community is entrenched in a heated battle as to whether the PvP in that game should start at level 45 or level 50. Fighting over five levels?! Really?? That is a silly and unnecessary debate that Daum should have taken care of weeks ago. Yet it flares on in that community, fueling the angst and hate between the two playing demographics, no doubt causing many to quit or not even try the game.
Why not just let the PvE crowd have those five levels and shut them up. By doing so they will avoid all of the discontent in the community thereby resulting in a larger, more content population, willing to spend money on the game and CS. Eventually, many of these PvE players will come to the realization that in order to advance in the game they will have to venture beyond that level 50 safety zone if they want to progress in the game. Human nature will just make that happen due to ambition and the sake of progression. Yet the lack of vision and foresight exhibited by Daum in that case is absolutely hurting this game.
The same will happen in all games featuring non-consensual OWPvP. Simply allow for those who do not want to engage in PvP to not flag for it with the condition that the game will be easier, and the items acquired much more valuable, if they were to subject themselves to PvP game play due to risks involved. The objective is to implement systems in games that guide players to wanting and the "voluntarily need" to go in that direction based on the hanging fruit. Forcing players to engage in activity before they are ready to do so willingly will simply have an adverse effect that can only serve to divide the community and expedite a game's ultimate demise.
if you look at the history of open pvp games, they usually fail due to abuse and griefing. almost all the previous titles with open pvp have failed. Archage, Asta , Echo of Soul immediately come to mind but there's a lot more. Ever wonder why choose open pvp instead of going with a pvp flag you can toggle or clothing you can equip? Social games are trying to push pvp heavy content because its cheaper for them for players to fight each other then pve. PVE you have to have devs keep making content, PVP the players are the content. This is just another in a long line of corner cutting and money grabbing schemes that these "game" companies are employing now. Demand better from your games by boycotting the ones that have monetizing mechanics. If everyone starts doing this game companies will be forced to adopt a different business models that don't include farming the players. Players are giving they attention and time and that's all they should have to give. There are so many ways to monetize the attention of players that doesn't put the burden of cost onto the player , but companies just don't make AS much. but they would still make a lot , and in the long run much more probably.
I agree with some of your ideas, like consensual PvP, and I think that game developers have basically been unable to solve the "evolving/changed world" problem with PvE solutions. Money, Time, Technology are the apparent road blocks and I don't know of any games coming out that are trying to get the PvE Interactive World working.
Instead the only answer seems to be to make the PvP area bigger until it encompasses the whole world. All that does is spread PvP conflict, but until the repeatable fights of PvP have consequences that actually encourage play (not shutting down content for losing side players) and enrich the world history then it's not going to get better on the PvE side.
I suspect the same mechanisms that would allow PvP to change the world can easily be adapted to PvE. A Game with a changeable world, that is epic to be in, is the prize and in its absence the PvP workaround is their solution for simulating dynamism.
Post edited by Archlyte on
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Understanding that many things are easier said than done, and that it is much easier to complain than it is to offer solutions to those problems being complained about, I feel compelled to address some of the concerns by posters reading this thread that might be thinking, well, that "synergy" between PvE and PvP in MMORPGs is easier said than done, so how would I propose it be implemented? And to that question I will offer a few examples.
Currently, the system that many developers implement to make the risk of PvP worthwhile is to have the more valuable and necessary resources be available in areas subject to non-consensual PvP. While effective in addressing the "risk vs reward" factor, it does very little to alleviate the unfairness that many PvE-centric players express with that system given PvP may not be their preferred game play style. In order for the implementation of PvP to be fair in this regard developers would have to make the possibility of acquiring those items through alternative measures, but make it so much more difficult in the alternatives that the PvE player would still be compelled to chose the PvP route to acquire said items rather than take the more difficult, and/or more expensive, alternative PvE route.
One of those alternative/optional routes could be by bribing a crooked NPC character/politician with an exorbitant amount of money (money sink) to acquire a time-sensitive "safety pass" to obtain those items without being subjected to the dangers of PvP. Another alternative optional route could be to allow that PvE player the ability to craft a "PvP Invulnerability" potion that will allow that player a certain amount of time-sensitive "PvP invulnerability" before they are PvP-able. In order for either of these options to be effective, however, the amount of the bribe would have to be so large so as to convince the PvEer that the better route to acquire the item would be throught PvP. Likewise, the resources to craft the "PvP Invulnerability potion" would be so onerous to acquire so as to encourage/entice the PvE player to choose to PvP to acquire those items, rather than craft the potion to avoid PvP. This would not prohibit, however, the option for a PvE-centric player to contract other PvP players for a less reliable mode of protection, by bartering for a lesser agreed payment, if they so desired. The key here is options.
In all of the above scenarios the PvE-centric player is given an "option" of taking the potentially easier route by PvPing their way to those resources/items, or opting the more onerous, time consuming, expensive and prolonged route to acquire said items if they are really adverse to PvPing. I would be willing to bet a dollar to your donut that most PvEers would elect to PvP, instead of choosing the alternatives. The advantage in all of this is the beauty of choice, increasing community cohesion, and allowing the game to prosper. There are many more examples of game play systems that could be implemented to encourage "voluntary" game play activity that advances PvP, rather than having to force it on a game's player base. Again, the key factor is "options." A variety of options in game play always results in a happier player base. And a happy player base is a spending player base that ensures a viable, successful, and potentially thriving game platform for a sustained period, ensuring the game's success well into the foreseeable future.
I would say this is almost right, but I think it would have to be tuned to be palatable to the Never PvP crowd. Your post did make me think though about how they stick those resources in PvP areas, which is basically a big fat fuck you to the PvE players. Now they are second class citizens in the game world. This goes along with the assumption that PvP players are better, doing something more important, essentially having the favor of the developer. Just like Raid games make Raid players the big loot lords.
Perhaps the answer lies in a game that does not fall into this trap, and arranges PvP conflict in ways that actually make sense, treats activities as equally significant (where possible), and gives Options to people to cross the lines. I'm not saying a peaceful crafter economy warrior should have the same experience as the PvP guy, but when PvP rules the world everyone else is just support.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
... but when PvP rules the world everyone else is just support.
Having been a long time FPS PvP player and having many friends of the PvP-centric mindset, this is exactly the way the PvP-centric player views the PvE player. In that mindset, all PvE players are good for in their guilds are as "gatherers, crafters, and cooks" that provide them with all of their crafter gear, weapons and food. You heard it from some PvP players in this thread themselves as it pertained to PvE players contribution in games like Darkfall and Mortal Online. And they aim to keep it that way. Why any PvE-centric player would subject themselves to being another player's "servant" in that regard in an MMORPG is beyond me, but there you have it. And that will continue unless PvE players start becoming as vocal as PvP players are during the development of these games. PvE players need to wake up and look at the direction that MMORPGs have been taking in the past few years. MMORPG games no longer represent the MMORPG genre as it was initial conceived, and they only have themselves to blame for it.
Understanding that many things are easier said than done, and that it is much easier to complain than it is to offer solutions to those problems being complained about, I feel compelled to address some of the concerns by posters reading this thread that might be thinking, well, that "synergy" between PvE and PvP in MMORPGs is easier said than done, so how would I propose it be implemented? And to that question I will offer a few examples.
Currently, the system that many developers implement to make the risk of PvP worthwhile is to have the more valuable and necessary resources be available in areas subject to non-consensual PvP. While effective in addressing the "risk vs reward" factor, it does very little to alleviate the unfairness that many PvE-centric players express with that system given PvP may not be their preferred game play style. In order for the implementation of PvP to be fair in this regard developers would have to make the possibility of acquiring those items through alternative measures, but make it so much more difficult in the alternatives that the PvE player would still be compelled to chose the PvP route to acquire said items rather than take the more difficult, and/or more expensive, alternative PvE route.
One of those alternative/optional routes could be by bribing a crooked NPC character/politician with an exorbitant amount of money (money sink) to acquire a time-sensitive "safety pass" to obtain those items without being subjected to the dangers of PvP. Another alternative optional route could be to allow that PvE player the ability to craft a "PvP Invulnerability" potion that will allow that player a certain amount of time-sensitive "PvP invulnerability" before they are PvP-able. In order for either of these options to be effective, however, the amount of the bribe would have to be so large so as to convince the PvEer that the better route to acquire the item would be throught PvP. Likewise, the resources to craft the "PvP Invulnerability potion" would be so onerous to acquire so as to encourage/entice the PvE player to choose to PvP to acquire those items, rather than craft the potion to avoid PvP. This would not prohibit, however, the option for a PvE-centric player to contract other PvP players for a less reliable mode of protection, by bartering for a lesser agreed payment, if they so desired. The key here is options.
In all of the above scenarios the PvE-centric player is given an "option" of taking the potentially easier route by PvPing their way to those resources/items, or opting the more onerous, time consuming, expensive and prolonged route to acquire said items if they are really adverse to PvPing. I would be willing to bet a dollar to your donut that most PvEers would elect to PvP, instead of choosing the alternatives. The advantage in all of this is the beauty of choice, increasing community cohesion, and allowing the game to prosper. There are many more examples of game play systems that could be implemented to encourage "voluntary" game play activity that advances PvP, rather than having to force it on a game's player base. Again, the key factor is "options." A variety of options in game play always results in a happier player base. And a happy player base is a spending player base that ensures a viable, successful, and potentially thriving game platform for a sustained period, ensuring the game's success well into the foreseeable future.
Compelling, but you point out in your own scenario how you already can bypass pvp to get the same rewards as pvpers: trading.
Take out the NPC middle-man, and take that money, and just give it to the PVPer who is willing to harvest, or the harvester who is not afraid to PVP. They gather / obtain what you need, and you buy straight from them.
They take the pvp risk in acquiring something that may, or may not sell, and you get the reward at the cost (in time, money or effort) that you would have paid anyway to an NPC -- only its a PC instead.
This brings PVPers and PVE'ers together more directly, in my opinion. Furthermore, it does not require gimmicky "PVP invuln game mechanics" that breakdown immersion of a dangerous world. Of course this is getting pretty abstract, too.
Understanding that many things are easier said than done, and that it is much easier to complain than it is to offer solutions to those problems being complained about, I feel compelled to address some of the concerns by posters reading this thread that might be thinking, well, that "synergy" between PvE and PvP in MMORPGs is easier said than done, so how would I propose it be implemented? And to that question I will offer a few examples.
Currently, the system that many developers implement to make the risk of PvP worthwhile is to have the more valuable and necessary resources be available in areas subject to non-consensual PvP. While effective in addressing the "risk vs reward" factor, it does very little to alleviate the unfairness that many PvE-centric players express with that system given PvP may not be their preferred game play style. In order for the implementation of PvP to be fair in this regard developers would have to make the possibility of acquiring those items through alternative measures, but make it so much more difficult in the alternatives that the PvE player would still be compelled to chose the PvP route to acquire said items rather than take the more difficult, and/or more expensive, alternative PvE route.
One of those alternative/optional routes could be by bribing a crooked NPC character/politician with an exorbitant amount of money (money sink) to acquire a time-sensitive "safety pass" to obtain those items without being subjected to the dangers of PvP. Another alternative optional route could be to allow that PvE player the ability to craft a "PvP Invulnerability" potion that will allow that player a certain amount of time-sensitive "PvP invulnerability" before they are PvP-able. In order for either of these options to be effective, however, the amount of the bribe would have to be so large so as to convince the PvEer that the better route to acquire the item would be throught PvP. Likewise, the resources to craft the "PvP Invulnerability potion" would be so onerous to acquire so as to encourage/entice the PvE player to choose to PvP to acquire those items, rather than craft the potion to avoid PvP. This would not prohibit, however, the option for a PvE-centric player to contract other PvP players for a less reliable mode of protection, by bartering for a lesser agreed payment, if they so desired. The key here is options.
In all of the above scenarios the PvE-centric player is given an "option" of taking the potentially easier route by PvPing their way to those resources/items, or opting the more onerous, time consuming, expensive and prolonged route to acquire said items if they are really adverse to PvPing. I would be willing to bet a dollar to your donut that most PvEers would elect to PvP, instead of choosing the alternatives. The advantage in all of this is the beauty of choice, increasing community cohesion, and allowing the game to prosper. There are many more examples of game play systems that could be implemented to encourage "voluntary" game play activity that advances PvP, rather than having to force it on a game's player base. Again, the key factor is "options." A variety of options in game play always results in a happier player base. And a happy player base is a spending player base that ensures a viable, successful, and potentially thriving game platform for a sustained period, ensuring the game's success well into the foreseeable future.
Compelling, but you point out in your own scenario how you already can bypass pvp to get the same rewards as pvpers: trading.
Take out the NPC middle-man, and take that money, and just give it to the PVPer who is willing to harvest, or the harvester who is not afraid to PVP. They gather / obtain what you need, and you buy straight from them.
They take the pvp risk in acquiring something that may, or may not sell, and you get the reward at the cost (in time, money or effort) that you would have paid anyway to an NPC -- only its a PC instead.
This brings PVPers and PVE'ers together more directly, in my opinion. Furthermore, it does not require gimmicky "PVP invuln game mechanics" that breakdown immersion of a dangerous world. Of course this is getting pretty abstract, too.
My post had nothing to do with trading. Trading would do nothing to encourage PvP as players/guilds would just acquire these items and sell them at competiting lower prices and/or give them to friends thereby allowing them to easily circumvent PvP all together. The contract option would obviously need to be accompanied by caveats, Ie., min prices/time/item, etc, otherwise it would defeat the intended purpose.
The whole point of my post was to encourage and promote PvP through in game systems, not by stroking the PvPer ego by needing them to get anything done. Making these crucial items non-tradeable or BOE, with the option of making them purchasable via a time-sensitive pass from an NPC at a standard premium price, would accomplish that objective. There is also the added pssibility that the time will lapse thereby adding risk to the experience.
My post had nothing to do with trading. Trading would do nothing to encourage PvP as players/guilds would just acquire these items and sell them at competiting lower prices and/or give them to friends thereby allowing them to easily circumvent PvP all together. The contract option would obviously need to be accompanied by caveats, Ie., min prices/time/item, etc, otherwise it would defeat the intended purpose.
The whole point of my post was to encourage and promote PvP through in game systems, not by stroking the PvPer ego by needing them to get anything done. Making these crucial items non-tradeable or BOE, with the option of making them purchasable via a time-sensitive pass from an NPC at a standard premium price, would accomplish that objective. There is also the added pssibility that the time will lapse thereby adding risk to the experience.
Your post had nothing to do with trading and I wasn't claiming it did, but your scenario reveals it as an alternative.
Imagine: you go out to "Western Abandoned Quarry", the only known location for "metal alloy X". You harvest it while no one is there, but as you leave with your metal goods, you get jumped by people who had the same idea.
PVEs can do this too -- if they're lucky, they'll never encounter pvp. If they're unlucky, they'll have to abandon their goods and run, or fight. The same premise works in null-sec mining operations in EVE.
My post had nothing to do with trading. Trading would do nothing to encourage PvP as players/guilds would just acquire these items and sell them at competiting lower prices and/or give them to friends thereby allowing them to easily circumvent PvP all together. The contract option would obviously need to be accompanied by caveats, Ie., min prices/time/item, etc, otherwise it would defeat the intended purpose.
The whole point of my post was to encourage and promote PvP through in game systems, not by stroking the PvPer ego by needing them to get anything done. Making these crucial items non-tradeable or BOE, with the option of making them purchasable via a time-sensitive pass from an NPC at a standard premium price, would accomplish that objective. There is also the added pssibility that the time will lapse thereby adding risk to the experience.
Your post had nothing to do with trading and I wasn't claiming it did, but your scenario reveals it as an alternative.
Imagine: you go out to "Western Abandoned Quarry", the only known location for "metal alloy X". You harvest it while no one is there, but as you leave with your metal goods, you get jumped by people who had the same idea.
PVEs can do this too -- if they're lucky, they'll never encounter pvp. If they're unlucky, they'll have to abandon their goods and run, or fight. The same premise works in null-sec mining operations in EVE.
Interdependence would say give people things to do that others don't want to do, but I still think the "put the wootz in the PvP area" mechanic is bad. You don't deny the PvP guy entrance to the crafting hall. Is the subtext here that the killers are the ones whom the devs love best of all the things they created?
Because pacifism doesn't work I think most games give players things to do based on the Killers first hierarchy:
Gankers/Griefers are typically in the top tier because they do the job that the Dev's can't do: provide challenge beyond PvE content. So even though these are loathsome creatures they are remoras on the favored sharks.
Famous explorer on the server? Never heard of it. Epic crafter? Not in a long time. Amazing in game musician or storyteller? Nope.
But I will bet you that some ritalyn popping Best Buy employee with a resonator-equipped Honda Civic is on the leaderboard of the game for PvP kills, and that fool has every neat toy in the game plus tons of gold.
MMORPGs (that have PvP) reward you the most for killing other players, period. It follows that game design puts them first above the needs of others.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
But here is my 2 bit. Asherons call 1 had pvp tagging.want to pvp turn it on, don't want to leave it off. The problem with this is.... you see a pvp er her is low of health because he attacked another pvp er near you and since you was white he didn't worry. You flip your flag kill him easy and then get to loot two corpses.
Where is that fair?
PvP zones. Asherons call 2 did these, it was great to know I could go here and pvp but meh the pve got boring with no risk of being attacked.
Now I enjoyed wow playing in a pve area and risking seeing a member of the oposite factor and them attacking me. The adrenaline rush I got during that combat...
So in CoE will I be upset if I get ganked and killed whilst doing pve? Yes. Will I get an adrenaline rush? Yes. Will I still come back for more over and over again? Hell yes.
Sometimes I feel like I am on this one man crusade to "fix" how PvP is implemented in OWPvP games and it gets exhausting. If the entirety of the MMORPG player demographic would just lay down their hatchets and demand what is best for the genre as a whole, it would force developers to develop game's that are representative of the entire demographic thereby ensuring the success of these games and the genre.
Currently, at the forefront of the MMORPG genre's problems is the PvE vs PvP conflict. It is so hateful and polarizing that it, more often than not, dominates a game's topic of conversations and ultimately determines whether a game succeeds or fails. There is no reason why PvE and PvP can not co-exist in an MMORPG. The remedy is simply to make the game fair and competitive for all of its players. As far as PvE vs PvP disagreements are concerned, let the PvP be optional. Making it optional allows the PvE player to engage in PvP on their own terms. In time, there is little doubt that a good majority of those PvE players will engage in that content simply because it allows for progression and an alternative mode of game play.
Take BDO as an example. That community is entrenched in a heated battle as to whether the PvP in that game should start at level 45 or level 50. Fighting over five levels?! Really?? That is a silly and unnecessary debate that Daum should have taken care of weeks ago. Yet it flares on in that community, fueling the angst and hate between the two playing demographics, no doubt causing many to quit or not even try the game.
Why not just let the PvE crowd have those five levels and shut them up. By doing so they will avoid all of the discontent in the community thereby resulting in a larger, more content population, willing to spend money on the game and CS. Eventually, many of these PvE players will come to the realization that in order to advance in the game they will have to venture beyond that level 50 safety zone if they want to progress in the game. Human nature will just make that happen due to ambition and the sake of progression. Yet the lack of vision and foresight exhibited by Daum in that case is absolutely hurting this game.
The same will happen in all games featuring non-consensual OWPvP. Simply allow for those who do not want to engage in PvP to not flag for it with the condition that the game will be easier, and the items acquired much more valuable, if they were to subject themselves to PvP game play due to risks involved. The objective is to implement systems in games that guide players to wanting and the "voluntarily need" to go in that direction based on the hanging fruit. Forcing players to engage in activity before they are ready to do so willingly will simply have an adverse effect that can only serve to divide the community and expedite a game's ultimate demise.
Could not disagree more.
Allowing an "opt out" to PvP is not the solution to making PvE and PvP co-exist. The solution is making serious and meaningful ramifications for behaving in an anti-social/murderous manner.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Sometimes I feel like I am on this one man crusade to "fix" how PvP is implemented in OWPvP games and it gets exhausting. If the entirety of the MMORPG player demographic would just lay down their hatchets and demand what is best for the genre as a whole, it would force developers to develop game's that are representative of the entire demographic thereby ensuring the success of these games and the genre.
Currently, at the forefront of the MMORPG genre's problems is the PvE vs PvP conflict. It is so hateful and polarizing that it, more often than not, dominates a game's topic of conversations and ultimately determines whether a game succeeds or fails. There is no reason why PvE and PvP can not co-exist in an MMORPG. The remedy is simply to make the game fair and competitive for all of its players. As far as PvE vs PvP disagreements are concerned, let the PvP be optional. Making it optional allows the PvE player to engage in PvP on their own terms. In time, there is little doubt that a good majority of those PvE players will engage in that content simply because it allows for progression and an alternative mode of game play.
Take BDO as an example. That community is entrenched in a heated battle as to whether the PvP in that game should start at level 45 or level 50. Fighting over five levels?! Really?? That is a silly and unnecessary debate that Daum should have taken care of weeks ago. Yet it flares on in that community, fueling the angst and hate between the two playing demographics, no doubt causing many to quit or not even try the game.
Why not just let the PvE crowd have those five levels and shut them up. By doing so they will avoid all of the discontent in the community thereby resulting in a larger, more content population, willing to spend money on the game and CS. Eventually, many of these PvE players will come to the realization that in order to advance in the game they will have to venture beyond that level 50 safety zone if they want to progress in the game. Human nature will just make that happen due to ambition and the sake of progression. Yet the lack of vision and foresight exhibited by Daum in that case is absolutely hurting this game.
The same will happen in all games featuring non-consensual OWPvP. Simply allow for those who do not want to engage in PvP to not flag for it with the condition that the game will be easier, and the items acquired much more valuable, if they were to subject themselves to PvP game play due to risks involved. The objective is to implement systems in games that guide players to wanting and the "voluntarily need" to go in that direction based on the hanging fruit. Forcing players to engage in activity before they are ready to do so willingly will simply have an adverse effect that can only serve to divide the community and expedite a game's ultimate demise.
Could not disagree more.
Allowing an "opt out" to PvP is not the solution to making PvE and PvP co-exist. The solution is making serious and meaningful ramifications for behaving in an anti-social/murderous manner.
I suppose that's what CoE is attempting to accomplish with the implementation of OWPvP in their game. And while I applaud them for their effort, that is easier said than done.
First of all will be the booming complaints by the PvP-centric demographic that these "serious and meaningful ramifications"are so severe that PvP never happens. I mean, according to this demographic, it is an OWPVP game after all. Why make a PvP game when PvP never happens?
... And if these "severe and meaninful ramifications" are not "severe" enough, then you will hear it from the PvE-centric demographic.
... and then there is that all-mighty "wild card" that no matter how "severe and meaningful" those ramifications are, there will always be those players with those "throw away" red characters that they will release upon the populace to satisfy their "anti-social/murderous" urges.
As sure as water is wet and fire is hot, you know one or all of the above will happen. Thats why one just gives the players the option and encourages the activity by making the activity appealing enough with the lure of the juicy hanging fruit, and simply sit back and watch the players go after it. Don't push it, dont force it, just let it happen naturally.
Bottomline s in these 'open world' PvP games there is never really any PvP, its mostly ganking. The games with the more meaningful PvP are games most people wouldnt associate with PvP, Games like Lotro, WoW, and ironically even Archeage which has its fair share of ganking but when PvP maps are PvP enabled the amount of players going there to PvP is decent.
These open world type games breed gankers and griefers and people not interested in 'fights' but only in encounters they have no chance of losing. The stramen would claim that makes sense, but thats because of their burn the world to the ground mindset. Its been PROVEN (not just speculation at this point) that no rules PvP type games are complete and utter failures and they dont even have enough players to even be called niche. Yet for some reason that is all that dots the future in terms of game mechanics. Which is mind boggling but the hubris of these guys makes them think they can be the first to do it and make it work.
Generic PvP'ers will never understand that in an MMORPG, PvP is the last resort not the first.
PvP has its place and these developers have come to realize its by far the easiest 'player made content' to implement. Their mindset is if it occupies peoples time its a good thing especially if we dont have to do any work to make it happen. Problem is the approach these days is completely out of line, but because its so bad and not really PvP, its helps hide the one thing no PvP game has ever figured out....balance.
When people EXPECT to be beaten and blown up and have no desire to be competitive (on either side) it basically makes actually having balanced fights moot. So there are some obvious reasons why the approach is the way it s these days. A more controlled or voluntary PvP system brings expectations and the truth is these developers have never been able to meet those expectations. So they have tried to cultivate this wild wild west attitude somewhat. I imagine they think it is easier and cheaper to have games like this than actually make one that is competitive. And since its not their money theyre risking they dont care how many people actually end up sticking it out and if they happen to catch lightening in a bottle (hasnt happened yet) then all the better.
Sometimes I feel like I am on this one man crusade to "fix" how PvP is implemented in OWPvP games and it gets exhausting. If the entirety of the MMORPG player demographic would just lay down their hatchets and demand what is best for the genre as a whole, it would force developers to develop game's that are representative of the entire demographic thereby ensuring the success of these games and the genre.
Currently, at the forefront of the MMORPG genre's problems is the PvE vs PvP conflict. It is so hateful and polarizing that it, more often than not, dominates a game's topic of conversations and ultimately determines whether a game succeeds or fails. There is no reason why PvE and PvP can not co-exist in an MMORPG. The remedy is simply to make the game fair and competitive for all of its players. As far as PvE vs PvP disagreements are concerned, let the PvP be optional. Making it optional allows the PvE player to engage in PvP on their own terms. In time, there is little doubt that a good majority of those PvE players will engage in that content simply because it allows for progression and an alternative mode of game play.
Take BDO as an example. That community is entrenched in a heated battle as to whether the PvP in that game should start at level 45 or level 50. Fighting over five levels?! Really?? That is a silly and unnecessary debate that Daum should have taken care of weeks ago. Yet it flares on in that community, fueling the angst and hate between the two playing demographics, no doubt causing many to quit or not even try the game.
Why not just let the PvE crowd have those five levels and shut them up. By doing so they will avoid all of the discontent in the community thereby resulting in a larger, more content population, willing to spend money on the game and CS. Eventually, many of these PvE players will come to the realization that in order to advance in the game they will have to venture beyond that level 50 safety zone if they want to progress in the game. Human nature will just make that happen due to ambition and the sake of progression. Yet the lack of vision and foresight exhibited by Daum in that case is absolutely hurting this game.
The same will happen in all games featuring non-consensual OWPvP. Simply allow for those who do not want to engage in PvP to not flag for it with the condition that the game will be easier, and the items acquired much more valuable, if they were to subject themselves to PvP game play due to risks involved. The objective is to implement systems in games that guide players to wanting and the "voluntarily need" to go in that direction based on the hanging fruit. Forcing players to engage in activity before they are ready to do so willingly will simply have an adverse effect that can only serve to divide the community and expedite a game's ultimate demise.
Could not disagree more.
Allowing an "opt out" to PvP is not the solution to making PvE and PvP co-exist. The solution is making serious and meaningful ramifications for behaving in an anti-social/murderous manner.
I suppose that's what CoE is attempting to accomplish with the implementation of OWPvP in their game. And while I applaud them for their effort, that is easier said than done.
First of all will be the booming complaints by the PvP-centric demographic that these "serious and meaningful ramifications"are so severe that PvP never happens. I mean, according to this demographic, it is an OWPVP game after all. Why make a PvP game when PvP never happens?
... And if these "severe and meaninful ramifications" are not "severe" enough, then you will hear it from the PvE-centric demographic.
... and then there is that all-mighty "wild card" that no matter how "severe and meaningful" those ramifications are, there will always be those players with those "throw away" red characters that they will release upon the populace to satisfy their "anti-social/murderous" urges.
As sure as water is wet and fire is hot, you know one or all of the above will happen. Thats why one just gives the players the option and encourages the activity by making the activity appealing enough with the lure of the juicy hanging fruit, and simply sit back and watch the players go after it. Don't push it, dont force it, just let it happen naturally.
It's human nature.
Yes it's hard and yes it's never been accomplished but making PvP optional is a worse solution IMHO. It's been tried many times and I always hated it. The only one that I didn't hate was DAoC but that is an RvR game and not a FFA Open World game. At lease in DAoC when you saw an enemy you knew it was an enemy and not "Hey let me check his flag" or "Hey this guy killed me yesterday but now he's dancing around me and I can't do anything because he's turned PvP off".
There are plenty of games that let you do that already. Not my cup of tea.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Allowing an "opt out" to PvP is not the solution to making PvE and PvP co-exist. The solution is making serious and meaningful ramifications for behaving in an anti-social/murderous manner.
I suppose that's what CoE is attempting to accomplish with the implementation of OWPvP in their game. And while I applaud them for their effort, that is easier said than done.
First of all will be the booming complaints by the PvP-centric demographic that these "serious and meaningful ramifications"are so severe that PvP never happens. I mean, according to this demographic, it is an OWPVP game after all. Why make a PvP game when PvP never happens?
... And if these "severe and meaninful ramifications" are not "severe" enough, then you will hear it from the PvE-centric demographic.
... and then there is that all-mighty "wild card" that no matter how "severe and meaningful" those ramifications are, there will always be those players with those "throw away" red characters that they will release upon the populace to satisfy their "anti-social/murderous" urges.
As sure as water is wet and fire is hot, you know one or all of the above will happen. Thats why one just gives the players the option and encourages the activity by making the activity appealing enough with the lure of the juicy hanging fruit, and simply sit back and watch the players go after it. Don't push it, dont force it, just let it happen naturally.
It's human nature.
Yes it's hard and yes it's never been accomplished but making PvP optional is a worse solution IMHO. It's been tried many times and I always hated it. The only one that I didn't hate was DAoC but that is an RvR game and not a FFA Open World game. At lease in DAoC when you saw an enemy you knew it was an enemy and not "Hey let me check his flag" or "Hey this guy killed me yesterday but now he's dancing around me and I can't do anything because he's turned PvP off".
There are plenty of games that let you do that already. Not my cup of tea.
Inconveniencing players by forcing them to play your way just because its not your cup of tea is what lies at the opposite end of that spectrum. Sometimes we have to step out of our comfort zone and understand the "other point of view" before arriving at a mutual understanding. It's called having consideration for others. The fact that your solution is "hard and has never been accomplished" should be telling enough.
This "give and take" thing is something that the non-consensual OWPvP-centric crowd has never been good at. That demographic is all about "taking,' and never "giving." While the PvE demographic is often times conciliatory by suggesting "optional flagging" or separate "PvE servers," the OWPvP crowd will have none of it. They want it all. According to them its everyone on a mega-server and forced non-consensual PvP 24/7 or nothing at all. The words "mutual consideration" means nothing to this demographic.
Never thought I would agree with slapshot but his argument is sound.
See my post on ac1.
The thing is your saying pvp won't happen if the punishments are too severe but it's already been said during wars these punishments are off. Therefore pvp will find roots just not in ganking.
Also for those that like duels there is arenas which don't have cdg but allow pvp battles
But here is my 2 bit. Asherons call 1 had pvp tagging.want to pvp turn it on, don't want to leave it off. The problem with this is.... you see a pvp er her is low of health because he attacked another pvp er near you and since you was white he didn't worry. You flip your flag kill him easy and then get to loot two corpses.
Where is that fair?
PvP zones. Asherons call 2 did these, it was great to know I could go here and pvp but meh the pve got boring with no risk of being attacked.
Now I enjoyed wow playing in a pve area and risking seeing a member of the oposite factor and them attacking me. The adrenaline rush I got during that combat...
So in CoE will I be upset if I get ganked and killed whilst doing pve? Yes. Will I get an adrenaline rush? Yes. Will I still come back for more over and over again? Hell yes.
Good point.
What keeps being brought up does remind me of Asheron's Call. Great example of why PVP flag doesn't work. The reason that I never made it far into that game was because of that. Overall, it was not as exciting without the risk vs reward factor.
Like I said before, if you want to avoid PVP the solution is so simple.. join the zerg!
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
Interdependence would say give people things to do that others don't want to do, but I still think the "put the wootz in the PvP area" mechanic is bad. You don't deny the PvP guy entrance to the crafting hall. Is the subtext here that the killers are the ones whom the devs love best of all the things they created?
PVPers aren't favored because "devs love them best of all".
PVPers end up with the best things because they take all the risk while pure-PVE'ers take no risks.
That is LITERALLY the ENTIRE concept of RISK VS. REWARD.
You sound like you want PVE'ers to get as much reward as those taking high risks, but without any of the risk involved themselves. LacedOpium was suggesting a longer pathway requiring more effort toward the same resources, and I think that idea has merit.
In past games, that pathway has mostly consisted of doing safer things that build up money slowly, and using that accumulated wealth to buy things that only show up in dangerous pvp areas (mostly thinking of EVE). In EVE, you can spend your entire game time in 1.0 security, ratting and mining and doing NPC faction missions, and then you can go and buy high end weapons, ships, implants and blueprints. Low risk, low reward.
PVPers can get all of those things too, but they get them faster because the areas they mine and operate in are exceptionally dangerous. High risk, high reward.
My only other idea (in LacedOpiums vein of more effort to overcome low risk) toward appeasing pure PVE'ers would be a refining pyramid - the concept essentially works as 10 tier 1 resources can be refined into 1 tier 2 resource, 10 tier 2 resources get refined into 1 tier 3 resources, and so forth. Meanwhile, t3 resources are free to be harvested in the edges of the wilderness far from safety, open to PVP.
The idea here is that you can start in safety, with virtually no capital, and build yourself up with a slow progression. Or, you can take a risk and make leaps and bounds in progress.
But I will bet you that some ritalyn popping Best Buy employee with a resonator-equipped Honda Civic is on the leaderboard of the game for PvP kills, and that fool has every neat toy in the game plus tons of gold.
You just sound so extremely bitter with this post.
Allowing an "opt out" to PvP is not the solution to making PvE and PvP co-exist. The solution is making serious and meaningful ramifications for behaving in an anti-social/murderous manner.
I suppose that's what CoE is attempting to accomplish with the implementation of OWPvP in their game. And while I applaud them for their effort, that is easier said than done.
First of all will be the booming complaints by the PvP-centric demographic that these "serious and meaningful ramifications"are so severe that PvP never happens. I mean, according to this demographic, it is an OWPVP game after all. Why make a PvP game when PvP never happens?
... And if these "severe and meaninful ramifications" are not "severe" enough, then you will hear it from the PvE-centric demographic.
... and then there is that all-mighty "wild card" that no matter how "severe and meaningful" those ramifications are, there will always be those players with those "throw away" red characters that they will release upon the populace to satisfy their "anti-social/murderous" urges.
As sure as water is wet and fire is hot, you know one or all of the above will happen. Thats why one just gives the players the option and encourages the activity by making the activity appealing enough with the lure of the juicy hanging fruit, and simply sit back and watch the players go after it. Don't push it, dont force it, just let it happen naturally.
It's human nature.
Yes it's hard and yes it's never been accomplished but making PvP optional is a worse solution IMHO. It's been tried many times and I always hated it. The only one that I didn't hate was DAoC but that is an RvR game and not a FFA Open World game. At lease in DAoC when you saw an enemy you knew it was an enemy and not "Hey let me check his flag" or "Hey this guy killed me yesterday but now he's dancing around me and I can't do anything because he's turned PvP off".
There are plenty of games that let you do that already. Not my cup of tea.
This "give and take" thing is something that the non-consensual OWPvP-centric crowd has never been good at. That demographic is all about "taking,' and never "giving." While the PvE demographic is often times conciliatory by suggesting "optional flagging" or separate "PvE servers," the OWPvP crowd will have none of it. They want it all. According to them its everyone on a mega-server and forced non-consensual PvP 24/7 or nothing at all. The words "mutual consideration" means nothing to this demographic.
Your so wrong. Making PvP a half-measure after the PvE crowd succeeded making the game just that is the problem. Most MMO games turns out like that and no hardcore PvP players would ever accept it.
Optional PvP, non-consensual zones or better ore in hot spots is all developer constructives that remove the hardcore all out world PvP that so many seeks. Different loot settings depending on this or that is also completely worthless and wont attract the hardcore PvP community.
I am a open world PvP guy since UO beta and i experienced the first wild west scenario that led to the split and that split was no problem at all for the real PvP crowd in felucca, it might have been a problem for the weak PvP players that only ganked but it was no problem to the ones that enjoyed PvP. There is a difference btw PvP and ganking.
Felucca after trammel was the best time. Ok fewer cheeps but it was quality PvP where guilds fought other war prepared guilds and PK:s fought warguilds. I never had so much fun in a PvP full loot game like i had after trammel was introduced, trammel ment nothing to me or my guild of PvP players - let the PvE interested players have their non PvP mirror map and do their stuff while the PvP guys can go all out doing what they prefer.
Only one's that missed the sheeps was the ganker's with little PvP skills. PvP players couldn't care less if the PvE crowd have their mirror world with their settings. So what you are doing wrong is saying gankers and hardcore PvP players want the same when they dont.
This worked very well all the way up to Age of Shadows that finally killed felucca UO so i have no reason believing it would not work very well in a game like this.
Full loot, open world PvP and risk vs reward in everything is what this game need.
Trying to have these different play types in same game world wont succeed.
The village I am Blackmith in is concerned that there is an 'Outlaw' terrorising the locals. The local Sherrif is called who contacts the local Barron who sends the garrison down to the village to hunt the Outlaws. The local garrison and Barron notify the Count who also sends his garrison to route out the outlaws and drive them from the lands. Hearing this the King sends a portion of the army to assist in keeping the kings lands free of anyone that would deny him his lawful dues in taxes that, because the outlaw attacked the local blacksmith meant that the trade wagons could not be repaired, the local market had no produce to sell, meaning that the food that was destined for the kings grand banquet didn't arrive and he got pissed.
If that doesn't happen then I will find a King that can protect his citizens...
Problem solved. Let the royalty send in the troops.
Interdependence would say give people things to do that others don't want to do, but I still think the "put the wootz in the PvP area" mechanic is bad. You don't deny the PvP guy entrance to the crafting hall. Is the subtext here that the killers are the ones whom the devs love best of all the things they created?
PVPers aren't favored because "devs love them best of all".
PVPers end up with the best things because they take all the risk while pure-PVE'ers take no risks.
That is LITERALLY the ENTIRE concept of RISK VS. REWARD.
You sound like you want PVE'ers to get as much reward as those taking high risks, but without any of the risk involved themselves. LacedOpium was suggesting a longer pathway requiring more effort toward the same resources, and I think that idea has merit.
In past games, that pathway has mostly consisted of doing safer things that build up money slowly, and using that accumulated wealth to buy things that only show up in dangerous pvp areas (mostly thinking of EVE). In EVE, you can spend your entire game time in 1.0 security, ratting and mining and doing NPC faction missions, and then you can go and buy high end weapons, ships, implants and blueprints. Low risk, low reward.
PVPers can get all of those things too, but they get them faster because the areas they mine and operate in are exceptionally dangerous. High risk, high reward.
My only other idea (in LacedOpiums vein of more effort to overcome low risk) toward appeasing pure PVE'ers would be a refining pyramid - the concept essentially works as 10 tier 1 resources can be refined into 1 tier 2 resource, 10 tier 2 resources get refined into 1 tier 3 resources, and so forth. Meanwhile, t3 resources are free to be harvested in the edges of the wilderness far from safety, open to PVP.
The idea here is that you can start in safety, with virtually no capital, and build yourself up with a slow progression. Or, you can take a risk and make leaps and bounds in progress.
But I will bet you that some ritalyn popping Best Buy employee with a resonator-equipped Honda Civic is on the leaderboard of the game for PvP kills, and that fool has every neat toy in the game plus tons of gold.
You just sound so extremely bitter with this post.
It was supposed to sound that way, my choice of words was not unconscious. And your assumption is that the only risk is the Respawn. I think that is a very narrow definition of risk and one I would expect from the institutional mindset that design has cultivated. My point is that the twitch kid is not deserving of any more regard than the guy who found Mountainview Valley, or the person who founded a guild. But game design elevates that which is rewarded and recognized by the game itself. If there is a leaderboard, some mouse jockey owns it and is considered the best player in the game.
In most games Death means literally only a delay anyway unless you get all worked up and have an emotional reaction. In CoE death has some teeth at some point, but in most games Killers are simply doing the most favored and available tasks, there is nothing intrinsically glorious about it.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Comments
Sometimes I feel like I am on this one man crusade to "fix" how PvP is implemented in OWPvP games and it gets exhausting. If the entirety of the MMORPG player demographic would just lay down their hatchets and demand what is best for the genre as a whole, it would force developers to develop game's that are representative of the entire demographic thereby ensuring the success of these games and the genre.
Currently, at the forefront of the MMORPG genre's problems is the PvE vs PvP conflict. It is so hateful and polarizing that it, more often than not, dominates a game's topic of conversations and ultimately determines whether a game succeeds or fails. There is no reason why PvE and PvP can not co-exist in an MMORPG. The remedy is simply to make the game fair and competitive for all of its players. As far as PvE vs PvP disagreements are concerned, let the PvP be optional. Making it optional allows the PvE player to engage in PvP on their own terms. In time, there is little doubt that a good majority of those PvE players will engage in that content simply because it allows for progression and an alternative mode of game play.
Take BDO as an example. That community is entrenched in a heated battle as to whether the PvP in that game should start at level 45 or level 50. Fighting over five levels?! Really?? That is a silly and unnecessary debate that Daum should have taken care of weeks ago. Yet it flares on in that community, fueling the angst and hate between the two playing demographics, no doubt causing many to quit or not even try the game.
Why not just let the PvE crowd have those five levels and shut them up. By doing so they will avoid all of the discontent in the community thereby resulting in a larger, more content population, willing to spend money on the game and CS. Eventually, many of these PvE players will come to the realization that in order to advance in the game they will have to venture beyond that level 50 safety zone if they want to progress in the game. Human nature will just make that happen due to ambition and the sake of progression. Yet the lack of vision and foresight exhibited by Daum in that case is absolutely hurting this game.
The same will happen in all games featuring non-consensual OWPvP. Simply allow for those who do not want to engage in PvP to not flag for it with the condition that the game will be easier, and the items acquired much more valuable, if they were to subject themselves to PvP game play due to risks involved. The objective is to implement systems in games that guide players to wanting and the "voluntarily need" to go in that direction based on the hanging fruit. Forcing players to engage in activity before they are ready to do so willingly will simply have an adverse effect that can only serve to divide the community and expedite a game's ultimate demise.
Instead the only answer seems to be to make the PvP area bigger until it encompasses the whole world. All that does is spread PvP conflict, but until the repeatable fights of PvP have consequences that actually encourage play (not shutting down content for losing side players) and enrich the world history then it's not going to get better on the PvE side.
I suspect the same mechanisms that would allow PvP to change the world can easily be adapted to PvE. A Game with a changeable world, that is epic to be in, is the prize and in its absence the PvP workaround is their solution for simulating dynamism.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Understanding that many things are easier said than done, and that it is much easier to complain than it is to offer solutions to those problems being complained about, I feel compelled to address some of the concerns by posters reading this thread that might be thinking, well, that "synergy" between PvE and PvP in MMORPGs is easier said than done, so how would I propose it be implemented? And to that question I will offer a few examples.
Currently, the system that many developers implement to make the risk of PvP worthwhile is to have the more valuable and necessary resources be available in areas subject to non-consensual PvP. While effective in addressing the "risk vs reward" factor, it does very little to alleviate the unfairness that many PvE-centric players express with that system given PvP may not be their preferred game play style. In order for the implementation of PvP to be fair in this regard developers would have to make the possibility of acquiring those items through alternative measures, but make it so much more difficult in the alternatives that the PvE player would still be compelled to chose the PvP route to acquire said items rather than take the more difficult, and/or more expensive, alternative PvE route.
One of those alternative/optional routes could be by bribing a crooked NPC character/politician with an exorbitant amount of money (money sink) to acquire a time-sensitive "safety pass" to obtain those items without being subjected to the dangers of PvP. Another alternative optional route could be to allow that PvE player the ability to craft a "PvP Invulnerability" potion that will allow that player a certain amount of time-sensitive "PvP invulnerability" before they are PvP-able. In order for either of these options to be effective, however, the amount of the bribe would have to be so large so as to convince the PvEer that the better route to acquire the item would be throught PvP. Likewise, the resources to craft the "PvP Invulnerability potion" would be so onerous to acquire so as to encourage/entice the PvE player to choose to PvP to acquire those items, rather than craft the potion to avoid PvP. This would not prohibit, however, the option for a PvE-centric player to contract other PvP players for a less reliable mode of protection, by bartering for a lesser agreed payment, if they so desired. The key here is options.
In all of the above scenarios the PvE-centric player is given an "option" of taking the potentially easier route by PvPing their way to those resources/items, or opting the more onerous, time consuming, expensive and prolonged route to acquire said items if they are really adverse to PvPing. I would be willing to bet a dollar to your donut that most PvEers would elect to PvP, instead of choosing the alternatives. The advantage in all of this is the beauty of choice, increasing community cohesion, and allowing the game to prosper. There are many more examples of game play systems that could be implemented to encourage "voluntary" game play activity that advances PvP, rather than having to force it on a game's player base. Again, the key factor is "options." A variety of options in game play always results in a happier player base. And a happy player base is a spending player base that ensures a viable, successful, and potentially thriving game platform for a sustained period, ensuring the game's success well into the foreseeable future.
Perhaps the answer lies in a game that does not fall into this trap, and arranges PvP conflict in ways that actually make sense, treats activities as equally significant (where possible), and gives Options to people to cross the lines. I'm not saying a peaceful crafter economy warrior should have the same experience as the PvP guy, but when PvP rules the world everyone else is just support.
Having been a long time FPS PvP player and having many friends of the PvP-centric mindset, this is exactly the way the PvP-centric player views the PvE player. In that mindset, all PvE players are good for in their guilds are as "gatherers, crafters, and cooks" that provide them with all of their crafter gear, weapons and food. You heard it from some PvP players in this thread themselves as it pertained to PvE players contribution in games like Darkfall and Mortal Online. And they aim to keep it that way. Why any PvE-centric player would subject themselves to being another player's "servant" in that regard in an MMORPG is beyond me, but there you have it. And that will continue unless PvE players start becoming as vocal as PvP players are during the development of these games. PvE players need to wake up and look at the direction that MMORPGs have been taking in the past few years. MMORPG games no longer represent the MMORPG genre as it was initial conceived, and they only have themselves to blame for it.
Take out the NPC middle-man, and take that money, and just give it to the PVPer who is willing to harvest, or the harvester who is not afraid to PVP. They gather / obtain what you need, and you buy straight from them.
They take the pvp risk in acquiring something that may, or may not sell, and you get the reward at the cost (in time, money or effort) that you would have paid anyway to an NPC -- only its a PC instead.
This brings PVPers and PVE'ers together more directly, in my opinion. Furthermore, it does not require gimmicky "PVP invuln game mechanics" that breakdown immersion of a dangerous world. Of course this is getting pretty abstract, too.
The whole point of my post was to encourage and promote PvP through in game systems, not by stroking the PvPer ego by needing them to get anything done. Making these crucial items non-tradeable or BOE, with the option of making them purchasable via a time-sensitive pass from an NPC at a standard premium price, would accomplish that objective. There is also the added pssibility that the time will lapse thereby adding risk to the experience.
The system described already does promote pvp in Darkfall (rare ore mines) and is the basis for Crowfall's Points of Interest: one of the fundamental mechanics intended to promote pvp and the economy in Crowfall
Imagine: you go out to "Western Abandoned Quarry", the only known location for "metal alloy X". You harvest it while no one is there, but as you leave with your metal goods, you get jumped by people who had the same idea.
PVEs can do this too -- if they're lucky, they'll never encounter pvp. If they're unlucky, they'll have to abandon their goods and run, or fight. The same premise works in null-sec mining operations in EVE.
How does this not encourage pvp?
My post was about options, man, options.
Focus.
Because pacifism doesn't work I think most games give players things to do based on the Killers first hierarchy:
1) Killers PvP
2) Killers PvE
3) Stock Brokers & Resellers
4) Explorers, Lore Readers, & Gatherers
5) Crafters
6) Social & RP
Gankers/Griefers are typically in the top tier because they do the job that the Dev's can't do: provide challenge beyond PvE content. So even though these are loathsome creatures they are remoras on the favored sharks.
Famous explorer on the server? Never heard of it. Epic crafter? Not in a long time. Amazing in game musician or storyteller? Nope.
But I will bet you that some ritalyn popping Best Buy employee with a resonator-equipped Honda Civic is on the leaderboard of the game for PvP kills, and that fool has every neat toy in the game plus tons of gold.
MMORPGs (that have PvP) reward you the most for killing other players, period. It follows that game design puts them first above the needs of others.
But here is my 2 bit.
Asherons call 1 had pvp tagging.want to pvp turn it on, don't want to leave it off. The problem with this is.... you see a pvp er her is low of health because he attacked another pvp er near you and since you was white he didn't worry. You flip your flag kill him easy and then get to loot two corpses.
Where is that fair?
PvP zones. Asherons call 2 did these, it was great to know I could go here and pvp but meh the pve got boring with no risk of being attacked.
Now I enjoyed wow playing in a pve area and risking seeing a member of the oposite factor and them attacking me. The adrenaline rush I got during that combat...
So in CoE will I be upset if I get ganked and killed whilst doing pve? Yes. Will I get an adrenaline rush? Yes. Will I still come back for more over and over again? Hell yes.
Allowing an "opt out" to PvP is not the solution to making PvE and PvP co-exist.
The solution is making serious and meaningful ramifications for behaving in an anti-social/murderous manner.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
First of all will be the booming complaints by the PvP-centric demographic that these "serious and meaningful ramifications"are so severe that PvP never happens. I mean, according to this demographic, it is an OWPVP game after all. Why make a PvP game when PvP never happens?
... And if these "severe and meaninful ramifications" are not "severe" enough, then you will hear it from the PvE-centric demographic.
... and then there is that all-mighty "wild card" that no matter how "severe and meaningful" those ramifications are, there will always be those players with those "throw away" red characters that they will release upon the populace to satisfy their "anti-social/murderous" urges.
As sure as water is wet and fire is hot, you know one or all of the above will happen. Thats why one just gives the players the option and encourages the activity by making the activity appealing enough with the lure of the juicy hanging fruit, and simply sit back and watch the players go after it. Don't push it, dont force it, just let it happen naturally.
It's human nature.
These open world type games breed gankers and griefers and people not interested in 'fights' but only in encounters they have no chance of losing. The stramen would claim that makes sense, but thats because of their burn the world to the ground mindset. Its been PROVEN (not just speculation at this point) that no rules PvP type games are complete and utter failures and they dont even have enough players to even be called niche. Yet for some reason that is all that dots the future in terms of game mechanics. Which is mind boggling but the hubris of these guys makes them think they can be the first to do it and make it work.
Generic PvP'ers will never understand that in an MMORPG, PvP is the last resort not the first.
When people EXPECT to be beaten and blown up and have no desire to be competitive (on either side) it basically makes actually having balanced fights moot. So there are some obvious reasons why the approach is the way it s these days. A more controlled or voluntary PvP system brings expectations and the truth is these developers have never been able to meet those expectations. So they have tried to cultivate this wild wild west attitude somewhat. I imagine they think it is easier and cheaper to have games like this than actually make one that is competitive. And since its not their money theyre risking they dont care how many people actually end up sticking it out and if they happen to catch lightening in a bottle (hasnt happened yet) then all the better.
There are plenty of games that let you do that already. Not my cup of tea.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Inconveniencing players by forcing them to play your way just because its not your cup of tea is what lies at the opposite end of that spectrum. Sometimes we have to step out of our comfort zone and understand the "other point of view" before arriving at a mutual understanding. It's called having consideration for others. The fact that your solution is "hard and has never been accomplished" should be telling enough.
This "give and take" thing is something that the non-consensual OWPvP-centric crowd has never been good at. That demographic is all about "taking,' and never "giving." While the PvE demographic is often times conciliatory by suggesting "optional flagging" or separate "PvE servers," the OWPvP crowd will have none of it. They want it all. According to them its everyone on a mega-server and forced non-consensual PvP 24/7 or nothing at all. The words "mutual consideration" means nothing to this demographic.
Maybe its time we tried something different.
See my post on ac1.
The thing is your saying pvp won't happen if the punishments are too severe but it's already been said during wars these punishments are off.
Therefore pvp will find roots just not in ganking.
Also for those that like duels there is arenas which don't have cdg but allow pvp battles
What keeps being brought up does remind me of Asheron's Call. Great example of why PVP flag doesn't work. The reason that I never made it far into that game was because of that. Overall, it was not as exciting without the risk vs reward factor.
Like I said before, if you want to avoid PVP the solution is so simple.. join the zerg!
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
PVPers end up with the best things because they take all the risk while pure-PVE'ers take no risks.
That is LITERALLY the ENTIRE concept of RISK VS. REWARD.
You sound like you want PVE'ers to get as much reward as those taking high risks, but without any of the risk involved themselves. LacedOpium was suggesting a longer pathway requiring more effort toward the same resources, and I think that idea has merit.
In past games, that pathway has mostly consisted of doing safer things that build up money slowly, and using that accumulated wealth to buy things that only show up in dangerous pvp areas (mostly thinking of EVE). In EVE, you can spend your entire game time in 1.0 security, ratting and mining and doing NPC faction missions, and then you can go and buy high end weapons, ships, implants and blueprints. Low risk, low reward.
PVPers can get all of those things too, but they get them faster because the areas they mine and operate in are exceptionally dangerous. High risk, high reward.
My only other idea (in LacedOpiums vein of more effort to overcome low risk) toward appeasing pure PVE'ers would be a refining pyramid - the concept essentially works as 10 tier 1 resources can be refined into 1 tier 2 resource, 10 tier 2 resources get refined into 1 tier 3 resources, and so forth. Meanwhile, t3 resources are free to be harvested in the edges of the wilderness far from safety, open to PVP.
The idea here is that you can start in safety, with virtually no capital, and build yourself up with a slow progression. Or, you can take a risk and make leaps and bounds in progress.
You just sound so extremely bitter with this post.
Optional PvP, non-consensual zones or better ore in hot spots is all developer constructives that remove the hardcore all out world PvP that so many seeks. Different loot settings depending on this or that is also completely worthless and wont attract the hardcore PvP community.
I am a open world PvP guy since UO beta and i experienced the first wild west scenario that led to the split and that split was no problem at all for the real PvP crowd in felucca, it might have been a problem for the weak PvP players that only ganked but it was no problem to the ones that enjoyed PvP. There is a difference btw PvP and ganking.
Felucca after trammel was the best time. Ok fewer cheeps but it was quality PvP where guilds fought other war prepared guilds and PK:s fought warguilds. I never had so much fun in a PvP full loot game like i had after trammel was introduced, trammel ment nothing to me or my guild of PvP players - let the PvE interested players have their non PvP mirror map and do their stuff while the PvP guys can go all out doing what they prefer.
Only one's that missed the sheeps was the ganker's with little PvP skills. PvP players couldn't care less if the PvE crowd have their mirror world with their settings. So what you are doing wrong is saying gankers and hardcore PvP players want the same when they dont.
This worked very well all the way up to Age of Shadows that finally killed felucca UO so i have no reason believing it would not work very well in a game like this.
Full loot, open world PvP and risk vs reward in everything is what this game need.
Trying to have these different play types in same game world wont succeed.
So I get griefed/ganked or whatever...
The village I am Blackmith in is concerned that there is an 'Outlaw' terrorising the locals. The local Sherrif is called who contacts the local Barron who sends the garrison down to the village to hunt the Outlaws. The local garrison and Barron notify the Count who also sends his garrison to route out the outlaws and drive them from the lands. Hearing this the King sends a portion of the army to assist in keeping the kings lands free of anyone that would deny him his lawful dues in taxes that, because the outlaw attacked the local blacksmith meant that the trade wagons could not be repaired, the local market had no produce to sell, meaning that the food that was destined for the kings grand banquet didn't arrive and he got pissed.
If that doesn't happen then I will find a King that can protect his citizens...
Problem solved. Let the royalty send in the troops.
In most games Death means literally only a delay anyway unless you get all worked up and have an emotional reaction. In CoE death has some teeth at some point, but in most games Killers are simply doing the most favored and available tasks, there is nothing intrinsically glorious about it.