If by flag systems you mean the ability to toggle PvP status on and off I disagree that it helps. That kind of system does not allow for player conflict as a major content driver. When you can essentially opt out of PvP whenever and wherever you want, you can remove the element of competition from any content you desire.
The system pioneered by EVE of different areas having different levels of PvP is a good concept. It's execution where it fails. Where EVE's seems to have been thrown together with little thought and seen little review over the years, I would make doing that system right one of the major focuses of the game.
The other piece of the puzzle IMO is creating competition that you can take part in that doesn't involve getting jumped and killed constantly. I think the influence system I describe on my forums is pretty huge in that it allows for players who don't like fighting to still take a meaningful part in shaping the world without leaving the "safe-areas." It essentially turns safe-areas into a full fledged part of the sandbox world that you never really need to leave if you don't want to rather than simple starter areas. Meaning people out in the PvP areas really are there entirely by choice.
Ok, so there is one problem with PVP in games. People are assholes. Just accept it. EVE is a great example. People spent YEARS (literally) tracking someone because they had a big, expensive, ship. For that reason, the person never logged on with that ship. Then after years of waiting, he takes it out for a spin and people ambush him and blow it up. WoW is no better with corpse campers, etc. Honestly, PvP doesn't work today because the real world rewards us by being assholes in games (through sites like Twitch and YouTube).
I'm sorry, but people who want things like full loot PvP and survival-type gameplay are in a niche within the niche of MMORPGs and there is even less money to be had than with themeparks. Until that's proven otherwise, nobody in their right mind will, or should, invest a dime into it. Stick with crowdfunding until something meaningful is created. There's absolutely no need for a AAA budget to do what you're talking about.
I think the major parts of the post relevant that was just said.
1. Every corner alignment other than chaotic-evil allows different ways for the players to be entirely safe within the nations where they live. 2. Certain areas are locked to a specific alignment meaning there will always be a place for people who want to play in an area strictly governed by one of these rulesets. 3. There are areas that are not locked into a specific culture meaning the decisions of players will organically decide what types of playstyles hold the most territory.
I agree that full on full-loot survival type PvP holds less interest than systems where players can enjoy some level of safety and not having to worry about getting randomly ganked all the time. That's why I expect lawful-good would hold a lot more sway and territory than chaotic-evil. But there would still be those chaotic evil areas for players that really enjoy that kind of thing.
To sum up my reasoning. Every game I come from in the line of games like, Darkfall, EVE, Mortal etc. the chief complaint among players is how they start the game and then they are getting ganked while they are out questing as a newb.
People don't like being thrust into PvP simply because they exist and are playing the game. They like to be able to decide what level of risks they want to take.
However if PvP itself was not a popular content form, nobody would be playing LoL, COD, Counterstrike etc. When LoL is dramatically more popular than any existing MMO and MOBAs as a genre have overtaken MMOs, that tells you there is a massive market for PvP.
Chief differences are:
1. Lack of massive power disparity based on character stats. 2. You make the CHOICE to PvP. It isn't forced on you.
My model addresses both of those chief differences. Which is why it would actually be successful.
There's a lot of finger pointing at devs and wrong information in here.
Here's generally how software gets made:
Either a business needs something or developers pitch an idea that will provide value (and generate $)
The project gets funding
Actual development/SDLC takes place
MMOs, in terms of cost and complexity, are at the highest level possible for video games. As time has gone on video game development in general has increased in cost. AAA games (not MMOs) cost around $15,000,000. A AAA MMOs will cost more than this.
Now put yourself in the shoes of someone who has a lot of money. Would you:
Give money to an MMO project that is copying an existing formula (WoW), that based on current statistics will at least break even upon launch? This is a very safe investment.
Give money to a niche MMO that will probably, based on previous track records of niche MMOs, may not even break even and just sink?
Objectively ask yourself the above, you're stupid if you don't pick the safe route. Even as a risky investor myself (have bought marijuana stocks), I would not even weigh option 2.
So there you go, you want a different type of MMO? Go give someone $ to make it.
Just a one off here. If you make any game that is totally PvP driven, you are going to alienate a very substantial number of potential players. I for one would steer clear of any PvP driven MMO. I am fine if there is such a game out there but don't go around saying that it would universally make EVERY MMO better.
Just a one off here. If you make any game that is totally PvP driven, you are going to alienate a very substantial number of potential players. I for one would steer clear of any PvP driven MMO. I am fine if there is such a game out there but don't go around saying that it would universally make EVERY MMO better.
Vast majority of players would including myself. There are tons of games specific to PvP, even MMOFPS. Last thing I want is to play a game where a neckbeard can invest 1,000 hours in because they have no responsibilities and 1HKOed me =P
1. You say that its a misconception that catering to niche audience doesnt pay off: well, when you are competing on a market that is brim full of mmorpg to choose from then you better make the next messiah of mmo gaming if you are hoping to even break even and keep a healthy playerbase.
Heck, even DFO almost died and its imho only in a safe position because the asian market will be still very much insanely huge for it even if the western playerbase may be a bit small.
2. companies choose to copy WOW because thats the model they see to be profitable. As to whether or not they actually succed, thats a different story altogether.
Includes Open World FFA PvP in some areas =/= totally PvP driven or Darkfall Clone. I realize most of you are just skimming so you can slap down a reply and get another post count but please, if you haven't actually read any of this, you aren't qualified to comment on what I'm actually suggesting:
Includes Open World FFA PvP in some areas =/= totally PvP driven or Darkfall Clone. I realize most of you are just skimming so you can slap down a reply and get another post count but please, if you haven't actually read any of this, you aren't qualified to comment on what I'm actually suggesting:
What, no chaotic good realm? (I'm thinking of a land full of Libertarians)
You rightfully avoided true neutral as that isn't really possible unless all activities are totally random.
Perhaps the thread has gone astray for too long, I don't really know what exactly you are suggesting, even after reading through all of this, except perhaps to build a better EVE?
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
I mean you obviously skimmed it because you missed two parts with their own bolded headings:
The Four Corner Alignments
While there will be the full spectrum of alignments including all of the neutral alignments, focusing on the description of the corner alignements highlights how alignment affects the government of a nation. You can expect more neutral nations to fall somewhere between these extremes.
And...
Chaotic Good Nations
Nations with chaotic-good cultures introduce sabotage and trickery into the political process. Control of territory is still determined by influence but where in a lawful-good nation the focus is entirely on building your own influence, in a chaotic-good nation you can subvert the influence of opposing factions. Weapons stolen from the garrison or support given to a rebel hideout may help lower the influence of the ruling faction in order to secure a take-over by yours.
Because of the elements of sabotage being incorporated in, there will be a bit more violence as well. If you are caught subverting the ruling faction they will have to give you a chance to pay a fine to them which grants them money and influence if you do. If you refuse, you will be flagged as an outlaw opening you up to attack and forfeiting your rights to own property (with the exception of hideouts) within the kingdom.
Overall life in a chaotic-good nation will be fairly peaceful if you do not take part in the political process but once you declare your support for a faction you are opening yourself up to the shadowy political games being played there. Chaotic-good players looking for a bit more action will find themselves able to sabotage other good aligned factions along their borders and even go so far is to engage against open robbery and assassinations against evil factions.
That being said thanks for actually going in and looking at it. The model I'm suggesting most similarly resembles the EVE system with a few chief differences.
1. The influence system allows players another means for territorial control other than combat. Meaning players who don't like PvP can hold sovereignty in high sec (lawful-good) areas. The culture system prevents players from abusing this though. Unlike EVE the bulk of the sandbox isn't restricted to Null-sec(chaotic-evil). It's a full sandbox game everywhere.
2. There is a range on how territory is controlled and what is allowed in territory. There are areas where you are completely safe (unlike EVE's high sec) as well as areas where only certain conditions open you to combat (exactly like EVE's high-sec) so that players can pick to live in an area that fits their personal preferences perfectly.
3. Some areas of the game can undergo cultural changes over time, meaning that the game will organically adapt towards having more areas with the culture players prefer and less areas with cultures players don't prefer over time. This is important when you realize 90% of EVE's population lives in high sec. In this game, that would mean high sec would likely expand to cover roughly 90% of the map.
4. It's a hands on fantasy universe instead of spreadsheets in space. Also the PvE and crafting won't suck.
In all fairness I did read the first two threads, so by the third I might have rushed it a bit.
I like where you are going with this, I always felt EVE might have appealed to a bit broader audience if they didn't force player interaction quite so much, with usually the protagonist having all of the advantage.
Players like to choose the limits of their interactions and CCP almost got it right in my opinion.
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
I think this is the message AAA game designers really need to here. Especially the "Safe is risky" part.
Every time someone comes to me excited about a new MMO the first thing I ask them is "How is it different from (closest sounding MMO I've played)?" And if the meaningful difference described in their answer sounds less like a whole new game and more like an expansion for another game, I generally won't even try it.
AAA MMO designers need to stop squabbling over the target market that wants WoW or something close to it, and determine what the largest target market unsatisfied by current MMOs is. And if they market is satisfied they need to find the next market.
"Niche MMO" shouldn't be a dirty word. There is practically unlimited design space to be explored by the MMO industry. AAA companies need to stop "playing it safe" and then wonder why their game goes F2P a few months after release every time. A well done "Niche MMO" with a sizeable niche is going to attract more customers and far more DEVOTED customers, than a rehashing of the same design space that's been explored over and over and over.
agreed.
I think they need to re-evaluate their target demographic. If they are trying to target 14-20 year olds with the old ideology of forming product loyalty they need to consider the opportunity costs here. There is now, unlike the past, aging gamers and aging population of which I might add have more money to spend then 14-20 year olds AND tend to inform 14-20 year olds about the scams they have been exposed to. so repeats of the same old scam isnt going to work long term
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
And of course there is the points in the topic directly addressing that topic that there is an entire territorial system in the safer areas of this game not based around killing each other. So you can conquer own your own sovereign territory as a non-PvP guild which is something you won't find in any other sandbox. Maybe instanced territory or territory you pay taxes on but nothing you can actually conquer.
May or may not appeal to you but a lot have people have already expressed interest in them.
Obviously the overall target demographic for this game is people who really want to make a mark on the world whether they enjoy PvP, PvE, or Crafting. Games that allow PvEers and Crafters to make a true mark on the world are in even shorter supply than PvP sandboxes.
Comments
Ok, so there is one problem with PVP in games. People are assholes. Just accept it. EVE is a great example. People spent YEARS (literally) tracking someone because they had a big, expensive, ship. For that reason, the person never logged on with that ship. Then after years of waiting, he takes it out for a spin and people ambush him and blow it up. WoW is no better with corpse campers, etc. Honestly, PvP doesn't work today because the real world rewards us by being assholes in games (through sites like Twitch and YouTube).
I'm sorry, but people who want things like full loot PvP and survival-type gameplay are in a niche within the niche of MMORPGs and there is even less money to be had than with themeparks. Until that's proven otherwise, nobody in their right mind will, or should, invest a dime into it. Stick with crowdfunding until something meaningful is created. There's absolutely no need for a AAA budget to do what you're talking about.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I think the major parts of the post relevant that was just said.
1. Every corner alignment other than chaotic-evil allows different ways for the players to be entirely safe within the nations where they live.
2. Certain areas are locked to a specific alignment meaning there will always be a place for people who want to play in an area strictly governed by one of these rulesets.
3. There are areas that are not locked into a specific culture meaning the decisions of players will organically decide what types of playstyles hold the most territory.
I agree that full on full-loot survival type PvP holds less interest than systems where players can enjoy some level of safety and not having to worry about getting randomly ganked all the time. That's why I expect lawful-good would hold a lot more sway and territory than chaotic-evil. But there would still be those chaotic evil areas for players that really enjoy that kind of thing.
People don't like being thrust into PvP simply because they exist and are playing the game. They like to be able to decide what level of risks they want to take.
However if PvP itself was not a popular content form, nobody would be playing LoL, COD, Counterstrike etc. When LoL is dramatically more popular than any existing MMO and MOBAs as a genre have overtaken MMOs, that tells you there is a massive market for PvP.
Chief differences are:
1. Lack of massive power disparity based on character stats.
2. You make the CHOICE to PvP. It isn't forced on you.
My model addresses both of those chief differences. Which is why it would actually be successful.
Here's generally how software gets made:
- Either a business needs something or developers pitch an idea that will provide value (and generate $)
- The project gets funding
- Actual development/SDLC takes place
MMOs, in terms of cost and complexity, are at the highest level possible for video games. As time has gone on video game development in general has increased in cost. AAA games (not MMOs) cost around $15,000,000. A AAA MMOs will cost more than this.Now put yourself in the shoes of someone who has a lot of money. Would you:
- Give money to an MMO project that is copying an existing formula (WoW), that based on current statistics will at least break even upon launch? This is a very safe investment.
- Give money to a niche MMO that will probably, based on previous track records of niche MMOs, may not even break even and just sink?
Objectively ask yourself the above, you're stupid if you don't pick the safe route. Even as a risky investor myself (have bought marijuana stocks), I would not even weigh option 2.So there you go, you want a different type of MMO? Go give someone $ to make it.
Let's party like it is 1863!
To adress some of your points
1. You say that its a misconception that catering to niche audience doesnt pay off: well, when you are competing on a market that is brim full of mmorpg to choose from then you better make the next messiah of mmo gaming if you are hoping to even break even and keep a healthy playerbase.
Heck, even DFO almost died and its imho only in a safe position because the asian market will be still very much insanely huge for it even if the western playerbase may be a bit small.
2. companies choose to copy WOW because thats the model they see to be profitable. As to whether or not they actually succed, thats a different story altogether.
1. Risk vs. Reward and Culture
2. Why Play an Open World PvP Sandbox for Crafting and PvE?
3. Alignments
You rightfully avoided true neutral as that isn't really possible unless all activities are totally random.
Perhaps the thread has gone astray for too long, I don't really know what exactly you are suggesting, even after reading through all of this, except perhaps to build a better EVE?
"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
And...
That being said thanks for actually going in and looking at it. The model I'm suggesting most similarly resembles the EVE system with a few chief differences.
1. The influence system allows players another means for territorial control other than combat. Meaning players who don't like PvP can hold sovereignty in high sec (lawful-good) areas. The culture system prevents players from abusing this though. Unlike EVE the bulk of the sandbox isn't restricted to Null-sec(chaotic-evil). It's a full sandbox game everywhere.
2. There is a range on how territory is controlled and what is allowed in territory. There are areas where you are completely safe (unlike EVE's high sec) as well as areas where only certain conditions open you to combat (exactly like EVE's high-sec) so that players can pick to live in an area that fits their personal preferences perfectly.
3. Some areas of the game can undergo cultural changes over time, meaning that the game will organically adapt towards having more areas with the culture players prefer and less areas with cultures players don't prefer over time. This is important when you realize 90% of EVE's population lives in high sec. In this game, that would mean high sec would likely expand to cover roughly 90% of the map.
4. It's a hands on fantasy universe instead of spreadsheets in space. Also the PvE and crafting won't suck.
I like where you are going with this, I always felt EVE might have appealed to a bit broader audience if they didn't force player interaction quite so much, with usually the protagonist having all of the advantage.
Players like to choose the limits of their interactions and CCP almost got it right in my opinion.
"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
I think they need to re-evaluate their target demographic. If they are trying to target 14-20 year olds with the old ideology of forming product loyalty they need to consider the opportunity costs here.
There is now, unlike the past, aging gamers and aging population of which I might add have more money to spend then 14-20 year olds AND tend to inform 14-20 year olds about the scams they have been exposed to. so repeats of the same old scam isnt going to work long term
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Not to mention if you put all the best item in FFA areas, why would I want to play as a PvE player?
Unless you are telling me this game's PvE or safezone is so much better than other games.
My ideas on PvE
And of course there is the points in the topic directly addressing that topic that there is an entire territorial system in the safer areas of this game not based around killing each other. So you can conquer own your own sovereign territory as a non-PvP guild which is something you won't find in any other sandbox. Maybe instanced territory or territory you pay taxes on but nothing you can actually conquer.
May or may not appeal to you but a lot have people have already expressed interest in them.
Obviously the overall target demographic for this game is people who really want to make a mark on the world whether they enjoy PvP, PvE, or Crafting. Games that allow PvEers and Crafters to make a true mark on the world are in even shorter supply than PvP sandboxes.