I don't have a problem getting killed by other players. The problem I have is getting killed when I'm not bargaining for it. It's the same reason I dislike the mechanic of mobs ambushing you on the road when you're just trying to move from one town to the next. Take a look at Shroud of the Avatar's open world map. You travel across it in order to get from one town to another, just like you do in Final Fantasy. And just like in Final Fantasy, suddenly without warning you can be in combat with others, when all you wanted to do was just move to that other town, dammit. ;-)
I like a good fight and I seek them out in a variety of formats, both PvE and PvP. But I don't like being confronted with it when I don't want it. I like having the choice of when to battle. Now, I also understand the thrill of knowing that you can be attacked at any time, the tension that creates, and I totally support that, *when that is what you're looking for and bargained for*. The problem with non-consensual PvP is similar to the annoying mob ambushes that always come at the most inconvenient time. If I wanted to be ambushed, I'd play Final Fantasy.
So, the PvPers say "then don't play the game". And my response is "Right, I won't.". That's why I don't play ArcheAge or Black Desert Online, despite the fact that I enjoyed the basic gameplay of both games quite a bit. And I played Elder Scrolls Online and took a very active role in PvP, *because it's what I bargained for", it wasn't thrust on me at a time that I didn't want it.
It's not about not wanting to die to another player. It's about not wanting to engage in PvP at times when I'd rather be doing something else instead. If that means leaving the game, so be it. Developers will get the message and I predict that many will return to a time when PvP and PvE were segregated and gave each audience what they wanted. Think about it. The only legitimate complaint that PvPers have against that model is that they can no longer ruin someone else's day when everyone is expecting PvP.
Men do not stop playing because they grow old. They grow old because they stop playing. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
@VengeSunsoar - You don't ever have to play the kind of MMORPG I want to make or see made. I certainly can't please everyone. No one can. And shouldn't hope to try. But if the game I'm thinking of is ever made, and you choose to play it, you will have a decent chance to kill my character within a few days to a few weeks, even if I've been playing the game for months or years.
Nothing you stated here has anything to do with what I stated. In really any of your posts to me.
It's like we are having two completely different conversations.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Thrill? and yet PVP in MMO's is often determined by levels and gear, dying from such an outcome is hardly thrilling, though if you were dying while challenging a dungeon, or exploring a new area, yeah, i can see how that can have a certain 'thrill' to it, but that is more likely to be experienced playing MMO's alongside others, not against.
That's where games like Darkfall is a success to the genre when it comes to PVP. Gear and character skill matters, but it's not remotely close to any of the other games around. A pretty new character can beat a veteran.
Is there gear and level progression in Darkfall? And how new is pretty new?
Thrill? and yet PVP in MMO's is often determined by levels and gear, dying from such an outcome is hardly thrilling, though if you were dying while challenging a dungeon, or exploring a new area, yeah, i can see how that can have a certain 'thrill' to it, but that is more likely to be experienced playing MMO's alongside others, not against.
That's where games like Darkfall is a success to the genre when it comes to PVP. Gear and character skill matters, but it's not remotely close to any of the other games around. A pretty new character can beat a veteran.
From what I remember, gear and skill points make all the difference in Darkfall. A "pretty new" palyer wouldn't be able to out damage a veterans health regen (+- healing spells) >.>
The real questions are: 1. Why on earth would I desire to be killed by another player? 2. What sort of psychologically disturbed individual plays an interactive social game with the agenda of collecting 'care bear tears'? 3. Why would I want to participate in a social game with such people?
I don't have a problem getting killed by other players. The problem I have is getting killed when I'm not bargaining for it. It's the same reason I dislike the mechanic of mobs ambushing you on the road when you're just trying to move from one town to the next. Take a look at Shroud of the Avatar's open world map. You travel across it in order to get from one town to another, just like you do in Final Fantasy. And just like in Final Fantasy, suddenly without warning you can be in combat with others, when all you wanted to do was just move to that other town, dammit. ;-)
I like a good fight and I seek them out in a variety of formats, both PvE and PvP. But I don't like being confronted with it when I don't want it. I like having the choice of when to battle. Now, I also understand the thrill of knowing that you can be attacked at any time, the tension that creates, and I totally support that, *when that is what you're looking for and bargained for*. The problem with non-consensual PvP is similar to the annoying mob ambushes that always come at the most inconvenient time. If I wanted to be ambushed, I'd play Final Fantasy.
So, the PvPers say "then don't play the game". And my response is "Right, I won't.". That's why I don't play ArcheAge or Black Desert Online, despite the fact that I enjoyed the basic gameplay of both games quite a bit. And I played Elder Scrolls Online and took a very active role in PvP, *because it's what I bargained for", it wasn't thrust on me at a time that I didn't want it.
It's not about not wanting to die to another player. It's about not wanting to engage in PvP at times when I'd rather be doing something else instead. If that means leaving the game, so be it. Developers will get the message and I predict that many will return to a time when PvP and PvE were segregated and gave each audience what they wanted. Think about it. The only legitimate complaint that PvPers have against that model is that they can no longer ruin someone else's day when everyone is expecting PvP.
But what if there are relatively or totally lawful good areas where you're completely safe from random sport-kills in the game? What if you have to willingly choose to travel to areas that aren't so safe?
@VengeSunsoar - You don't ever have to play the kind of MMORPG I want to make or see made. I certainly can't please everyone. No one can. And shouldn't hope to try. But if the game I'm thinking of is ever made, and you choose to play it, you will have a decent chance to kill my character within a few days to a few weeks, even if I've been playing the game for months or years.
Nothing you stated here has anything to do with what I stated. In really any of your posts to me.
It's like we are having two completely different conversations.
I just don't see how I'm going to convince of you anything, or that you're going to convince me of anything.
I may post the full idea for the game I'm thinking of in another thread soon. I'm not sure yet.
The real questions are: 1. Why on earth would I desire to be killed by another player? 2. What sort of psychologically disturbed individual plays an interactive social game with the agenda of collecting 'care bear tears'? 3. Why would I want to participate in a social game with such people?
Why do I desire to kill and loot AI mobs all day long? What sort of person wants to play an interactive social game with the agenda of killing things 90% or more of the time? Why would I want to participate in a social game where nothing I do really matters, I can never effect the world, and I have no chance of changing the world for better or worse?
Thrill? and yet PVP in MMO's is often determined by levels and gear, dying from such an outcome is hardly thrilling, though if you were dying while challenging a dungeon, or exploring a new area, yeah, i can see how that can have a certain 'thrill' to it, but that is more likely to be experienced playing MMO's alongside others, not against.
That's where games like Darkfall is a success to the genre when it comes to PVP. Gear and character skill matters, but it's not remotely close to any of the other games around. A pretty new character can beat a veteran.
From what I remember, gear and skill points make all the difference in Darkfall. A "pretty new" palyer wouldn't be able to out damage a veterans health regen (+- healing spells) >.>
If you look on the second page of the thread called "Old man: I won't play an RPG without permanent death" by pkpkpk, you'll see my idea for a different kind of progression in an mmorpg.
I actually enjoy PvP, in an FPS, where it's entirely skill based. If it's a constant level playing field, I will always have a good time. The problem with PvP in MMORPGs is it's hardly ever a fair fight. Most MMORPGs have level, stat, gear and an assortment of other progressions available to increase a characters survivability in combat. Some games have such a ridiculous gear disparity ( ArcheAge and Black Desert Online ) that it can be somewhat useless to even try.
I also enjoyed WoW's Battlegrounds too, but no, I think open world PvP full loot or any combination of those will never work in a lawless environment. There's not enough PvP players in the genre to sustain an MMO and without incentive for PvE players, you end up with stuff like Mortal Online and Darkfall. Plus, it's a proven fact, hardcore PvPers hate fighting other hardcore PvPers. Eventually, one of them is forced to submit a never ending defeat, like most PvE players are forced into which does nothing but drive them away. Once again, you end up with a dead game, a ghost town.
That's why I want to get rid of level and gear progression. That's why I want to do away with allowing players to become like gods in comparison to others. That's why I want for PvP in an MMORPG to be fair and competitive.
Why? Because I want to be able to play a true role-playing game online. And I want other people to be able to play a true rpg online. People are already playing mmorpgs. Might as well give them something worth playing.
Of course I never want to be killed by another player. I want to be the player that is killing other players.
Sometimes getting killed by another player can be important and meaningful though. Assassinating people from an opposing nation or faction has been known to start wars now and again.
I actually enjoy PvP, in an FPS, where it's entirely skill based. If it's a constant level playing field, I will always have a good time. The problem with PvP in MMORPGs is it's hardly ever a fair fight. Most MMORPGs have level, stat, gear and an assortment of other progressions available to increase a characters survivability in combat. Some games have such a ridiculous gear disparity ( ArcheAge and Black Desert Online ) that it can be somewhat useless to even try.
I also enjoyed WoW's Battlegrounds too, but no, I think open world PvP full loot or any combination of those will never work in a lawless environment. There's not enough PvP players in the genre to sustain an MMO and without incentive for PvE players, you end up with stuff like Mortal Online and Darkfall. Plus, it's a proven fact, hardcore PvPers hate fighting other hardcore PvPers. Eventually, one of them is forced to submit a never ending defeat, like most PvE players are forced into which does nothing but drive them away. Once again, you end up with a dead game, a ghost town.
That's why I want to get rid of level and gear progression. That's why I want to do away with allowing players to become like gods in comparison to others. That's why I want for PvP in an MMORPG to be fair and competitive.
Why? Because I want to be able to play a true role-playing game online. And I want other people to be able to play a true rpg online. People are already playing mmorpgs. Might as well give them something worth playing.
There would be a huge amount of players in the start, from which I guess about half would be people who just run around and kill people (aka murderhobos).
At some point those who want to do other things will get bored from being randomly murdered and leave. Then there won't be enough players to kill, so the murderhobos will leave.
And what's left is a game with to few players, that will soon be shutdown by the developers because they ain't making any money.
If you don't want gear or level progression, then it's kinda not a rpg anymore. Just a large scale deathmatch game.
I actually enjoy PvP, in an FPS, where it's entirely skill based. If it's a constant level playing field, I will always have a good time. The problem with PvP in MMORPGs is it's hardly ever a fair fight. Most MMORPGs have level, stat, gear and an assortment of other progressions available to increase a characters survivability in combat. Some games have such a ridiculous gear disparity ( ArcheAge and Black Desert Online ) that it can be somewhat useless to even try.
I also enjoyed WoW's Battlegrounds too, but no, I think open world PvP full loot or any combination of those will never work in a lawless environment. There's not enough PvP players in the genre to sustain an MMO and without incentive for PvE players, you end up with stuff like Mortal Online and Darkfall. Plus, it's a proven fact, hardcore PvPers hate fighting other hardcore PvPers. Eventually, one of them is forced to submit a never ending defeat, like most PvE players are forced into which does nothing but drive them away. Once again, you end up with a dead game, a ghost town.
That's why I want to get rid of level and gear progression. That's why I want to do away with allowing players to become like gods in comparison to others. That's why I want for PvP in an MMORPG to be fair and competitive.
Why? Because I want to be able to play a true role-playing game online. And I want other people to be able to play a true rpg online. People are already playing mmorpgs. Might as well give them something worth playing.
There would be a huge amount of players in the start, from which I guess about half would be people who just run around and kill people (aka murderhobos).
At some point those who want to do other things will get bored from being randomly murdered and leave. Then there won't be enough players to kill, so the murderhobos will leave.
And what's left is a game with to few players, that will soon be shutdown by the developers because they ain't making any money.
If you don't want gear or level progression, then it's kinda not a rpg anymore. Just a large scale deathmatch game.
Not necessarily. I'm going to post some ideas in a new thread. The heck with it.
Of course I never want to be killed by another player. I want to be the player that is killing other players.
Sometimes getting killed by another player can be important and meaningful though. Assassinating people from an opposing nation or faction has been known to start wars now and again.
In a permadeath game, certainly death is meaningful. You lose everything you've gained. Which is why I would rather be the one killing other players and not being the one killed. I have no idea what real life assassinations have to do with anything.
I think what is pretty poor about your proposed design (as far as you have let people know) is that you propose no progression. On the one hand you say death is meaningful, on the other, by removing progression, you actually remove the part that gives meaning.
You might as well play For Honor or Playerunknown's Battlegrounds at that point. The only difference you offer is a persistent open world? If there is no progression, then death is trivial.
Of course I never want to be killed by another player. I want to be the player that is killing other players.
Sometimes getting killed by another player can be important and meaningful though. Assassinating people from an opposing nation or faction has been known to start wars now and again.
In a permadeath game, certainly death is meaningful. You lose everything you've gained. Which is why I would rather be the one killing other players and not being the one killed. I have no idea what real life assassinations have to do with anything.
I think what is pretty poor about your proposed design (as far as you have let people know) is that you propose no progression. On the one hand you say death is meaningful, on the other, by removing progression, you actually remove the part that gives meaning.
You might as well play For Honor or Playerunknown's Battlegrounds at that point. The only difference you offer is a persistent open world? If there is no progression, then death is trivial.
I'm not removing progression. Stay tuned for a new thread I'm working on.
Of course I never want to be killed by another player. I want to be the player that is killing other players.
Sometimes getting killed by another player can be important and meaningful though. Assassinating people from an opposing nation or faction has been known to start wars now and again.
In a permadeath game, certainly death is meaningful. You lose everything you've gained. Which is why I would rather be the one killing other players and not being the one killed. I have no idea what real life assassinations have to do with anything.
I think what is pretty poor about your proposed design (as far as you have let people know) is that you propose no progression. On the one hand you say death is meaningful, on the other, by removing progression, you actually remove the part that gives meaning.
You might as well play For Honor or Playerunknown's Battlegrounds at that point. The only difference you offer is a persistent open world? If there is no progression, then death is trivial.
I'm not removing progression. Stay tuned for a new thread I'm working on.
Why would I stay tuned? If you add progression, it goes against everything you said about players having massive advantages over each other (which has always been fine with me personally). Are minor advantages ok with you then? Is that your secret sauce? People get minor advantages over others if they live a long time? If so, then again, death is (nearly) meaningless.
Of course I never want to be killed by another player. I want to be the player that is killing other players.
Sometimes getting killed by another player can be important and meaningful though. Assassinating people from an opposing nation or faction has been known to start wars now and again.
In a permadeath game, certainly death is meaningful. You lose everything you've gained. Which is why I would rather be the one killing other players and not being the one killed. I have no idea what real life assassinations have to do with anything.
I think what is pretty poor about your proposed design (as far as you have let people know) is that you propose no progression. On the one hand you say death is meaningful, on the other, by removing progression, you actually remove the part that gives meaning.
You might as well play For Honor or Playerunknown's Battlegrounds at that point. The only difference you offer is a persistent open world? If there is no progression, then death is trivial.
I'm not removing progression. Stay tuned for a new thread I'm working on.
Why would I stay tuned? If you add progression, it goes against everything you said about players having massive advantages over each other (which has always been fine with me personally). Are minor advantages ok with you then? Is that your secret sauce? People get minor advantages over others if they live a long time? If so, then again, death is (nearly) meaningless.
You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. And, no, no it doesn't. The people that live a long and happy life in the game I'm thinking of will most likely be those who have little to no combat skills. Btw, I posted a new thread.
For me, when I want to pvp I play battlefield 1or For Honor. When I play an RPG I enjoy cooperation among players, rather than war. But i dont fully dislike pvp in mmos. I just prefer that you have to flag in the open world to engage in pvp.
People should be able to exist in any mmo world without being someone else's play thing. So if all they want to do is craft and sell and do limited pve with no pvp interactions. That should be an option. If all you want to do is pvp in the open world all day. Flag up or start Guild vs. Guild wars for voluntary pvp. Both players are happy.
I also fully support having a pvp and separate pve server if that's what players want.
For me, when I want to pvp I play battlefield 1or For Honor. When I play an RPG I enjoy cooperation among players, rather than war. But i dont fully dislike pvp in mmos. I just prefer that you have to flag in the open world to engage in pvp.
People should be able to exist in any mmo world without being someone else's play thing. So if all they want to do is craft and sell and do limited pve with no pvp interactions. That should be an option. If all you want to do is pvp in the open world all day. Flag up or start Guild vs. Guild wars for voluntary pvp. Both players are happy.
I also fully support having a pvp and separate pve server if that's what players want.
I hear ya. But we already have all those kinds of games. I want to try to make something different.
Why do I hate? Because most of the time I don't have a chance to defend myself properly due to being lower level and/or doing something else like fighting a mob or gathering stuff. I'm okay with the idea of having a war between two or more factions but battles belong to battlefields; enemy troops don't wander deep inside a hostile territory killing everyone on sight.
If this kind of design is absolutely necessary, there should be a severe death penalty when fighting behind the enemy lines.
Why do I hate? Because most of the time I don't have a chance to defend myself properly due to being lower level and/or doing something else like fighting a mob or gathering stuff. I'm okay with the idea of having a war between two or more factions but battles belong to battlefields; enemy troops don't wander deep inside a hostile territory killing everyone on sight.
If this kind of design is absolutely necessary, there should be a severe death penalty when fighting behind the enemy lines.
There's very little chance of enemy troops wandering deep inside hostile territory and killing everyone in sight without attracting a lot of attention, I totally agree.
The kind of design that allows for such things to happen with little to no consequence is completely ridiculous and extremely unrealistic.
I don't hate it. I just don't see the point in most MMORPG. I'm not the teenager sitting at the Vesper X Roads trying to rob and kill everyone anymore.
I like the threat of being murdered but not every second. Surprise me.
Because I am the hero of my own story. I don't want to be ganked by someone five times my level as that would take me out of the experience of the game. But of course, it heavily depends on what kind of game it is and how their pvp is implemented.
I definitely agree with this statement..
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
I don't hate it. I just don't see the point in most MMORPG. I'm not the teenager sitting at the Vesper X Roads trying to rob and kill everyone anymore.
I like the threat of being murdered but not every second. Surprise me.
I have another thread with more detail on how I would attempt to go about creating a game world that could be fun for everyone, from the most prudent carebear to the most reckless ganker.
Comments
I don't have a problem getting killed by other players. The problem I have is getting killed when I'm not bargaining for it. It's the same reason I dislike the mechanic of mobs ambushing you on the road when you're just trying to move from one town to the next. Take a look at Shroud of the Avatar's open world map. You travel across it in order to get from one town to another, just like you do in Final Fantasy. And just like in Final Fantasy, suddenly without warning you can be in combat with others, when all you wanted to do was just move to that other town, dammit. ;-)
I like a good fight and I seek them out in a variety of formats, both PvE and PvP. But I don't like being confronted with it when I don't want it. I like having the choice of when to battle. Now, I also understand the thrill of knowing that you can be attacked at any time, the tension that creates, and I totally support that, *when that is what you're looking for and bargained for*. The problem with non-consensual PvP is similar to the annoying mob ambushes that always come at the most inconvenient time. If I wanted to be ambushed, I'd play Final Fantasy.
So, the PvPers say "then don't play the game". And my response is "Right, I won't.". That's why I don't play ArcheAge or Black Desert Online, despite the fact that I enjoyed the basic gameplay of both games quite a bit. And I played Elder Scrolls Online and took a very active role in PvP, *because it's what I bargained for", it wasn't thrust on me at a time that I didn't want it.
It's not about not wanting to die to another player. It's about not wanting to engage in PvP at times when I'd rather be doing something else instead. If that means leaving the game, so be it. Developers will get the message and I predict that many will return to a time when PvP and PvE were segregated and gave each audience what they wanted. Think about it. The only legitimate complaint that PvPers have against that model is that they can no longer ruin someone else's day when everyone is expecting PvP.
Men do not stop playing because they grow old. They grow old because they stop playing. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Nothing you stated here has anything to do with what I stated. In really any of your posts to me.
It's like we are having two completely different conversations.
From what I remember, gear and skill points make all the difference in Darkfall. A "pretty new" palyer wouldn't be able to out damage a veterans health regen (+- healing spells) >.>
1. Why on earth would I desire to be killed by another player?
2. What sort of psychologically disturbed individual plays an interactive social game with the agenda of collecting 'care bear tears'?
3. Why would I want to participate in a social game with such people?
But what if there are relatively or totally lawful good areas where you're completely safe from random sport-kills in the game? What if you have to willingly choose to travel to areas that aren't so safe?
I just don't see how I'm going to convince of you anything, or that you're going to convince me of anything.
I may post the full idea for the game I'm thinking of in another thread soon. I'm not sure yet.
Why do I desire to kill and loot AI mobs all day long?
What sort of person wants to play an interactive social game with the agenda of killing things 90% or more of the time?
Why would I want to participate in a social game where nothing I do really matters, I can never effect the world, and I have no chance of changing the world for better or worse?
If you look on the second page of the thread called "Old man: I won't play an RPG without permanent death" by pkpkpk, you'll see my idea for a different kind of progression in an mmorpg.
That's why I want to get rid of level and gear progression. That's why I want to do away with allowing players to become like gods in comparison to others. That's why I want for PvP in an MMORPG to be fair and competitive.
Why? Because I want to be able to play a true role-playing game online. And I want other people to be able to play a true rpg online. People are already playing mmorpgs. Might as well give them something worth playing.
There would be a huge amount of players in the start, from which I guess about half would be people who just run around and kill people (aka murderhobos).
At some point those who want to do other things will get bored from being randomly murdered and leave.
Then there won't be enough players to kill, so the murderhobos will leave.
And what's left is a game with to few players, that will soon be shutdown by the developers because they ain't making any money.
If you don't want gear or level progression, then it's kinda not a rpg anymore. Just a large scale deathmatch game.
Not necessarily. I'm going to post some ideas in a new thread. The heck with it.
In a permadeath game, certainly death is meaningful. You lose everything you've gained. Which is why I would rather be the one killing other players and not being the one killed. I have no idea what real life assassinations have to do with anything.
I think what is pretty poor about your proposed design (as far as you have let people know) is that you propose no progression. On the one hand you say death is meaningful, on the other, by removing progression, you actually remove the part that gives meaning.
You might as well play For Honor or Playerunknown's Battlegrounds at that point. The only difference you offer is a persistent open world? If there is no progression, then death is trivial.
I'm not removing progression. Stay tuned for a new thread I'm working on.
You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. And, no, no it doesn't. The people that live a long and happy life in the game I'm thinking of will most likely be those who have little to no combat skills. Btw, I posted a new thread.
People should be able to exist in any mmo world without being someone else's play thing. So if all they want to do is craft and sell and do limited pve with no pvp interactions. That should be an option. If all you want to do is pvp in the open world all day. Flag up or start Guild vs. Guild wars for voluntary pvp. Both players are happy.
I also fully support having a pvp and separate pve server if that's what players want.
I hear ya. But we already have all those kinds of games. I want to try to make something different.
If this kind of design is absolutely necessary, there should be a severe death penalty when fighting behind the enemy lines.
There's very little chance of enemy troops wandering deep inside hostile territory and killing everyone in sight without attracting a lot of attention, I totally agree.
The kind of design that allows for such things to happen with little to no consequence is completely ridiculous and extremely unrealistic.
I like the threat of being murdered but not every second. Surprise me.
I definitely agree with this statement..
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
I have another thread with more detail on how I would attempt to go about creating a game world that could be fun for everyone, from the most prudent carebear to the most reckless ganker.