Here is the thing. You, nor anybody else on these boards that holds your position can give me a concise definition you all agree upon. Option 2 is or isn't absolute depending on which one of you I talk to. I mean VengeSunsoar's post implies he believes it's an absolute. This is because you aren't clear on your definition and I think I have finally pinpointed the reason why.
When any definition comes up for debate on these boards, there is a phenomena where everybody takes a side and nobody will just say "You know, I'm really not clear on the definition." In this process people seem to take contextual clues about where they have heard a word used before and kind of piece it together to form their best idea of what the word or phrase means. In doing so, some really, really bad definitions emerge and then gain a large amount of traction.
"You know, I've heard it in connection to EVE a lot before, but not very much in connection to LOTRO. Yeah.... the people that say it applies to EVE and not LOTRO must be right."
"You know I've heard a lot of people call Destiny an MMO and Superdata says LoL is an MMO. I guess the definition has evolved."
Etc. I've seen this phenomena play out in debates on Open World PvP, MMOs, RPGs, the Trinity etc.
So allow me to tell you why you fall into a large group that can only vaguely agree on any kind of definition and can't articulate a solid one, and I do not. When I was in 5th grade, I tested at a college reading level. When I was in 7th grade and they tested our reading comprehension they had to administer me and like 2-3 other students another more difficult test because we aced the first one. They then had to administer me, and me alone, a 3rd test because I aced the 2nd test. They then told me they didn't know my reading comprehension because I only missed a single question on the third, but suffice to say it was off-the-charts good. I've consistently tested well above average in every subject my entire life and reading comprehension / vocabulary are my absolute strongest subjects.
So suffice to say, as someone who has been neck deep in Open World PvP focused sandboxes for over a decade, I've heard the word a lot, I've picked up on the contextual clues and I know EXACTLY what definition has been the most consistently used over the time I've played them. I came into this debate knowing what it meant and how to properly use it.
I'm assuming you fall into the group that had some vague idea of what it meant, and decided on your definition during the course of the debates on these boards. There is a reason your definition isn't articulated anywhere online, while about 90% of sources confirm mine as being correct. It's a definition that was made up on these boards by people trying to make sense of a word they don't understand and weren't able to admit they don't understand. Unfortunately, that definition is way off in left field, and entirely incorrect.
A side note, but are there any games with out instances currently? I think not if you consider that if the game has servers, that server is in fact a set of instances. So there is no open world anything then.
I'm pretty sure the meaning of "Open World" alone defines it pretty well. If you queue up for a pvp match that is not open world PVP. If you encounter PVP out in the .. ahem "open world" while doing what you normally do then that is open world pvp.
A world that doesn't have pvp free, aka "safe zones", is just an open world pvp game without safe zones lol.
A side note, but are there any games with out instances currently? I think not if you consider that if the game has servers, that server is in fact a set of instances. So there is no open world anything then.
Servers fail to meet the definition of instance. An instance is a temporary area generated specifically for a set number of players.
So for instance when you queue a PvP match, it waits until it has 20 people creates an arena, you have your 10 vs. 10 match, and then the match is over and the instance goes away. If 20 more people queue during your match they can fight in the exact same arena at the exact same time you do, stand in the same spot you are standing, and they will not see you.
A server is a persistent world. It is not generated for a group or anyone, and does not go away if you everyone logs out. Server numbers don't fluctuate based on how many people are trying to play the game. If I build a house in ArcheAge, and the server goes down for maintenance, it will still be there when I log back in tomorrow. People can still come look at it while I'm gone.
Here is the thing. You, nor anybody else on these boards that holds your position can give me a concise definition you all agree upon. Option 2 is or isn't absolute depending on which one of you I talk to. I mean VengeSunsoar's post implies he believes it's an absolute. This is because you aren't clear on your definition and I think I have finally pinpointed the reason why.
When any definition comes up for debate on these boards, there is a phenomena where everybody takes a side and nobody will just say "You know, I'm really not clear on the definition." In this process people seem to take contextual clues about where they have heard a word used before and kind of piece it together to form their best idea of what the word or phrase means. In doing so, some really, really bad definitions emerge and then gain a large amount of traction.
"You know, I've heard it in connection to EVE a lot before, but not very much in connection to Darkfall. Yeah.... the people that say it applies to EVE and not Darkfall must be right."
"You know I've heard a lot of people call Destiny an MMO and Superdata says LoL is an MMO. I guess the definition has evolved."
Etc. I've seen this phenomena play out in debates on Open World PvP, MMOs, RPGs, the Trinity etc.
So allow me to tell you why you fall into a large group that can only vaguely agree on any kind of definition and can't articulate a solid one, and I do not. When I was in 5th grade, I tested at a college reading level. When I was in 7th grade and they tested our reading comprehension they had to administer me and like 2-3 other students another more difficult test because we aced the first one. They then had to administer me, and me alone, a 3rd test because I aced the 2nd test. They then told me they didn't know my reading comprehension because I only missed a single question on the third, but suffice to say it was off-the-charts good. I've consistently tested well above average in every subject my entire life and reading comprehension / vocabulary are my absolute strongest subjects.
So suffice to say, as someone who has been neck deep in Open World PvP focused sandboxes for over a decade, I've heard the word a lot, I've picked up on the contextual clues and I know EXACTLY what definition has been the most consistently used over the time I've played them. I came into this debate knowing what it meant and how to properly use it.
I'm assuming you fall into the group that had some vague idea of what it meant, and decided on your definition during the course of the debates on these boards. There is a reason your definition isn't articulated anywhere online, while about 90% of sources confirm mine as being correct. It's a definition that was made up on these boards by people trying to make sense of a word they don't understand and weren't able to admit they don't understand. Unfortunately, that definition is way off in left field, and entirely incorrect.
You were given plenty of reasons thru 2 other threads on the same topic and you just refuse to listen to anyone elses opinion , Even when its a 4-1 against your stance .. You just need to accept that the majority doesnt see it that way ..
And there is nothing wrong with that . .. What is wrong is making a new thread every month beating the same drum to nauseum .. Its not a good look and reminessant of you post earlier reffering to some folks beating there MMO drum (that i agree with you btw ) .
You do bring some really good insight on some topics , but , you need to learn to choose your fights ... This isnt one of them.
You are not going to change peoples opinion on this ...
I only refuse to listen to what other people say, when other people are clearly in the wrong. Like I said, I would respect your position considerably more if you guys could come to any kind of consensus as to what YOU believe the definition is.
But in this very thread one person has said it means you can kill anyone anywhere, one person has said that 70% of the game must be that way, another person says it just has to be the entire game outside towns.
If you guys could actually offer a solid definition and demonstrate to me that it's widely accepted anywhere other than these boards I might concede that "Open World PvP" is a word with two correct definitions and I am using one while you are using the other.
But while you guys are flailing around to come to any kind of consensus and none of you can clearly sum up to me what the phrase "Open World PvP" means to you, I'm going to continue to assume that it's because you're trying to speak authoritatively on the meaning of a phrase you don't understand.
It would make sense that there is a lot of flailing around on this word and misunderstanding of it's meaning. It's clearly a less commonly used phrase then other phrases that stir up debate here like "MMO" so it's understandable a lot less people come into the debate truly understanding it's meaning.
Here is the thing. You, nor anybody else on these boards that holds your position can give me a concise definition you all agree upon. Option 2 is or isn't absolute depending on which one of you I talk to. I mean VengeSunsoar's post implies he believes it's an absolute. This is because you aren't clear on your definition and I think I have finally pinpointed the reason why.
When any definition comes up for debate on these boards, there is a phenomena where everybody takes a side and nobody will just say "You know, I'm really not clear on the definition." In this process people seem to take contextual clues about where they have heard a word used before and kind of piece it together to form their best idea of what the word or phrase means. In doing so, some really, really bad definitions emerge and then gain a large amount of traction.
"You know, I've heard it in connection to EVE a lot before, but not very much in connection to Darkfall. Yeah.... the people that say it applies to EVE and not Darkfall must be right."
"You know I've heard a lot of people call Destiny an MMO and Superdata says LoL is an MMO. I guess the definition has evolved."
Etc. I've seen this phenomena play out in debates on Open World PvP, MMOs, RPGs, the Trinity etc.
So allow me to tell you why you fall into a large group that can only vaguely agree on any kind of definition and can't articulate a solid one, and I do not. When I was in 5th grade, I tested at a college reading level. When I was in 7th grade and they tested our reading comprehension they had to administer me and like 2-3 other students another more difficult test because we aced the first one. They then had to administer me, and me alone, a 3rd test because I aced the 2nd test. They then told me they didn't know my reading comprehension because I only missed a single question on the third, but suffice to say it was off-the-charts good. I've consistently tested well above average in every subject my entire life and reading comprehension / vocabulary are my absolute strongest subjects.
So suffice to say, as someone who has been neck deep in Open World PvP focused sandboxes for over a decade, I've heard the word a lot, I've picked up on the contextual clues and I know EXACTLY what definition has been the most consistently used over the time I've played them. I came into this debate knowing what it meant and how to properly use it.
I'm assuming you fall into the group that had some vague idea of what it meant, and decided on your definition during the course of the debates on these boards. There is a reason your definition isn't articulated anywhere online, while about 90% of sources confirm mine as being correct. It's a definition that was made up on these boards by people trying to make sense of a word they don't understand and weren't able to admit they don't understand. Unfortunately, that definition is way off in left field, and entirely incorrect.
LOL, when ROFL isn't available as an option.
I doubt you've ever heard anyone call EVE, DF, Darktide, SB, UO, Lineage 1/2, Mordred, anything but FFA open world PVP games.
Conversely rare is the person who calls LOTRO, WOW, SWG, SWTOR, ESO or EQ1 open world PVP, though back in the day EQ1 rocked it on PVP servers.
If most of the gaming world has no problem identifying what games are FFA Open World PVP and what are not, why are you struggling to comprehend the difference?
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
Because most of the gaming world doesn't classify games as Open World PvP anymore than they classify games as dungeons, quests, or crafting systems.
EVE, Darkfall, etc. are very commonly referred to in connection to Open World PvP because they are games that make Open World PvP their primary content and enable them in the vast majority of the world. You can't play those games without being immersed knee deep in that content, willingly or otherwise. While you could play LotRO and entirely miss that that content is there.
But saying the Ettenmoors isn't Open World PvP because it isn't prevalent enough in that game is like saying crafting in WoW isn't crafting because it isn't nearly as prevalent as what is found in Mortal Online, StarWars Galaxies, or Wurm.
You're confusing game types with content. Open World PvP has always been a type of content. It has never been a type of game.
I only refuse to listen to what other people say, when other people are clearly in the wrong. Like I said, I would respect your position considerably more if you guys could come to any kind of consensus as to what YOU believe the definition is.
But in this very thread one person has said it means you can kill anyone anywhere, one person has said that 70% of the game must be that way, another person says it just has to be the entire game outside towns.
If you guys could actually offer a solid definition and demonstrate to me that it's widely accepted anywhere other than these boards I might concede that "Open World PvP" is a word with two correct definitions and I am using one while you are using the other.
But while you guys are flailing around to come to any kind of consensus and none of you can clearly sum up to me what the phrase "Open World PvP" means to you, I'm going to continue to assume that it's because you're trying to speak authoritatively on the meaning of a phrase you don't understand.
It would make sense that there is a lot of flailing around on this word and misunderstanding of it's meaning. It's clearly a less commonly used phrase then other phrases that stir up debate here like "MMO" so it's understandable a lot less people come into the debate truly understanding it's meaning.
So you consider yourself to be in the right because you've managed to come to a consensus with yourself? Have you done what you expect of others?
"Open World PvP" is an amalgamation of two separate thoughts: "open world" and "PvP."
An open world in a game is a game space in which players are not limited to a set path. They are free to explore the edges of the map in any order they choose, generally speaking. The map is generally on the larger side, but not every one needs to be massive like in WoW.
PvP is obviously "Player vs Player." That encompasses anything where two players compete with one another within the mechanics of the game. This colloquiallly applies primarily to RTS, RPG, and FPS games, but really it can apply to anything.
So "open world PvP" is really just any game that satisfies those two conditions.
'Open World' is of course anything that takes place in the open world - ie: you don't need to load into an instance, it's part of the rest of the game world and take place anywhere within it.
By definition then, Open World PVP is PVP that takes place within the world itself rather than shut away in an instance. If you can PVP in the persistent world, and others can witness/see it while going about their business then it's open world.
Combat can occur between players in a non-instanced fashion anywhere in the game world where permitted by the server ruleset. Virtually all Open World PvP games place some limit on where and/or when this type of PvP can occur. This is typically done by zone, area, or character level. Regardless of restriction, if this type of combat can occur, it is considered Open World PvP.
So yes I would say my position stands in consensus with many others who offer definitions that all boil down to "Open World PvP is any PvP that happens in the Open World as opposed to an instance."
None of these positions are contradictory to each other or unclear as you will find with the competing point of view on these boards. It's all clearly understandable and articulate definitions that say the same thing over and over in slightly different words.
Here is the thing. You, nor anybody else on these boards that holds your position can give me a concise definition you all agree upon. Option 2 is or isn't absolute depending on which one of you I talk to. I mean VengeSunsoar's post implies he believes it's an absolute. This is because you aren't clear on your definition and I think I have finally pinpointed the reason why.
When any definition comes up for debate on these boards, there is a phenomena where everybody takes a side and nobody will just say "You know, I'm really not clear on the definition." In this process people seem to take contextual clues about where they have heard a word used before and kind of piece it together to form their best idea of what the word or phrase means. In doing so, some really, really bad definitions emerge and then gain a large amount of traction.
"You know, I've heard it in connection to EVE a lot before, but not very much in connection to LOTRO. Yeah.... the people that say it applies to EVE and not LOTRO must be right."
"You know I've heard a lot of people call Destiny an MMO and Superdata says LoL is an MMO. I guess the definition has evolved."
Etc. I've seen this phenomena play out in debates on Open World PvP, MMOs, RPGs, the Trinity etc.
So allow me to tell you why you fall into a large group that can only vaguely agree on any kind of definition and can't articulate a solid one, and I do not. When I was in 5th grade, I tested at a college reading level. When I was in 7th grade and they tested our reading comprehension they had to administer me and like 2-3 other students another more difficult test because we aced the first one. They then had to administer me, and me alone, a 3rd test because I aced the 2nd test. They then told me they didn't know my reading comprehension because I only missed a single question on the third, but suffice to say it was off-the-charts good. I've consistently tested well above average in every subject my entire life and reading comprehension / vocabulary are my absolute strongest subjects.
So suffice to say, as someone who has been neck deep in Open World PvP focused sandboxes for over a decade, I've heard the word a lot, I've picked up on the contextual clues and I know EXACTLY what definition has been the most consistently used over the time I've played them. I came into this debate knowing what it meant and how to properly use it.
I'm assuming you fall into the group that had some vague idea of what it meant, and decided on your definition during the course of the debates on these boards. There is a reason your definition isn't articulated anywhere online, while about 90% of sources confirm mine as being correct. It's a definition that was made up on these boards by people trying to make sense of a word they don't understand and weren't able to admit they don't understand. Unfortunately, that definition is way off in left field, and entirely incorrect.
Thanks for the history lesson.
So are you implying that LOTRO is an open world PvP game using the definition you gave us for option 1, or are you not?
So are you implying that LOTRO is an open world PvP game using the definition you gave us for option 1, or are you not?
I am not implying any game is Open World PvP, because no game is Open World PvP. Open World PvP is content. Thus the question "Is LotRO an Open World PvP Game" is a similarly nonsensical question to "Is WoW and Arena PvP Game"? Or "Are you a liver person"? And then trying to insinuate the answer "no" means WoW doesn't have arena PvP, and you don't have a liver.
I am implying it is a game that has a small area set aside in which Open World PvP is possible. It's an Open World zone enabled for PvP. Roaming gangs of players encounter other roaming gangs of players in a persistent area with no set numbers per side, features generally distinct to Open World PvP.
No, it's not what the game is about, but that doesn't stop it from being Open World PvP any more than it means you don't have a liver if you decide not to classify yourself as a "liver person." Your question itself just means your entire thought process surrounding the matter is wrong. ________________
Another analogy is if you walked into a Mexican restaurant, found a burger on the menu and said. "They can't have burgers here because this isn't a burger joint! Whatever it is, it's not a burger!"
Again, the difference between falsely assuming the term "Open World PvP" applies to games, and realizing it is simply a type of content like Arena PvP, dungeons, questing, crafting etc.
So are you implying that LOTRO is an open world PvP game using the definition you gave us for option 1, or are you not?
I am not implying any game is Open World PvP, because no game is Open World PvP. Open World PvP is content. Thus the question "Is LotRO an Open World PvP Game" is a similarly nonsensical question to "Is WoW and Arena PvP Game"? Or "Are you a liver person"? And then trying to insinuate the answer "no" means WoW doesn't have arena PvP, and you don't have a liver.
I am implying it is a game that has a small area set aside in which Open World PvP is possible. It's an Open World zone enabled for PvP. Roaming gangs of players encounter other roaming gangs of players in a persistent area with no set numbers per side, features generally distinct to Open World PvP.
No, it's not what the game is about, but that doesn't stop it from being Open World PvP any more than it means you don't have a liver if you decide not to classify yourself as a "liver person." Your question itself just means your entire thought process surrounding the matter is wrong. ________________
Another analogy is if you walked into a Mexican restaurant, found a burger on the menu and said. "They can't have burgers here because this isn't a burger joint! Whatever it is, it's not a burger!"
Again, the difference between falsely assuming the term "Open World PvP" applies to games, and realizing it is simply a type of content like Arena PvP, dungeons, questing, crafting etc.
After rereading your absolutely Queen of England level pretentiousness, I'm beginning to think you don't really care about the message anyone is trying to communicate to you, you just want posts you can quote as an excuse to attempt to assert some kind of intellectual superiority that no one else here can even begin to grasp.
Because I'm trying to point out the inherent flaw in your thinking by even asking me such a question, and make that question's total irrelevance to the debate completely clear.
I'm trying to avoid you pretending I am backing down from my position that The Ettenmoors is an Open World PvP zone when I answer that nonsensical question as "no".
Because I'm trying to point out the inherent flaw in your thinking by even asking me such a question, and make that question's total irrelevance to the debate completely clear.
I'm trying to avoid you pretending I am backing down from my position that The Ettenmoors is an Open World PvP zone when I answer that nonsensical question as "no".
Then you were too caught up in trying to prove everyone wrong that you weren't even reading what I said.
I agree with you that the Ettenmoors is an open world PVP zone. I was asking if you were attempting to extrapolate that into LOTRO being classified as an "open world PVP game". Because that I can't agree with.
I apologize then. The question seemed hostile given I've already stated in this thread I don't consider games to be "Open World PvP". I believed my position was clear and you were just trolling me because you didn't like the answer I gave the first time. I've come to expect a certain level of hostility on these forums and so I'm a bit quick to read it into people's intentions. Especially people I've already gotten into it with in other threads.
I apologize then. The question seemed hostile given I've already stated in this thread I don't consider games to be "Open World PvP". I believed my position was clear and you were just trolling me because you didn't like the answer I gave the first time.
No, I was trying to avoid walking into an implication I wasn't trying to make.
I skimmed the thread before posting, and I didn't see where you had answered that question.
I think we can still apply labels like "open world PvP game" to titles to help describe games to one another, but agree that it helps to have a concrete definition of what that means before attempting to use it as a descriptor in any capacity. It's the same reason me and many others argue that MMORPGs mean something definite; something that illustrates the difference between those types of games and others.
And, at least when responding to me, you don't have to apologize. I don't hold grudges here, and I don't get my feelings hurt. I view debating with others here almost like a sport: smack talk and aggressive personalities are fine. If you're trying to convince someone of your point of view, timidity rarely helps. Of course, that also means I won't normally treat anyone with kid gloves myself.
Open world PVP wasn't even something we talked about until WOW and others created instanced PVP scenario matches as a quasi e-sport. The term originally was used to describe any PVP in MMOs that was not an instanced match.
Whether it happened everywhere in the game or only in some areas was irrelevant to the original use of the term.
Games were never meant to be called OWPVP as that simply described an activity within a game, not a game type.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Open world PVP wasn't even something we talked about until WOW and others created instanced PVP scenario matches as a quasi e-sport. The term originally was used to describe any PVP in MMOs that was not an instanced match.
Whether it happened everywhere in the game or only in some areas was irrelevant to the original use of the term.
Games were never meant to be called OWPVP as that simply described an activity within a game, not a game type.
I don't disagree, but I think it's okay to apply it as a descriptor to a game when speaking specifically about PvP within the genre. Again, for me, it's a matter of using it to differentiate between feature sets. That's why I was attempting to get clarification on the context in which we were applying the phrase.
I apologize then. The question seemed hostile given I've already stated in this thread I don't consider games to be "Open World PvP". I believed my position was clear and you were just trolling me because you didn't like the answer I gave the first time.
No, I was trying to avoid walking into an implication I wasn't trying to make.
I skimmed the thread before posting, and I didn't see where you had answered that question.
I think we can still apply labels like "open world PvP game" to titles to help describe games to one another, but agree that it helps to have a concrete definition of what that means before attempting to use it as a descriptor in any capacity. It's the same reason me and many others argue that MMORPGs mean something definite; something that illustrates the difference between those types of games and others.
And, at least when responding to me, you don't have to apologize. I don't hold grudges here, and I don't get my feelings hurt. I view debating with others here almost like a sport: smack talk and aggressive personalities are fine. If you're trying to convince someone of your point of view, timidity rarely helps. Of course, that also means I won't normally treat anyone with kid gloves myself.
I would say putting points diplomatically is almost always is more persuasive. Infact I've noticed arguments that I change the majority opinion against me simply by behaving the way I do, this very debate being one of them.
But then I draw a distinction between between popularity contests and intellectual debates and I don't really care if what I'm saying is aggressive or arrogant as long as it's right.
Many years of debating on forums has just gotten me to the point I don't care who I offend. I guess I post for the same reason I PvP. I like to watch the blood fly.
Open world PVP wasn't even something we talked about until WOW and others created instanced PVP scenario matches as a quasi e-sport. The term originally was used to describe any PVP in MMOs that was not an instanced match.
Whether it happened everywhere in the game or only in some areas was irrelevant to the original use of the term.
Games were never meant to be called OWPVP as that simply described an activity within a game, not a game type.
I don't disagree, but I think it's okay to apply it as a descriptor to a game when speaking specifically about PvP within the genre. Again, for me, it's a matter of using it to differentiate between feature sets. That's why I was attempting to get clarification on the context in which we were applying the phrase.
Yeah but it gets confusing as almost every single MMO has a slightly different spin on it: Archeage has no PVP zones and PVP zones some of which only become so on a timer or when certain conditions are met. BDO has PVP anywhere but only after you're level 50. ESO has only one zone, a very large one but just one, where PVP is always enabled and being a megaserver game it has multiple instances of that zone. GW2 is similar to that and so were the standard rules servers in DAoC.
Some people want to reserve the use of the term as applied to a whole game these days when PVP is always on, everywhere at all levels which makes the number of games that meet that criteria extremely small.
I personally find the term as applied to games mostly useless.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
When any definition comes up for debate on these boards, there is a phenomena where everybody takes a side and nobody will just say "You know, I'm really not clear on the definition." In this process people seem to take contextual clues about where they have heard a word used before and kind of piece it together to form their best idea of what the word or phrase means. In doing so, some really, really bad definitions emerge and then gain a large amount of traction.
"You know, I've heard it in connection to EVE a lot before, but not very much in connection to LOTRO. Yeah.... the people that say it applies to EVE and not LOTRO must be right."
"You know I've heard a lot of people call Destiny an MMO and Superdata says LoL is an MMO. I guess the definition has evolved."
Etc. I've seen this phenomena play out in debates on Open World PvP, MMOs, RPGs, the Trinity etc.
So allow me to tell you why you fall into a large group that can only vaguely agree on any kind of definition and can't articulate a solid one, and I do not. When I was in 5th grade, I tested at a college reading level. When I was in 7th grade and they tested our reading comprehension they had to administer me and like 2-3 other students another more difficult test because we aced the first one. They then had to administer me, and me alone, a 3rd test because I aced the 2nd test. They then told me they didn't know my reading comprehension because I only missed a single question on the third, but suffice to say it was off-the-charts good. I've consistently tested well above average in every subject my entire life and reading comprehension / vocabulary are my absolute strongest subjects.
So suffice to say, as someone who has been neck deep in Open World PvP focused sandboxes for over a decade, I've heard the word a lot, I've picked up on the contextual clues and I know EXACTLY what definition has been the most consistently used over the time I've played them. I came into this debate knowing what it meant and how to properly use it.
I'm assuming you fall into the group that had some vague idea of what it meant, and decided on your definition during the course of the debates on these boards. There is a reason your definition isn't articulated anywhere online, while about 90% of sources confirm mine as being correct. It's a definition that was made up on these boards by people trying to make sense of a word they don't understand and weren't able to admit they don't understand. Unfortunately, that definition is way off in left field, and entirely incorrect.
So for instance when you queue a PvP match, it waits until it has 20 people creates an arena, you have your 10 vs. 10 match, and then the match is over and the instance goes away. If 20 more people queue during your match they can fight in the exact same arena at the exact same time you do, stand in the same spot you are standing, and they will not see you.
A server is a persistent world. It is not generated for a group or anyone, and does not go away if you everyone logs out. Server numbers don't fluctuate based on how many people are trying to play the game. If I build a house in ArcheAge, and the server goes down for maintenance, it will still be there when I log back in tomorrow. People can still come look at it while I'm gone.
It's simply in no way an instance.
And there is nothing wrong with that . .. What is wrong is making a new thread every month beating the same drum to nauseum .. Its not a good look and reminessant of you post earlier reffering to some folks beating there MMO drum (that i agree with you btw ) .
You do bring some really good insight on some topics , but , you need to learn to choose your fights ... This isnt one of them.
You are not going to change peoples opinion on this ...
Let it rest Brother
But in this very thread one person has said it means you can kill anyone anywhere, one person has said that 70% of the game must be that way, another person says it just has to be the entire game outside towns.
If you guys could actually offer a solid definition and demonstrate to me that it's widely accepted anywhere other than these boards I might concede that "Open World PvP" is a word with two correct definitions and I am using one while you are using the other.
But while you guys are flailing around to come to any kind of consensus and none of you can clearly sum up to me what the phrase "Open World PvP" means to you, I'm going to continue to assume that it's because you're trying to speak authoritatively on the meaning of a phrase you don't understand.
It would make sense that there is a lot of flailing around on this word and misunderstanding of it's meaning. It's clearly a less commonly used phrase then other phrases that stir up debate here like "MMO" so it's understandable a lot less people come into the debate truly understanding it's meaning.
I doubt you've ever heard anyone call EVE, DF, Darktide, SB, UO, Lineage 1/2, Mordred, anything but FFA open world PVP games.
Conversely rare is the person who calls LOTRO, WOW, SWG, SWTOR, ESO or EQ1 open world PVP, though back in the day EQ1 rocked it on PVP servers.
If most of the gaming world has no problem identifying what games are FFA Open World PVP and what are not, why are you struggling to comprehend the difference?
"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
EVE, Darkfall, etc. are very commonly referred to in connection to Open World PvP because they are games that make Open World PvP their primary content and enable them in the vast majority of the world. You can't play those games without being immersed knee deep in that content, willingly or otherwise. While you could play LotRO and entirely miss that that content is there.
But saying the Ettenmoors isn't Open World PvP because it isn't prevalent enough in that game is like saying crafting in WoW isn't crafting because it isn't nearly as prevalent as what is found in Mortal Online, StarWars Galaxies, or Wurm.
You're confusing game types with content. Open World PvP has always been a type of content. It has never been a type of game.
"Open World PvP" is an amalgamation of two separate thoughts: "open world" and "PvP."
- An open world in a game is a game space in which players are not limited to a set path. They are free to explore the edges of the map in any order they choose, generally speaking. The map is generally on the larger side, but not every one needs to be massive like in WoW.
- PvP is obviously "Player vs Player." That encompasses anything where two players compete with one another within the mechanics of the game. This colloquiallly applies primarily to RTS, RPG, and FPS games, but really it can apply to anything.
So "open world PvP" is really just any game that satisfies those two conditions.And this one:
'Open World' is of course anything that takes place in the open world - ie: you don't need to load into an instance, it's part of the rest of the game world and take place anywhere within it.
By definition then, Open World PVP is PVP that takes place within the world itself rather than shut away in an instance. If you can PVP in the persistent world, and others can witness/see it while going about their business then it's open world.
And this one:
Definition: Open World PvP
Combat can occur between players in a non-instanced fashion anywhere in the game world where permitted by the server ruleset. Virtually all Open World PvP games place some limit on where and/or when this type of PvP can occur. This is typically done by zone, area, or character level. Regardless of restriction, if this type of combat can occur, it is considered Open World PvP.
All sources pulled from the first page of "Define Open World PvP"
_________
So yes I would say my position stands in consensus with many others who offer definitions that all boil down to "Open World PvP is any PvP that happens in the Open World as opposed to an instance."
None of these positions are contradictory to each other or unclear as you will find with the competing point of view on these boards. It's all clearly understandable and articulate definitions that say the same thing over and over in slightly different words.
So are you implying that LOTRO is an open world PvP game using the definition you gave us for option 1, or are you not?
And
Can we stop beating this one to death yet
WE JUST HAD THIS SAME DISCUSSION. Hell.... YOU just had this same discussion... TWICE!
WTF
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
~~ postlarval ~~
I am implying it is a game that has a small area set aside in which Open World PvP is possible. It's an Open World zone enabled for PvP. Roaming gangs of players encounter other roaming gangs of players in a persistent area with no set numbers per side, features generally distinct to Open World PvP.
No, it's not what the game is about, but that doesn't stop it from being Open World PvP any more than it means you don't have a liver if you decide not to classify yourself as a "liver person." Your question itself just means your entire thought process surrounding the matter is wrong.
________________
Another analogy is if you walked into a Mexican restaurant, found a burger on the menu and said. "They can't have burgers here because this isn't a burger joint! Whatever it is, it's not a burger!"
Again, the difference between falsely assuming the term "Open World PvP" applies to games, and realizing it is simply a type of content like Arena PvP, dungeons, questing, crafting etc.
Why did that take two posts and 12 paragraphs?
I like @Gdemami's methodology better.
I'm trying to avoid you pretending I am backing down from my position that The Ettenmoors is an Open World PvP zone when I answer that nonsensical question as "no".
I agree with you that the Ettenmoors is an open world PVP zone. I was asking if you were attempting to extrapolate that into LOTRO being classified as an "open world PVP game". Because that I can't agree with.
I skimmed the thread before posting, and I didn't see where you had answered that question.
I think we can still apply labels like "open world PvP game" to titles to help describe games to one another, but agree that it helps to have a concrete definition of what that means before attempting to use it as a descriptor in any capacity. It's the same reason me and many others argue that MMORPGs mean something definite; something that illustrates the difference between those types of games and others.
And, at least when responding to me, you don't have to apologize. I don't hold grudges here, and I don't get my feelings hurt. I view debating with others here almost like a sport: smack talk and aggressive personalities are fine. If you're trying to convince someone of your point of view, timidity rarely helps. Of course, that also means I won't normally treat anyone with kid gloves myself.
Whether it happened everywhere in the game or only in some areas was irrelevant to the original use of the term.
Games were never meant to be called OWPVP as that simply described an activity within a game, not a game type.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
But then I draw a distinction between between popularity contests and intellectual debates and I don't really care if what I'm saying is aggressive or arrogant as long as it's right.
Many years of debating on forums has just gotten me to the point I don't care who I offend. I guess I post for the same reason I PvP. I like to watch the blood fly.
Some people want to reserve the use of the term as applied to a whole game these days when PVP is always on, everywhere at all levels which makes the number of games that meet that criteria extremely small.
I personally find the term as applied to games mostly useless.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED