No one actually "likes" open PvP, after you include being on both sides of the hunter/prey equation. Though a good number of people greatly enjoy being the hunter, that it outwieghs the negatives of being prey.
Also worth mentioning that most open world games aren't actually RPGs. Acting like an insane person in a D&D game, will almost always mean the DM will permanently change your character to a criminal. In open world PvP games such criminal effects rarely last longer than 20 mins, basically to the point that they don't matter really.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
No one actually "likes" open PvP, after you include being on both sides of the hunter/prey equation. Though a good number of people greatly enjoy being the hunter, that it outwieghs the negatives of being prey.
Also worth mentioning that most open world games aren't actually RPGs. Acting like an insane person in a D&D game, will almost always mean the DM will permanently change your character to a criminal. In open world PvP games such criminal effects rarely last longer than 20 mins, basically to the point that they don't matter really.
False. I get that in your OPINION OWPVP is not desirable unless you are winning I, however, disagree with your opinion. I enjoy both sides of it as I enjoy the competition and I do not see losing as anything other than an opportunity to learn.
Also worth mentioning most open-world games ARE RPG's as D&D is not the sole authority on what is or is not role-playing. D&D may have been the inspiration for a lot of role-playing games, but it is not the end of the story.
Not having a DM is precisely why I prefer video games over tabletop any more.
OWPVP games should have exactly no penalty for participating in the main theme of the game, PvP.
So yes, when done properly (which WoW absolutely did NOT do) I enjoy OWPVP. I enjoy the intensity of the competition and the camaraderie that happens when on a good team.
I do not enjoy PvE fans coming to PvP games and whining when they get slaughtered. Take your lumps in silence or move along, your tears are useless.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
I like it when it's faction based and only parts of the world have open world PvP.
FFA open world with no regard to hard coded or player made factions just feels too chaotic and like you're meta gaming for no particular purpose.
Opening up parts of the world for PvP puts the choice of whether you feel like PvPing right now or not in your hands by either choosing to go there or not. It's consensual. It also makes much more sense as a war simulator by providing a "front lines" area with life being relatively conflict free (save for monsters) elsewhere.
The DAoC core servers did it perfectly.
"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
Realm versus realm is the best way to do open world, players need rules just like you get in sport. You can't stand at the opponents end and keep slapping the goalkeeper in football, there is a reason for rules.
If done right, like Ultima Online, I like it. I loathe free for all no consequences open world pvp with zero purpose. I do like a pvp ruleset that promotes roleplay like UO did.
Faction based pvp is cool too, at least there is an enemy you are supposed to kill. I don't consider that open world pvp really.
See I didn't see UO as having a guideline....I left the gates of Brittain, I died...over and over and over....How is that ever fun for anyone other than the max level guy ganking?
I agree ganking is not fun. But one thing is when you have Faction members in the area to join it can become large scale war. I love that in a large scale world. I don't like small scale ganking. That's why FFA is not appealing.
Yes. Some of the most heart racing moments I have ever had in a game was Darkfall, when out farming a dungeon or area for a few hours with friends, and another group shows up to attack. Try to stash the goods we just spent the time to farm, or fight off the enemy, always had my blood pumping.
Yes, I prefer open world pvp over instanced. I cut my teeth on LOTRO PvMP, started as a carebear raider that went to war with other raids. Got better, started to small group and solo. Loved solo. Too bad their servers couldn't handle the fights...
If done right, like Ultima Online, I like it. I loathe free for all no consequences open world pvp with zero purpose. I do like a pvp ruleset that promotes roleplay like UO did.
Faction based pvp is cool too, at least there is an enemy you are supposed to kill. I don't consider that open world pvp really.
See I didn't see UO as having a guideline....I left the gates of Brittain, I died...over and over and over....How is that ever fun for anyone other than the max level guy ganking?
It absolutely fits MY guideline. If you ganked at all in UO you received a bad title so people would know you are shady. If you did it too much (I think killing five innocent if I remember right) you became a criminal with a red name and could not enter the majority of player areas or guards would kill you on site. Meanwhile, every non-red player could kill you with impunity. There were entire guilds that were PK hunter guilds dedicated to hunting down and killing reds.
That's MY idea of open world pvp done right.
If great pvp to you is simply a "fair fight", you will never find that anywhere in an open world MMO.
If done right, like Ultima Online, I like it. I loathe free for all no consequences open world pvp with zero purpose. I do like a pvp ruleset that promotes roleplay like UO did.
Faction based pvp is cool too, at least there is an enemy you are supposed to kill. I don't consider that open world pvp really.
Well it's open-world... but not FFA
When I hear open world I think FFA.....but you're not wrong.
Open world pvp pretty much means I won't buy/play the game. No game has suitably set up a pvp MMO design that works for me. I have my eye on Crowfall, but we'll see.
Played lots of intensive, competitive board and miniature games back in the day, but I got to choose the groups I played with/against. Not interested in playing asshat pvp with random folks on the internet.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
If done right, like Ultima Online, I like it. I loathe free for all no consequences open world pvp with zero purpose. I do like a pvp ruleset that promotes roleplay like UO did.
Faction based pvp is cool too, at least there is an enemy you are supposed to kill. I don't consider that open world pvp really.
See I didn't see UO as having a guideline....I left the gates of Brittain, I died...over and over and over....How is that ever fun for anyone other than the max level guy ganking?
It absolutely fits MY guideline. If you ganked at all in UO you received a bad title so people would know you are shady. If you did it too much (I think killing five innocent if I remember right) you became a criminal with a red name and could not enter the majority of player areas or guards would kill you on site. Meanwhile, every non-red player could kill you with impunity. There were entire guilds that were PK hunter guilds dedicated to hunting down and killing reds.
That's MY idea of open world pvp done right.
If great pvp to you is simply a "fair fight", you will never find that anywhere in an open world MMO.
Problem was, the UO devs have admitted that the UO PvP drove paying customers away in droves. Just watching friends play was enough to keep me far away.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
If done right, like Ultima Online, I like it. I loathe free for all no consequences open world pvp with zero purpose. I do like a pvp ruleset that promotes roleplay like UO did.
Faction based pvp is cool too, at least there is an enemy you are supposed to kill. I don't consider that open world pvp really.
See I didn't see UO as having a guideline....I left the gates of Brittain, I died...over and over and over....How is that ever fun for anyone other than the max level guy ganking?
It absolutely fits MY guideline. If you ganked at all in UO you received a bad title so people would know you are shady. If you did it too much (I think killing five innocent if I remember right) you became a criminal with a red name and could not enter the majority of player areas or guards would kill you on site. Meanwhile, every non-red player could kill you with impunity. There were entire guilds that were PK hunter guilds dedicated to hunting down and killing reds.
That's MY idea of open world pvp done right.
If great pvp to you is simply a "fair fight", you will never find that anywhere in an open world MMO.
Problem was, the UO devs have admitted that the UO PvP drove paying customers away in droves. Just watching friends play was enough to keep me far away.
No, the problem was gamers wanted a pve experience but picked up a pvp game. THAT is the problem. I will give you props for knowing it wasn't for you....but the REAL problem is we have too many gamers that play these games anyway knowing it is not for them, then they cry like little babies and ruin the game for those of us who enjoy it. There are a gazillion games where you can't get ganked, go play one of them.
If done right, like Ultima Online, I like it. I loathe free for all no consequences open world pvp with zero purpose. I do like a pvp ruleset that promotes roleplay like UO did.
Faction based pvp is cool too, at least there is an enemy you are supposed to kill. I don't consider that open world pvp really.
See I didn't see UO as having a guideline....I left the gates of Brittain, I died...over and over and over....How is that ever fun for anyone other than the max level guy ganking?
It absolutely fits MY guideline. If you ganked at all in UO you received a bad title so people would know you are shady. If you did it too much (I think killing five innocent if I remember right) you became a criminal with a red name and could not enter the majority of player areas or guards would kill you on site. Meanwhile, every non-red player could kill you with impunity. There were entire guilds that were PK hunter guilds dedicated to hunting down and killing reds.
That's MY idea of open world pvp done right.
If great pvp to you is simply a "fair fight", you will never find that anywhere in an open world MMO.
Problem was, the UO devs have admitted that the UO PvP drove paying customers away in droves. Just watching friends play was enough to keep me far away.
No, the problem was gamers wanted a pve experience but picked up a pvp game. THAT is the problem. I will give you props for knowing it wasn't for you....but the REAL problem is we have too many gamers that play these games anyway knowing it is not for them, then they cry like little babies and ruin the game for those of us who enjoy it. There are a gazillion games where you can't get ganked, go play one of them.
Well, if it hadn't been pretty much the only game in town, that might be correct. When given a choice, folks fled. Not good for the developers. And the devs really didn't have much of a clue as to how things were going to work out in UO. They were tearing their hair out on a weekly basis over exploits and behaviors of the player base. It wasn't what they'd envisioned in their design.
Perhaps a bit naive on their part. But it was early on in the genre.
Nowadays, your complaint has much stronger legs.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I don't like it with power gaps. Why have competitive PvP that is not competitive?
I agree. This is one of the reasons I do not like pvp in RPG games or perk/bonus/scavenge systems in games like CoD or Fortnite. I prefer a more level playing field like in Quake or Overwatch.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I don't like it with power gaps. Why have competitive PvP that is not competitive?
I agree. This is one of the reasons I do not like pvp in RPG games or perk/bonus/scavenge systems in games like CoD or Fortnite. I prefer a more level playing field like in Quake or Overwatch.
I don't mind perks. In many MMORPG the power differences are so great you don't really have a chance.
I used to enjoy pvp much more when I was younger. Over the years I have enjoyed various pvp rule sets but only one really stood out for me - EVE online; Though I haven't played in years, I really enjoyed pvp in EVE for many years. These days, I don't pvp much unless I have a group of friends to do it with. I still enjoy the team aspect of pvp in from time to time. I don't look for it much anymore though.
When a game is 95% PvE and 5% PvP, it works more naturally.
Everyone is busy with their PvE content, but if you decide to do it's easily available.
This is the trick to good PvP
That's a bit low, as you reach endgame it should shift form anything from 20 to 50%
I can't imagine a game where at any given time 5% of the population is trying to patrol the open world trying to gank or anti-gank people. 5% is already pretty chaotic.
Comments
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
Also worth mentioning most open-world games ARE RPG's as D&D is not the sole authority on what is or is not role-playing. D&D may have been the inspiration for a lot of role-playing games, but it is not the end of the story.
Not having a DM is precisely why I prefer video games over tabletop any more.
OWPVP games should have exactly no penalty for participating in the main theme of the game, PvP.
So yes, when done properly (which WoW absolutely did NOT do) I enjoy OWPVP. I enjoy the intensity of the competition and the camaraderie that happens when on a good team.
I do not enjoy PvE fans coming to PvP games and whining when they get slaughtered. Take your lumps in silence or move along, your tears are useless.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
FFA open world with no regard to hard coded or player made factions just feels too chaotic and like you're meta gaming for no particular purpose.
Opening up parts of the world for PvP puts the choice of whether you feel like PvPing right now or not in your hands by either choosing to go there or not. It's consensual. It also makes much more sense as a war simulator by providing a "front lines" area with life being relatively conflict free (save for monsters) elsewhere.
The DAoC core servers did it perfectly.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
WoW did it right.
I like knowing I have allies without having to be in a guild
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I don't like small scale ganking. That's why FFA is not appealing.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
It absolutely fits MY guideline. If you ganked at all in UO you received a bad title so people would know you are shady. If you did it too much (I think killing five innocent if I remember right) you became a criminal with a red name and could not enter the majority of player areas or guards would kill you on site. Meanwhile, every non-red player could kill you with impunity. There were entire guilds that were PK hunter guilds dedicated to hunting down and killing reds.
That's MY idea of open world pvp done right.
If great pvp to you is simply a "fair fight", you will never find that anywhere in an open world MMO.
When I hear open world I think FFA.....but you're not wrong.
Played lots of intensive, competitive board and miniature games back in the day, but I got to choose the groups I played with/against. Not interested in playing asshat pvp with random folks on the internet.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
No, the problem was gamers wanted a pve experience but picked up a pvp game. THAT is the problem. I will give you props for knowing it wasn't for you....but the REAL problem is we have too many gamers that play these games anyway knowing it is not for them, then they cry like little babies and ruin the game for those of us who enjoy it. There are a gazillion games where you can't get ganked, go play one of them.
Perhaps a bit naive on their part. But it was early on in the genre.
Nowadays, your complaint has much stronger legs.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Everyone is busy with their PvE content, but if you decide to do it's easily available.
This is the trick to good PvP
World of Warcraft
Depend on how he define the percentage.