Atlas was the perfect example of how easily others can ruin your game.I am not talking about serious organized guilds building up their forces to challenge another large organized guild i am talking about the term "gankers".
Forsen gathered a pile of his followers and entered Atlas with the sole purpose of ruining the game for others.He had ZERO intent on staying in the game,he just wanted to play long enough to disrupt the gameplay of others.
So those type of people most certainly exist and the idea of ruining a game is a real thing.However to those interested in playing this " i am not interested"but to those that are,i do not see any chance of any ganking.
You have to be flagged,if you flag yourself for pvp you accept the consequences,if you plan on running around solo or duo with a pvp flag,you might want to think about your decision a second time.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I should have mentioned that FACTIONS "3 of them"unless they add more is what ANY player can join.There is a governor "leader"but anyone can join these.
IMO 3 is not nearly enough and i stated this like 20 years ago already.
You can have your own individual housing "restrictions on that aspect,i have no idea".You will have to pay taxes to the owner of that zone.
There will obviously be strife within the factions and you can organize to overthrow the leader,how exactly idk.Reason is you might get for example The Syndicate voting in their player to lead the faction then that leader picks the same 50 Syndicate players to take part everytime leaving all others in the faction hung out to dry.
I feel like the way it is structured,you might see a few large real life guilds,like th Syndicate control the game,leaving all others with participation medals. This is why a game like this needs at minimum 20+ factions but of course they don't want to make gear for 20 different factions.
3 factions yes but there are multiple territories to fight over to my knowledge. So you might be in faction A and lose out on fighting for territory "Gate" but win to fight territory "wall". I don't think getting to fight for the territory is the issue. I DO agree the Gov getting to pick the 50 players can be an issue for numerous reasons. What if I make a alt company with our rival faction (one of them). They are attacking my territory and my faction wins the right to fight for it. I am just not going to bring anyone in to fight & will guarantee my main toon and faction get to keep the terriroy.
An MMO of this structure will form alliances (already currently happening in New World). This is what I think will control the territories and the 50 people. If the top 3 largest companies are in an Alliance then they will bring their 50 people in among them as long as one of the 3 get the bid. Which can turn into other companies being left out in the cold. A player who purchased the game based heavily off of these sieges might not even sniff one for over a month which could be an issue.
PVP in MMO's will never work in OWPVP. It relies on PVE'ers to be farmed. In PVE the AI can die 1000's or infinite times and never complain.
But for PVP to have 1000 kills requires someone to be killed 1000 times. If you look at the bell curve, where top tier hunters rarely die, that means low tier have to almost always die "Deer". PVE'ers dont want to be farmed. Those "Deer" will just leave. Then you have the mid range people that are the new farmed tier, who will now have no "Deer" to shoot, and are being farmed by the top, then the Mid range PVPers leave. That leaves the top hunters to fight each other, and they will just quit, because they dont want to die alot.
Top Tier PVPers dont fight eachother much in MMO's because there is not a big enough incentive for them to do so. They want to farm people. These MMO's rely on PVE'ers and low skill PVPers to be farmed and try to draw them into their MMO's with massive incentives in PVP areas.
Until these MMO's figure out a way to allow all skilled ranges of players to enjoy PVP and not just top tier, they will continue to fail.
Complete crap. I personally don't like open-world free for all pvp games with player looting. But it is just plain stupid to go into that sort of a game and then complain about it. And it is absolute ignorant rubbish to claim that these sort of games rely on pve players to "farm".
Games like Albion put good resources in pvp areas to encourage players to fight over them. It is a catalyst for pvp, in a game that has a playerbase that went into the game wanting a full-loot pvp experience.
Again, forced PvP is also rubbish. A game speaks for itself when you HAVE to put incentives in PvP areas just to make a PvP game enjoyable. Why is that? If people enjoy PvP so much, why do you need incentives?
Any MMORPG with PvP has to make a choice. Either PvP is optional, which pisses off PvP players because like every PvE player has explained 1,000,000 times, yet PvP players ignore, that PvP players DO NOT enjoy fighting other PvP players. Is this blatant fact not obvious enough? When you give players the choice to PvP or not to, how is that bad game design? It's not. Forcing people to PvP is bad game design, PERIOD.
What on Earth are you talking about? Your comment has nothing to do with my post.
Actually, my comment is replying to the last portion of your comment. The part where you say PvP games aren't designed to setup PvE players to get farmed by PvP players. Why do you think so many PvP players bitch about flagged PvP? If you are truly out to kill other PvP players, then surely a flagged PvP system wouldn't bother anyone, but that's not what I've seen on these forums.
Why is it so important for PvE players to be forced into PvP? Why can't people play how they wish?
Seems to me the entire last paragraph in your post expresses the exact problem we've been arguing about in this thread. Forced PvP by placing incentives in PvP areas. If those same incentives were placed in high level dungeon raids, I highly doubt you'd ever hear a PvE player bitch about a PvP game again.
You are kind of obsessed with this "us vs them" mentality aren't you?
What you are asking for is akin to saying that "pve" players should be allowed into battlegrounds, RvR, and battle-royale type games. Obviously, people that mainly enjoy pve can and do play such game modes, but they go in knowing that other players are going to attack them. The devs haven't set up such games just so "pvp players" can farm "pve players". There are simply players and the systems in the game designed to facilitate interesting pvp experiences.
This is exactly the same in owpvp games like Albion or Darkfall. These games are designed for people who like and want to play owpvp games. People who mainly enjoy pve can still play these games of course, but they should be aware that they are going to get killed and looted and that probably the best things in the game will require you to do pvp. If you don't want to participate in that you simply should not play the game, and the same goes for bgs, arenas, etc.
Are we really calling BDO open world PvP? I can remember being attacked in some out of the way place a couple of times, but mostly it seemed to be a consensual guild tagged system. Doesn't EVE have safe zones?
I am not putting out my stall for open world here, my preference is RvR, just not sure how open world PvP anything is today.
There is frequent OWPVP in BDO in popular grind spots to contest them.
EVE has a security system that inhibits PVP significantly in high sec areas but you can still get attacked by suicide gankers in high sec if your cargo is juicy enough or by war targets if you are at war with another corp.
Well that's what I am getting at, is it really OWPvP? In BDO players restrict themselves to few areas where special resources can be plundered, here the mindset of the players seems to be creating a zoned form of PvP. In EVE from what you have said, a security system is reducing the PvP to a minimal activity in high sec.
Now that's always going to happen, players are going to have reasons as to why they PvP in certain areas. But are players not now becoming self regulating, in the past it was almost like a free for all. And the security system you mentioned is saying to me if you can't be self regulating the game will become designed to regulate you.
Have PvP players moved on, is this what they now want? As a RvR fan it seems logical to me that "open world" PvP evolves and is no longer so open world at all. But I am not sure actual OWPvP fans want so much structure, they seemed to favour at the most guilds regulating what was going on.
In proper ffa pvp games with balanced risk and reward systems, cultures form. It’s a beautiful thing. This does not happen in you run of the mill WoW flag on/off pvp systems.
Are we really calling BDO open world PvP? I can remember being attacked in some out of the way place a couple of times, but mostly it seemed to be a consensual guild tagged system. Doesn't EVE have safe zones?
I am not putting out my stall for open world here, my preference is RvR, just not sure how open world PvP anything is today.
There is frequent OWPVP in BDO in popular grind spots to contest them.
EVE has a security system that inhibits PVP significantly in high sec areas but you can still get attacked by suicide gankers in high sec if your cargo is juicy enough or by war targets if you are at war with another corp.
Well that's what I am getting at, is it really OWPvP? In BDO players restrict themselves to few areas where special resources can be plundered, here the mindset of the players seems to be creating a zoned form of PvP. In EVE from what you have said, a security system is reducing the PvP to a minimal activity in high sec.
Now that's always going to happen, players are going to have reasons as to why they PvP in certain areas. But are players not now becoming self regulating, in the past it was almost like a free for all. And the security system you mentioned is saying to me if you can't be self regulating the game will become designed to regulate you.
Have PvP players moved on, is this what they now want? As a RvR fan it seems logical to me that "open world" PvP evolves and is no longer so open world at all. But I am not sure actual OWPvP fans want so much structure, they seemed to favour at the most guilds regulating what was going on.
In proper ffa pvp games with balanced risk and reward systems, cultures form. It’s a beautiful thing. This does not happen in you run of the mill WoW flag on/off pvp systems.
It does not matter ffa pvp itself is dead. First 3 months the PvPers have a blast killing all the people trying to PvE. The next 3-6 months all the PvEers start quiting the game. At the end of the 7th month most PvPers get board and start to quit. Month 10 they merge all the servers and all the ffa PvPers realize they rather not hang out with each other. Month 12 the new ffa MMO closes its doors.
They might be looking at it from 2 possible outcomes. 1 They are selling the game now instead of a cash shop,so if they sell enough copies they win right away and don't care about the future. 2 If players do stick around,we have plan B in order with a cash shop and maybe even the typical "seasons",because none of the modern day devs can think of a better term than seasons.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Are we really calling BDO open world PvP? I can remember being attacked in some out of the way place a couple of times, but mostly it seemed to be a consensual guild tagged system. Doesn't EVE have safe zones?
I am not putting out my stall for open world here, my preference is RvR, just not sure how open world PvP anything is today.
There is frequent OWPVP in BDO in popular grind spots to contest them.
EVE has a security system that inhibits PVP significantly in high sec areas but you can still get attacked by suicide gankers in high sec if your cargo is juicy enough or by war targets if you are at war with another corp.
Well that's what I am getting at, is it really OWPvP? In BDO players restrict themselves to few areas where special resources can be plundered, here the mindset of the players seems to be creating a zoned form of PvP. In EVE from what you have said, a security system is reducing the PvP to a minimal activity in high sec.
Now that's always going to happen, players are going to have reasons as to why they PvP in certain areas. But are players not now becoming self regulating, in the past it was almost like a free for all. And the security system you mentioned is saying to me if you can't be self regulating the game will become designed to regulate you.
Have PvP players moved on, is this what they now want? As a RvR fan it seems logical to me that "open world" PvP evolves and is no longer so open world at all. But I am not sure actual OWPvP fans want so much structure, they seemed to favour at the most guilds regulating what was going on.
In proper ffa pvp games with balanced risk and reward systems, cultures form. It’s a beautiful thing. This does not happen in you run of the mill WoW flag on/off pvp systems.
It does not matter ffa pvp itself is dead. First 3 months the PvPers have a blast killing all the people trying to PvE. The next 3-6 months all the PvEers start quiting the game. At the end of the 7th month most PvPers get board and start to quit. Month 10 they merge all the servers and all the ffa PvPers realize they rather not hang out with each other. Month 12 the new ffa MMO closes its doors.
Sounds good, old trope, not true though. Nearly ALL mmorpg are 3/4 dead in 10 months. Especially the bad ones.
Next time try to understand the topic and what I was saying.
Ahh you guys are so funny. Always the same reasoning ad-nauseam.
You really think, given the choice PVE players would join said games? Again, tell me how many PVE exclusive mmos release compared to hybrids? That right there is the issue.
Cramming every play style into one has never been the solution, but they keep on doing it.
Noone argued that. I think mixing the two playstyles is really hard (although BDO did it with adequate success).
To each their own, I highly disagree BDO did it with success. For ME, someone who WILL PVP in battlegrounds etc, their "solution" is stupid. Limiting content if you don't want to participate in open world PVP is not a good solution.
Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. In a PVP game like Albion it makes sense to put these rewards there to facilitate high risk high reward PVP and competition over resources for PVP players. ...
It is a PVP loop and I would expect only players that want PVP or that do not mind PVP to take part in it for both sides (hunter and gatherer). I would not expect PVP-averse players to do so.
But there actually were quite a few low-quality PVE themeparks coming out recently (Riders of Icarus, Closers, Astellia, Shroud of the Avatar etc), but they did poorly (same as the many low quality PVP sandboxes that get released recently). Also there's a few interesting PVE or PVE-able sandboxes that were also released fairly recently: Project Gorgon, One Hour One Life, Elite:Dangerous.
What the PVE scene lacks at the moment is a high production value PVE sandbox or sandpark (kinda like a modern SWG or BDO). I think that's the reason why PVE players are drooling over and attacking PVP sandboxes. They see elements there that they like, but don't want the PVP baggage coming with them.
But you can't just get rid of the PVP in a PVP sandbox and have a good game, the whole design falls apart. I would actually be very interested to see a purely PVE sandbox built from the ground up.
"Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. "
But it IS! Time and time again, we've seen mmos that put highly valuable materials or gear in contested zones. Those people who hate open world confrontations have no choice in the matter. And no, your reasoning of they can buying it from the auction is not a good one. Why should anyone be constraint because of different play style?
I never played any of the games listed as they didn't interest me, but from the quick googling they all share the same thing that exclusive PVE players are saying.
Riders of Icarus - Has open pvp zones that offer exclusive items. Astellia - Has a PvPvE map that offer items for endgame gear. Shroud of the Avatar - Has open pvp maps that are part of the main story.
Well, what's done is done. Amazon decided that due to the rotten bunch, unrestricted open world pvp was hindering the game. I don't see what's the fuss about having a flagging system (if done properly). If you want to pvp, keep it on, if you don't leave it off. Simple, effective.
As for sandpark/sandbox, there's been numerous debates but some thick headed people think a sandpark/sandbox == open world pvp which I disagree with.
Listen man, I don't want to be rude or anything, but you're just like the rest here. You're not actively thinking about those that don't want to be disturbed while leveling, exploring whatever they're doing. For me and others it's a problem. This might make me sound like a wussy to you, but the first time I killed someone while exploring was in WoW. I was wondering near an alliance area and saw a low level hiding in the grass, and I killed him. I felt really bad about it and never did it again. To each their own, but open world pvp is not for me, I hate having to look over my shoulder constantly when I'm trying to relax.
Noone argued that. I think mixing the two playstyles is really hard (although BDO did it with adequate success).
To each their own, I highly disagree BDO did it with success. For ME, someone who WILL PVP in battlegrounds etc, their "solution" is stupid. Limiting content if you don't want to participate in open world PVP is not a good solution.
Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. In a PVP game like Albion it makes sense to put these rewards there to facilitate high risk high reward PVP and competition over resources for PVP players. ...
It is a PVP loop and I would expect only players that want PVP or that do not mind PVP to take part in it for both sides (hunter and gatherer). I would not expect PVP-averse players to do so.
But there actually were quite a few low-quality PVE themeparks coming out recently (Riders of Icarus, Closers, Astellia, Shroud of the Avatar etc), but they did poorly (same as the many low quality PVP sandboxes that get released recently). Also there's a few interesting PVE or PVE-able sandboxes that were also released fairly recently: Project Gorgon, One Hour One Life, Elite:Dangerous.
What the PVE scene lacks at the moment is a high production value PVE sandbox or sandpark (kinda like a modern SWG or BDO). I think that's the reason why PVE players are drooling over and attacking PVP sandboxes. They see elements there that they like, but don't want the PVP baggage coming with them.
But you can't just get rid of the PVP in a PVP sandbox and have a good game, the whole design falls apart. I would actually be very interested to see a purely PVE sandbox built from the ground up.
"Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. "
But it IS! Time and time again, we've seen mmos that put highly valuable materials or gear in contested zones. Those people who hate open world confrontations have no choice in the matter. And no, your reasoning of they can buying it from the auction is not a good one. Why should anyone be constraint because of different play style?
I never played any of the games listed as they didn't interest me, but from the quick googling they all share the same thing that exclusive PVE players are saying.
Riders of Icarus - Has open pvp zones that offer exclusive items. Astellia - Has a PvPvE map that offer items for endgame gear. Shroud of the Avatar - Has open pvp maps that are part of the main story.
Well, what's done is done. Amazon decided that due to the rotten bunch, unrestricted open world pvp was hindering the game. I don't see what's the fuss about having a flagging system (if done properly). If you want to pvp, keep it on, if you don't leave it off. Simple, effective.
As for sandpark/sandbox, there's been numerous debates but some thick headed people think a sandpark/sandbox == open world pvp which I disagree with.
Listen man, I don't want to be rude or anything, but you're just like the rest here. You're not actively thinking about those that don't want to be disturbed while leveling, exploring whatever they're doing. For me and others it's a problem. This might make me sound like a wussy to you, but the first time I killed someone while exploring was in WoW. I was wondering near an alliance area and saw a low level hiding in the grass, and I killed him. I felt really bad about it and never did it again. To each their own, but open world pvp is not for me, I hate having to look over my shoulder constantly when I'm trying to relax.
Those who don’t ever want to deal with it won’t, don’t, and shouldn’t play. Period. It’s NOT about luring “pve only” players into dangerous areas, it’s about making them enticing for those who like that sort of thing.
Listen man, I don't want to be rude or anything, but you're just like the rest here. You're not actively thinking about those that want the extra challenge even if they’re not intending to be hard core pvpers. You’re thinking about this from the viewpoint of someone who Only wants pve.
Those who don’t ever want to deal with it won’t, don’t, and shouldn’t play. Period. It’s NOT about luring “pve only” players into dangerous areas, it’s about making them enticing for those who like that sort of thing.
Listen man, I don't want to be rude or anything, but you're just like the rest here. You're not actively thinking about those that want the extra challenge even if they’re not intending to be hard core pvpers. You’re thinking about this from the viewpoint of someone who Only wants pve.
Games like that just are not for you.
How so? I don't go into Albion, Darkfall etc and spout why they should have PVE servers. For sure it's not strictly to lure pve players, but the intention is there. There's no issues with pvp systems like GW2 where it's separated. Hell, pve and pvp servers are fine too yet we don't even get those anymore.
New world changed it to a flagging system due to griefers and PVP players are complaining. If the topic didn't change to how it is, I wouldn't have commented. However as expected, we're back to the same charade that PVE players "ruin" PVP games when in reality it's the developers who decided to develop it in such a way to garner more players.
Pot met the kettle then man. Cause these responses are LITERALLY THE SAME just different viewpoints.
As for your last point, do we really have a choice here? As I said a million times, besides a small amount of mmos, ALL are focusing on having both pvp and pve players together.
Noone argued that. I think mixing the two playstyles is really hard (although BDO did it with adequate success).
To each their own, I highly disagree BDO did it with success. For ME, someone who WILL PVP in battlegrounds etc, their "solution" is stupid. Limiting content if you don't want to participate in open world PVP is not a good solution.
Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. In a PVP game like Albion it makes sense to put these rewards there to facilitate high risk high reward PVP and competition over resources for PVP players. ...
It is a PVP loop and I would expect only players that want PVP or that do not mind PVP to take part in it for both sides (hunter and gatherer). I would not expect PVP-averse players to do so.
But there actually were quite a few low-quality PVE themeparks coming out recently (Riders of Icarus, Closers, Astellia, Shroud of the Avatar etc), but they did poorly (same as the many low quality PVP sandboxes that get released recently). Also there's a few interesting PVE or PVE-able sandboxes that were also released fairly recently: Project Gorgon, One Hour One Life, Elite:Dangerous.
What the PVE scene lacks at the moment is a high production value PVE sandbox or sandpark (kinda like a modern SWG or BDO). I think that's the reason why PVE players are drooling over and attacking PVP sandboxes. They see elements there that they like, but don't want the PVP baggage coming with them.
But you can't just get rid of the PVP in a PVP sandbox and have a good game, the whole design falls apart. I would actually be very interested to see a purely PVE sandbox built from the ground up.
"Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. "
But it IS! Time and time again, we've seen mmos that put highly valuable materials or gear in contested zones. Those people who hate open world confrontations have no choice in the matter. And no, your reasoning of they can buying it from the auction is not a good one. Why should anyone be constraint because of different play style?
I never played any of the games listed as they didn't interest me, but from the quick googling they all share the same thing that exclusive PVE players are saying.
Riders of Icarus - Has open pvp zones that offer exclusive items. Astellia - Has a PvPvE map that offer items for endgame gear. Shroud of the Avatar - Has open pvp maps that are part of the main story.
Well, what's done is done. Amazon decided that due to the rotten bunch, unrestricted open world pvp was hindering the game. I don't see what's the fuss about having a flagging system (if done properly). If you want to pvp, keep it on, if you don't leave it off. Simple, effective.
As for sandpark/sandbox, there's been numerous debates but some thick headed people think a sandpark/sandbox == open world pvp which I disagree with.
Listen man, I don't want to be rude or anything, but you're just like the rest here. You're not actively thinking about those that don't want to be disturbed while leveling, exploring whatever they're doing. For me and others it's a problem. This might make me sound like a wussy to you, but the first time I killed someone while exploring was in WoW. I was wondering near an alliance area and saw a low level hiding in the grass, and I killed him. I felt really bad about it and never did it again. To each their own, but open world pvp is not for me, I hate having to look over my shoulder constantly when I'm trying to relax.
Those who don’t ever want to deal with it won’t, don’t, and shouldn’t play. Period. It’s NOT about luring “pve only” players into dangerous areas, it’s about making them enticing for those who like that sort of thing.
Listen man, I don't want to be rude or anything, but you're just like the rest here. You're not actively thinking about those that want the extra challenge even if they’re not intending to be hard core pvpers. You’re thinking about this from the viewpoint of someone who Only wants pve.
Games like that just are not for you.
How so? I don't go into Albion, Darkfall etc and spout why they should have PVE servers. For sure it's not strictly to lure pve players, but the intention is there. There's no issues with pvp systems like GW2 where it's separated. Hell, pve and pvp servers are fine too yet we don't even get those anymore.
New world changed it to a flagging system due to griefers and PVP players are complaining. If the topic didn't change to how it is, I wouldn't have commented. However as expected, we're back to the same charade that PVE players "ruin" PVP games when in reality it's the developers who decided to develop it in such a way to garner more players.
Pot met the kettle then man. Cause these responses are LITERALLY THE SAME just different viewpoints.
The intention is not to lure people who never want pvp. If that were the case they would completely remove it. It’s almost like people like you don’t believe there are more than 2 types of players in the world.
Noone argued that. I think mixing the two playstyles is really hard (although BDO did it with adequate success).
To each their own, I highly disagree BDO did it with success. For ME, someone who WILL PVP in battlegrounds etc, their "solution" is stupid. Limiting content if you don't want to participate in open world PVP is not a good solution.
Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. In a PVP game like Albion it makes sense to put these rewards there to facilitate high risk high reward PVP and competition over resources for PVP players. ...
It is a PVP loop and I would expect only players that want PVP or that do not mind PVP to take part in it for both sides (hunter and gatherer). I would not expect PVP-averse players to do so.
But there actually were quite a few low-quality PVE themeparks coming out recently (Riders of Icarus, Closers, Astellia, Shroud of the Avatar etc), but they did poorly (same as the many low quality PVP sandboxes that get released recently). Also there's a few interesting PVE or PVE-able sandboxes that were also released fairly recently: Project Gorgon, One Hour One Life, Elite:Dangerous.
What the PVE scene lacks at the moment is a high production value PVE sandbox or sandpark (kinda like a modern SWG or BDO). I think that's the reason why PVE players are drooling over and attacking PVP sandboxes. They see elements there that they like, but don't want the PVP baggage coming with them.
But you can't just get rid of the PVP in a PVP sandbox and have a good game, the whole design falls apart. I would actually be very interested to see a purely PVE sandbox built from the ground up.
"Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. "
But it IS! Time and time again, we've seen mmos that put highly valuable materials or gear in contested zones. Those people who hate open world confrontations have no choice in the matter. And no, your reasoning of they can buying it from the auction is not a good one. Why should anyone be constraint because of different play style?
I never played any of the games listed as they didn't interest me, but from the quick googling they all share the same thing that exclusive PVE players are saying.
Riders of Icarus - Has open pvp zones that offer exclusive items. Astellia - Has a PvPvE map that offer items for endgame gear. Shroud of the Avatar - Has open pvp maps that are part of the main story.
Well, what's done is done. Amazon decided that due to the rotten bunch, unrestricted open world pvp was hindering the game. I don't see what's the fuss about having a flagging system (if done properly). If you want to pvp, keep it on, if you don't leave it off. Simple, effective.
As for sandpark/sandbox, there's been numerous debates but some thick headed people think a sandpark/sandbox == open world pvp which I disagree with.
Listen man, I don't want to be rude or anything, but you're just like the rest here. You're not actively thinking about those that don't want to be disturbed while leveling, exploring whatever they're doing. For me and others it's a problem. This might make me sound like a wussy to you, but the first time I killed someone while exploring was in WoW. I was wondering near an alliance area and saw a low level hiding in the grass, and I killed him. I felt really bad about it and never did it again. To each their own, but open world pvp is not for me, I hate having to look over my shoulder constantly when I'm trying to relax.
Those who don’t ever want to deal with it won’t, don’t, and shouldn’t play. Period. It’s NOT about luring “pve only” players into dangerous areas, it’s about making them enticing for those who like that sort of thing.
Listen man, I don't want to be rude or anything, but you're just like the rest here. You're not actively thinking about those that want the extra challenge even if they’re not intending to be hard core pvpers. You’re thinking about this from the viewpoint of someone who Only wants pve.
Games like that just are not for you.
How so? I don't go into Albion, Darkfall etc and spout why they should have PVE servers. For sure it's not strictly to lure pve players, but the intention is there. There's no issues with pvp systems like GW2 where it's separated. Hell, pve and pvp servers are fine too yet we don't even get those anymore.
New world changed it to a flagging system due to griefers and PVP players are complaining. If the topic didn't change to how it is, I wouldn't have commented. However as expected, we're back to the same charade that PVE players "ruin" PVP games when in reality it's the developers who decided to develop it in such a way to garner more players.
Pot met the kettle then man. Cause these responses are LITERALLY THE SAME just different viewpoints.
The intention is not to lure people who never want pvp. If that were the case they would completely remove it. It’s almost like people like you don’t believe there are more than 2 types of players in the world.
How naive... Of course it's to entice pve players to participate in pvp events. Obviously people can enjoy both, there's nothing wrong with that (did I say otherwise?), still why should everyone suffer?
And before you reply with "then, don't play", as I edited my last post late so I'm positive you haven't seen it I'll say it again:
There's no choice anymore. The majority of the newly released mmos go for both play styles in one which has been shown to not be that suitable unless properly designed.
Noone argued that. I think mixing the two playstyles is really hard (although BDO did it with adequate success).
To each their own, I highly disagree BDO did it with success. For ME, someone who WILL PVP in battlegrounds etc, their "solution" is stupid. Limiting content if you don't want to participate in open world PVP is not a good solution.
Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. In a PVP game like Albion it makes sense to put these rewards there to facilitate high risk high reward PVP and competition over resources for PVP players. ...
It is a PVP loop and I would expect only players that want PVP or that do not mind PVP to take part in it for both sides (hunter and gatherer). I would not expect PVP-averse players to do so.
But there actually were quite a few low-quality PVE themeparks coming out recently (Riders of Icarus, Closers, Astellia, Shroud of the Avatar etc), but they did poorly (same as the many low quality PVP sandboxes that get released recently). Also there's a few interesting PVE or PVE-able sandboxes that were also released fairly recently: Project Gorgon, One Hour One Life, Elite:Dangerous.
What the PVE scene lacks at the moment is a high production value PVE sandbox or sandpark (kinda like a modern SWG or BDO). I think that's the reason why PVE players are drooling over and attacking PVP sandboxes. They see elements there that they like, but don't want the PVP baggage coming with them.
But you can't just get rid of the PVP in a PVP sandbox and have a good game, the whole design falls apart. I would actually be very interested to see a purely PVE sandbox built from the ground up.
"Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. "
But it IS! Time and time again, we've seen mmos that put highly valuable materials or gear in contested zones. Those people who hate open world confrontations have no choice in the matter. And no, your reasoning of they can buying it from the auction is not a good one. Why should anyone be constraint because of different play style?
I never played any of the games listed as they didn't interest me, but from the quick googling they all share the same thing that exclusive PVE players are saying.
Riders of Icarus - Has open pvp zones that offer exclusive items. Astellia - Has a PvPvE map that offer items for endgame gear. Shroud of the Avatar - Has open pvp maps that are part of the main story.
Well, what's done is done. Amazon decided that due to the rotten bunch, unrestricted open world pvp was hindering the game. I don't see what's the fuss about having a flagging system (if done properly). If you want to pvp, keep it on, if you don't leave it off. Simple, effective.
As for sandpark/sandbox, there's been numerous debates but some thick headed people think a sandpark/sandbox == open world pvp which I disagree with.
Listen man, I don't want to be rude or anything, but you're just like the rest here. You're not actively thinking about those that don't want to be disturbed while leveling, exploring whatever they're doing. For me and others it's a problem. This might make me sound like a wussy to you, but the first time I killed someone while exploring was in WoW. I was wondering near an alliance area and saw a low level hiding in the grass, and I killed him. I felt really bad about it and never did it again. To each their own, but open world pvp is not for me, I hate having to look over my shoulder constantly when I'm trying to relax.
Those who don’t ever want to deal with it won’t, don’t, and shouldn’t play. Period. It’s NOT about luring “pve only” players into dangerous areas, it’s about making them enticing for those who like that sort of thing.
Listen man, I don't want to be rude or anything, but you're just like the rest here. You're not actively thinking about those that want the extra challenge even if they’re not intending to be hard core pvpers. You’re thinking about this from the viewpoint of someone who Only wants pve.
Games like that just are not for you.
How so? I don't go into Albion, Darkfall etc and spout why they should have PVE servers. For sure it's not strictly to lure pve players, but the intention is there. There's no issues with pvp systems like GW2 where it's separated. Hell, pve and pvp servers are fine too yet we don't even get those anymore.
New world changed it to a flagging system due to griefers and PVP players are complaining. If the topic didn't change to how it is, I wouldn't have commented. However as expected, we're back to the same charade that PVE players "ruin" PVP games when in reality it's the developers who decided to develop it in such a way to garner more players.
Pot met the kettle then man. Cause these responses are LITERALLY THE SAME just different viewpoints.
The intention is not to lure people who never want pvp. If that were the case they would completely remove it. It’s almost like people like you don’t believe there are more than 2 types of players in the world.
How naive... Of course it's to entice pve players to participate in pvp events. Obviously people can enjoy both, there's nothing wrong with that (did I say otherwise?), still why should everyone suffer?
And before you reply with "then, don't play", as I edited my last post late so I'm positive you haven't seen it I'll say it again:
There's no choice anymore. The majority of the newly released mmos go for both play styles in one which has been shown to not be that suitable unless properly designed.
Just because you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over, it doesn't make it true.
"Of course it's to entice pve players to participate in pvp events" - No, it's to entice PLAYERS. If you don't like PVP at all they don't care if you join in, that's why they made it OPTIONAL.
To say that any of these games are not PVE games, just because they have 3% PVP content, is disingenious - it is like me saying Albion is not a PVP game because it has mobs and gathering. Should I say that SOTA or Riders or Astellia did it to "lure PVP players in"? And you conveniently skip the rest of the games I listed which are 100% PVE. And you rant about sandbox==PVP when the sandboxes I listed are 100% PVE. You don't make sense.
A significant part of the MMO playerbase is not 100% PVP or 100% PVE, but also PVX in different mixes. PVP games that have PVE content don't try to "lure" 100% PVE'ers, they try to attract PVX'ers.
It's not disingenuous. To get the best stuff or progress in the game, you have to go in pvp zones. How is that pve? Also well done on the percentage. I wonder where you got it...
Your example also makes no sense. If you said having to do pve dungeons to get pvp gear you'd have some merit, but they don't do that do they? I didn't conventionality skipped anything. After seeing your 100% "PVE" games it became clear that your view and mine are not the same.
As for the sandpark/sandbox part, I wasn't talking about the games you mentioned (which again, BDO is not a pve game), I was talking in general of what some people think constitutes a sandpark/sandbox game.
If I remember correctly (been a while), only pvp encounter I had in BDO was a dude camping outside one of the towns attacking anyone leaving or coming back to said town.
Your example also makes no sense. If you said having to do pve dungeons to get pvp gear you'd have some merit, but they don't do that do they?
Actually they do exactly that in ESO with the need to run dungeons in veteran mode to get the mask and shoulders set you want for PvP unless you want to wait weeks for the Friday night PvP special vendor to have the mask and or shoulder piece you want. Or you can do without.
And there is also a need for many builds to run the PvE solo raid, Maelstrom Arena, also in Veteran mode to get the weapon you need. Or you can do without.
There is also a need in ESO for PvErs to do enough PvP to get some skills from the PvP-only skill lines that are very useful for high-end PvE dungeons and trials. Or you can do without.
And you know what? PvX players just do it and don't bitch about it. All the whining about the mean developers forcing you to do stuff comes from the extremists... just like in this thread
I think a lot of players feel forced because of their sense of entitlement. There's a portion of the PvP phobic ESO player base that wants a no PvP ESO Cyrodiil instance because the poor dears can't ever see Cyrodiil 'cause it has that evil PvP in there. They just want everything but they want the game to cater to their phobia too.
They could just do without Cyrodiil as the price they pay for disliking a chunk of the game just like you could do without those special PvP zone goodies if you so detest going there.
Hell there are all kinds of chunks of MMOs I do without because I don't want to do those things. I find crafting in a lot of games a total bore so those rare items that only top end crafters can use (WOW has many of those) I just do without and don't cry abut it.
"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
PVP in MMO's will never work in OWPVP. It relies on PVE'ers to be farmed. In PVE the AI can die 1000's or infinite times and never complain.
But for PVP to have 1000 kills requires someone to be killed 1000 times. If you look at the bell curve, where top tier hunters rarely die, that means low tier have to almost always die "Deer". PVE'ers dont want to be farmed. Those "Deer" will just leave. Then you have the mid range people that are the new farmed tier, who will now have no "Deer" to shoot, and are being farmed by the top, then the Mid range PVPers leave. That leaves the top hunters to fight each other, and they will just quit, because they dont want to die alot.
Top Tier PVPers dont fight eachother much in MMO's because there is not a big enough incentive for them to do so. They want to farm people. These MMO's rely on PVE'ers and low skill PVPers to be farmed and try to draw them into their MMO's with massive incentives in PVP areas.
Until these MMO's figure out a way to allow all skilled ranges of players to enjoy PVP and not just top tier, they will continue to fail.
Complete crap. I personally don't like open-world free for all pvp games with player looting. But it is just plain stupid to go into that sort of a game and then complain about it. And it is absolute ignorant rubbish to claim that these sort of games rely on pve players to "farm".
Games like Albion put good resources in pvp areas to encourage players to fight over them. It is a catalyst for pvp, in a game that has a playerbase that went into the game wanting a full-loot pvp experience.
Again, forced PvP is also rubbish. A game speaks for itself when you HAVE to put incentives in PvP areas just to make a PvP game enjoyable. Why is that? If people enjoy PvP so much, why do you need incentives?
Any MMORPG with PvP has to make a choice. Either PvP is optional, which pisses off PvP players because like every PvE player has explained 1,000,000 times, yet PvP players ignore, that PvP players DO NOT enjoy fighting other PvP players. Is this blatant fact not obvious enough? When you give players the choice to PvP or not to, how is that bad game design? It's not. Forcing people to PvP is bad game design, PERIOD.
What on Earth are you talking about? Your comment has nothing to do with my post.
Actually, my comment is replying to the last portion of your comment. The part where you say PvP games aren't designed to setup PvE players to get farmed by PvP players. Why do you think so many PvP players bitch about flagged PvP? If you are truly out to kill other PvP players, then surely a flagged PvP system wouldn't bother anyone, but that's not what I've seen on these forums.
Why is it so important for PvE players to be forced into PvP? Why can't people play how they wish?
Seems to me the entire last paragraph in your post expresses the exact problem we've been arguing about in this thread. Forced PvP by placing incentives in PvP areas. If those same incentives were placed in high level dungeon raids, I highly doubt you'd ever hear a PvE player bitch about a PvP game again.
You are kind of obsessed with this "us vs them" mentality aren't you?
What you are asking for is akin to saying that "pve" players should be allowed into battlegrounds, RvR, and battle-royale type games. Obviously, people that mainly enjoy pve can and do play such game modes, but they go in knowing that other players are going to attack them. The devs haven't set up such games just so "pvp players" can farm "pve players". There are simply players and the systems in the game designed to facilitate interesting pvp experiences.
This is exactly the same in owpvp games like Albion or Darkfall. These games are designed for people who like and want to play owpvp games. People who mainly enjoy pve can still play these games of course, but they should be aware that they are going to get killed and looted and that probably the best things in the game will require you to do pvp. If you don't want to participate in that you simply should not play the game, and the same goes for bgs, arenas, etc.
I'm pretty sure that both sides are obsessed in this argument and for good reason. I've never heard a good rebuttal as to why a flagged PvP system doesn't work. I thought SWG's flagged PvP mechanic worked pretty well. Could flag up for PvP and you couldn't unflag until a 15 minute timer passed.
Plenty of arguments have been made as to why forced PvP is stupid as fuck and only promotes ganking and griefing. It has literally occurred in every PvP focused MMO ever made. Even PvP MMOs that still exist it happens. Pointless killing of random people has been the stigma circling the PvP drain since UO.
What would be your argument against PvP in Dark Age of Camelot? What part of their Realm versus Realm, Battlegrounds and nonPvP zones ignores what any open world or forced PvP game offers? The only difference is DAoC doesn't offer ganking or griefing and that's your only argument. I don't know any PvE player who enjoys that.
Yes exactly! I don't really like those full-loot open world pvp games either but I see the issue not in terms of "pve" vs "pvp" players, rather I just don't like that set up where everyone is just basically a random murderer. I don't play those games because I know what I am going to be in for. I live happily in my Cyrodil safe space and let all the little psychos have fun in darkfall or whatever.
However, i do understand that there are a lot of people that do have the time and emotional fortitude to enjoy those sort of games. And it would be bad for them and their game if I was able to undermine the entire basis of the game by choosing to "unflag", in much the same way as it would ruin a bg or Cyrodiil if people could "unflag".
I also think if we could push our analysis beyond just "us vs them", we could probably have a more useful discussion about this sort of things
Actually they do exactly that in ESO with the need to run dungeons in veteran mode to get the mask and shoulders set you want for PvP unless you want to wait weeks for the Friday night PvP special vendor to have the mask and or shoulder piece you want. Or you can do without.
And there is also a need for many builds to run the PvE solo raid, Maelstrom Arena, also in Veteran mode to get the weapon you need. Or you can do without.
There is also a need in ESO for PvErs to do enough PvP to get some skills from the PvP-only skill lines that are very useful for high-end PvE dungeons and trials. Or you can do without.
And you know what? PvX players just do it and don't bitch about it. All the whining about the mean developers forcing you to do stuff comes from the extremists... just like in this thread
I think a lot of players feel forced because of their sense of entitlement. There's a portion of the PvP phobic ESO player base that wants a no PvP ESO Cyrodiil instance because the poor dears can't ever see Cyrodiil 'cause it has that evil PvP in there. They just want everything but they want the game to cater to their phobia too.
They could just do without Cyrodiil as the price they pay for disliking a chunk of the game just like you could do without those special PvP zone goodies if you so detest going there.
Hell there are all kinds of chunks of MMOs I do without because I don't want to do those things. I find crafting in a lot of games a total bore so those rare items that only top end crafters can use (WOW has many of those) I just do without and don't cry abut it.
Good for you I guess, doesn't mean everyone should feel the same way. That seems like a terrible system for ME, doesn't mean it's bad for those that enjoy it. Again, for ME. At the same time, ESO's pvp is not strictly open world which is a big factor here. Also, I'm sure there is plenty of debacle on that system even from PVPers who don't want to do PVE stuff so let's not forget that it's both ways.
Entitlement is such a big word. Sure some feel entitled that all games are suited for their play style, I have no problem if a game wants to focus on pvp. The problem for me is that there's no choice, you either endure both or can't experience the whole game.
A perfect example for me is Conan exiles. It has a game mode perfect for me (PVE Conflict). You knew you couldn't be attacked all the time, but if you wanted to, there was a pre-defined time frame that made everyone susceptible to it.
Also, I'm sure there is plenty of debacle on that system even from PVPers who don't want to do PVE stuff so let's not forget that it's both ways.
Yup for sure which I find hilarious since ESO is one of the few games where you can level very comfortably exclusively in PvP so the need for those who just want to be in Cyrodiil all the time to step out is very low compared to most other games. But I find wanting that 10% of the game landscape where the PvP happens to have no-PvP instances even funnier in a game that is so PvE centric.
I think both are just suffering from PvX envy because we have it all and they don't
"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
I tried enjoying ESO, but I honestly don't like weapon switching as form of getting additional skills. I like to stick to one thing whilst fighting. A shame really, as it has a lot of stuff to do.
I tried enjoying ESO, but I honestly don't like weapon switching as form of getting additional skills. I like to stick to one thing whilst fighting. A shame really, as it has a lot of stuff to do.
Well you can equip the same type of weapon in both slots. People used to do that with bows. I even tried it for a bit myself with a Nightblade but each weapon usually has 2 or 3 awesome abilities so it makes more sense to use the best from two types instead of just the good stuff from one and the leftovers.
You just need a convenient bind on your gaming mouse for the weapon swap key and after a while it just becomes second nature and you never even think about it.
Besides weapon swap is an animation canceling method for abilities so there is that too... I'll see myself out now before the anti-canceling crowd starts throwing things
"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
I tried enjoying ESO, but I honestly don't like weapon switching as form of getting additional skills. I like to stick to one thing whilst fighting. A shame really, as it has a lot of stuff to do.
Well you can equip the same type of weapon in both slots. People used to do that with bows. I even tried it for a bit myself with a Nightblade but each weapon usually has 2 or 3 awesome abilities so it makes more sense to use the best from two types instead of just the good stuff from one and the leftovers.
You just need a convenient bind on your gaming mouse for the weapon swap key and after a while it just becomes second nature and you never even think about it.
Besides weapon swap is an animation canceling method for abilities so there is that too... I'll see myself out now before the anti-canceling crowd starts throwing things
Are we really calling BDO open world PvP? I can remember being attacked in some out of the way place a couple of times, but mostly it seemed to be a consensual guild tagged system. Doesn't EVE have safe zones?
I am not putting out my stall for open world here, my preference is RvR, just not sure how open world PvP anything is today.
There is frequent OWPVP in BDO in popular grind spots to contest them.
EVE has a security system that inhibits PVP significantly in high sec areas but you can still get attacked by suicide gankers in high sec if your cargo is juicy enough or by war targets if you are at war with another corp.
Well that's what I am getting at, is it really OWPvP? In BDO players restrict themselves to few areas where special resources can be plundered, here the mindset of the players seems to be creating a zoned form of PvP. In EVE from what you have said, a security system is reducing the PvP to a minimal activity in high sec.
Now that's always going to happen, players are going to have reasons as to why they PvP in certain areas. But are players not now becoming self regulating, in the past it was almost like a free for all. And the security system you mentioned is saying to me if you can't be self regulating the game will become designed to regulate you.
Have PvP players moved on, is this what they now want? As a RvR fan it seems logical to me that "open world" PvP evolves and is no longer so open world at all. But I am not sure actual OWPvP fans want so much structure, they seemed to favour at the most guilds regulating what was going on.
In proper ffa pvp games with balanced risk and reward systems, cultures form. It’s a beautiful thing. This does not happen in you run of the mill WoW flag on/off pvp systems.
It does not matter ffa pvp itself is dead. First 3 months the PvPers have a blast killing all the people trying to PvE. The next 3-6 months all the PvEers start quiting the game. At the end of the 7th month most PvPers get board and start to quit. Month 10 they merge all the servers and all the ffa PvPers realize they rather not hang out with each other. Month 12 the new ffa MMO closes its doors.
Sounds good, old trope, not true though. Nearly ALL mmorpg are 3/4 dead in 10 months. Especially the bad ones.
Next time try to understand the topic and what I was saying.
Like I said in my post, it does not matter.
1. NW will not be going back on their new direction. People paying money for the product they have promised.
2. FFA MMOs that work are few, they are a niche corner of MMOs. Even PvPers like myself, would much rather a DAoC style open PvP game. Where PvP and PvE dont minx. When you feel like play either style of game play, you walk into it, knowing what ya get.
If you have something new to bring to the table, rehashing this thread thats about NW direction in dropping FFA PvP. Then make a thread that has a OP on what your thoughts are. Because whatever it is, your thoughts are buried somewhere in here.
Comments
Forsen gathered a pile of his followers and entered Atlas with the sole purpose of ruining the game for others.He had ZERO intent on staying in the game,he just wanted to play long enough to disrupt the gameplay of others.
So those type of people most certainly exist and the idea of ruining a game is a real thing.However to those interested in playing this " i am not interested"but to those that are,i do not see any chance of any ganking.
You have to be flagged,if you flag yourself for pvp you accept the consequences,if you plan on running around solo or duo with a pvp flag,you might want to think about your decision a second time.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
3 factions yes but there are multiple territories to fight over to my knowledge. So you might be in faction A and lose out on fighting for territory "Gate" but win to fight territory "wall". I don't think getting to fight for the territory is the issue. I DO agree the Gov getting to pick the 50 players can be an issue for numerous reasons. What if I make a alt company with our rival faction (one of them). They are attacking my territory and my faction wins the right to fight for it. I am just not going to bring anyone in to fight & will guarantee my main toon and faction get to keep the terriroy.
An MMO of this structure will form alliances (already currently happening in New World). This is what I think will control the territories and the 50 people. If the top 3 largest companies are in an Alliance then they will bring their 50 people in among them as long as one of the 3 get the bid. Which can turn into other companies being left out in the cold. A player who purchased the game based heavily off of these sieges might not even sniff one for over a month which could be an issue.
Legends - Heroes fade..Legends last Forever
You are kind of obsessed with this "us vs them" mentality aren't you?
What you are asking for is akin to saying that "pve" players should be allowed into battlegrounds, RvR, and battle-royale type games. Obviously, people that mainly enjoy pve can and do play such game modes, but they go in knowing that other players are going to attack them. The devs haven't set up such games just so "pvp players" can farm "pve players". There are simply players and the systems in the game designed to facilitate interesting pvp experiences.
This is exactly the same in owpvp games like Albion or Darkfall. These games are designed for people who like and want to play owpvp games. People who mainly enjoy pve can still play these games of course, but they should be aware that they are going to get killed and looted and that probably the best things in the game will require you to do pvp. If you don't want to participate in that you simply should not play the game, and the same goes for bgs, arenas, etc.
1 They are selling the game now instead of a cash shop,so if they sell enough copies they win right away and don't care about the future.
2 If players do stick around,we have plan B in order with a cash shop and maybe even the typical "seasons",because none of the modern day devs can think of a better term than seasons.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Next time try to understand the topic and what I was saying.
You really think, given the choice PVE players would join said games? Again, tell me how many PVE exclusive mmos release compared to hybrids? That right there is the issue.
Cramming every play style into one has never been the solution, but they keep on doing it.
"Encouraging PVP != trying to lure PVE-averse players into PVP areas. "
But it IS! Time and time again, we've seen mmos that put highly valuable materials or gear in contested zones. Those people who hate open world confrontations have no choice in the matter. And no, your reasoning of they can buying it from the auction is not a good one. Why should anyone be constraint because of different play style?
I never played any of the games listed as they didn't interest me, but from the quick googling they all share the same thing that exclusive PVE players are saying.
Riders of Icarus - Has open pvp zones that offer exclusive items.
Astellia - Has a PvPvE map that offer items for endgame gear.
Shroud of the Avatar - Has open pvp maps that are part of the main story.
Well, what's done is done. Amazon decided that due to the rotten bunch, unrestricted open world pvp was hindering the game. I don't see what's the fuss about having a flagging system (if done properly). If you want to pvp, keep it on, if you don't leave it off. Simple, effective.
As for sandpark/sandbox, there's been numerous debates but some thick headed people think a sandpark/sandbox == open world pvp which I disagree with.
Listen man, I don't want to be rude or anything, but you're just like the rest here. You're not actively thinking about those that don't want to be disturbed while leveling, exploring whatever they're doing. For me and others it's a problem. This might make me sound like a wussy to you, but the first time I killed someone while exploring was in WoW. I was wondering near an alliance area and saw a low level hiding in the grass, and I killed him. I felt really bad about it and never did it again. To each their own, but open world pvp is not for me, I hate having to look over my shoulder constantly when I'm trying to relax.
New world changed it to a flagging system due to griefers and PVP players are complaining. If the topic didn't change to how it is, I wouldn't have commented. However as expected, we're back to the same charade that PVE players "ruin" PVP games when in reality it's the developers who decided to develop it in such a way to garner more players.
Pot met the kettle then man. Cause these responses are LITERALLY THE SAME just different viewpoints.
As for your last point, do we really have a choice here? As I said a million times, besides a small amount of mmos, ALL are focusing on having both pvp and pve players together.
And before you reply with "then, don't play", as I edited my last post late so I'm positive you haven't seen it I'll say it again:
There's no choice anymore. The majority of the newly released mmos go for both play styles in one which has been shown to not be that suitable unless properly designed.
"Of course it's to entice pve players to participate in pvp events" - No, it's to entice PLAYERS. If you don't like PVP at all they don't care if you join in,
that's why they made it OPTIONAL.
Your example also makes no sense. If you said having to do pve dungeons to get pvp gear you'd have some merit, but they don't do that do they? I didn't conventionality skipped anything. After seeing your 100% "PVE" games it became clear that your view and mine are not the same.
As for the sandpark/sandbox part, I wasn't talking about the games you mentioned (which again, BDO is not a pve game), I was talking in general of what some people think constitutes a sandpark/sandbox game.
I don't think BDO is a good example of a successful PvP game. It may be a successful game but not a successful PvP game though.
And there is also a need for many builds to run the PvE solo raid, Maelstrom Arena, also in Veteran mode to get the weapon you need. Or you can do without.
There is also a need in ESO for PvErs to do enough PvP to get some skills from the PvP-only skill lines that are very useful for high-end PvE dungeons and trials. Or you can do without.
And you know what? PvX players just do it and don't bitch about it. All the whining about the mean developers forcing you to do stuff comes from the extremists... just like in this thread
I think a lot of players feel forced because of their sense of entitlement. There's a portion of the PvP phobic ESO player base that wants a no PvP ESO Cyrodiil instance because the poor dears can't ever see Cyrodiil 'cause it has that evil PvP in there. They just want everything but they want the game to cater to their phobia too.
They could just do without Cyrodiil as the price they pay for disliking a chunk of the game just like you could do without those special PvP zone goodies if you so detest going there.
Hell there are all kinds of chunks of MMOs I do without because I don't want to do those things. I find crafting in a lot of games a total bore so those rare items that only top end crafters can use (WOW has many of those) I just do without and don't cry abut it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Yes exactly! I don't really like those full-loot open world pvp games either but I see the issue not in terms of "pve" vs "pvp" players, rather I just don't like that set up where everyone is just basically a random murderer. I don't play those games because I know what I am going to be in for. I live happily in my Cyrodil safe space and let all the little psychos have fun in darkfall or whatever.
However, i do understand that there are a lot of people that do have the time and emotional fortitude to enjoy those sort of games. And it would be bad for them and their game if I was able to undermine the entire basis of the game by choosing to "unflag", in much the same way as it would ruin a bg or Cyrodiil if people could "unflag".
I also think if we could push our analysis beyond just "us vs them", we could probably have a more useful discussion about this sort of things
Entitlement is such a big word. Sure some feel entitled that all games are suited for their play style, I have no problem if a game wants to focus on pvp. The problem for me is that there's no choice, you either endure both or can't experience the whole game.
A perfect example for me is Conan exiles. It has a game mode perfect for me (PVE Conflict). You knew you couldn't be attacked all the time, but if you wanted to, there was a pre-defined time frame that made everyone susceptible to it.
I think both are just suffering from PvX envy because we have it all and they don't
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
You just need a convenient bind on your gaming mouse for the weapon swap key and after a while it just becomes second nature and you never even think about it.
Besides weapon swap is an animation canceling method for abilities so there is that too... I'll see myself out now before the anti-canceling crowd starts throwing things
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
1. NW will not be going back on their new direction. People paying money for the product they have promised.
2. FFA MMOs that work are few, they are a niche corner of MMOs. Even PvPers like myself, would much rather a DAoC style open PvP game. Where PvP and PvE dont minx. When you feel like play either style of game play, you walk into it, knowing what ya get.
If you have something new to bring to the table, rehashing this thread thats about NW direction in dropping FFA PvP. Then make a thread that has a OP on what your thoughts are. Because whatever it is, your thoughts are buried somewhere in here.