How about criminal and villainous PKers being hunted down by NPC soldiers or assassins of whatever faction or factions with whom they've earned a significant amount of disfavor? What about the possibility of earning the wrath of certain deities (perhaps those worshiped by the player characters he or she has slain) and being hounded by supernatural subordinates of those deities?
I don't know, truly. Would it be enough to deter you?
Punishment needs to fit the crime. The PKer just took possible hours of gameplay from their victim. They need to suffer likewise, in my eyes. As long as PKers can keep playing the game, there is no punishment.
PS: Are you aware of the "quote" button? It's much easier to follow multiple conversations
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
Since they are rarely, if ever successful his premise still holds true.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
what Open World PvP MMORPG do you play?
Oh I played many, many years of eve online, 4+ years in Darkfall and rise of Agon, even AoC has mostly open world pvp servers that I played on, or did for the 6 months I put in there... but that doesn’t matter anyway. My point was I do find them fun and while dfo and roa may not be considered “successful” by mmorpg forum standards I still played both longer than almost every other game I ever touched. I got my money’s worth and to me that is a success. I got 3 months tops out if wow. Complete garbage.
How about criminal and villainous PKers being hunted down by NPC soldiers or assassins of whatever faction or factions with whom they've earned a significant amount of disfavor? What about the possibility of earning the wrath of certain deities (perhaps those worshiped by the player characters he or she has slain) and being hounded by supernatural subordinates of those deities?
If the NPC soldier can't stop the PKers, that'll defeat the purpose and won't deter PK.
If the NPC actually stopped the PKERs, that just make the zone a safe zone, and also make ganking pointless.
If it is something in between, a weak NPC soldier can constantly follow the ganker around and weaken the ganker, that'll deter the ganker by making him more vulnerable to other player.
A prison system also sound fun. When a PKer died, he get sent to prison, and forced to mine for an hour before he can leave. (the person killed the ganker also get a portion of the mineral the ganker mined in prison) Alternatively the ganker can pay gold to leave the prison and the person killed the ganker can get a potion of the gold.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
Since they are rarely, if ever successful his premise still holds true.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
what Open World PvP MMORPG do you play?
Oh I played many, many years of eve online, 4+ years in Darkfall and rise of Agon, even AoC has mostly open world pvp servers that I played on, or did for the 6 months I put in there... but that doesn’t matter anyway. My point was I do find them fun and while dfo and roa may not be considered “successful” by mmorpg forum standards I still played both longer than almost every other game I ever touched. I got my money’s worth and to me that is a success. I got 3 months tops out if wow. Complete garbage.
Never played WoW, but I played DDO for.. well shit.. I still log in from time time.. and it's been well over 12 years now with that game alone, GW2 I have been on and off with since 2015.
But that was not my point to ask the question of how long you played those games, albeit longevity is an issue, which is it's own discussion, It was mainly to see if you played any modern games.
All too often people say they love PvP MMO's and the last one they played was like UO or EvE.
Added:
Also, you getting your money's worth is not a metric that matters regarding the success of a game, the company needs to make back their development investment plus interest for the game to be remotely successful. So the real question is.. did THEY get their money's worth.
Now, as others have said, PvP games are made because they are often easier to build then PvE games, since the Developers are making it so that the players are the content, not the game.
Equally so, there is a level of attraction to big money games like Fortnight, Overwatch, LoL, etc.. but.. for every one of those games, there are many others that end up like Atlas Reactor, Dead Garden, etc.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
Since they are rarely, if ever successful his premise still holds true.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
what Open World PvP MMORPG do you play?
Oh I played many, many years of eve online, 4+ years in Darkfall and rise of Agon, even AoC has mostly open world pvp servers that I played on, or did for the 6 months I put in there... but that doesn’t matter anyway. My point was I do find them fun and while dfo and roa may not be considered “successful” by mmorpg forum standards I still played both longer than almost every other game I ever touched. I got my money’s worth and to me that is a success. I got 3 months tops out if wow. Complete garbage.
Strangely enough I dislike open world, FFA PVP yet played EVE over 10 years.
Weird.
I do share your dislike of WOW and similar themeparks, they lack purpose, well at least as I define it.
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
How about criminal and villainous PKers being hunted down by NPC soldiers or assassins of whatever faction or factions with whom they've earned a significant amount of disfavor? What about the possibility of earning the wrath of certain deities (perhaps those worshiped by the player characters he or she has slain) and being hounded by supernatural subordinates of those deities?
If the NPC soldier can't stop the PKers, that'll defeat the purpose and won't deter PK.
If the NPC actually stopped the PKERs, that just make the zone a safe zone, and also make ganking pointless.
If it is something in between, a weak NPC soldier can constantly follow the ganker around and weaken the ganker, that'll deter the ganker by making him more vulnerable to other player.
A prison system also sound fun. When a PKer died, he get sent to prison, and forced to mine for an hour before he can leave. (the person killed the ganker also get a portion of the mineral the ganker mined in prison) Alternatively the ganker can pay gold to leave the prison and the person killed the ganker can get a potion of the gold.
Prison, especially as you outlined it, does nothing to stop a PKer. And the point is to prevent the large number of PKers from constantly rolling players, and causing them to leave the game.
I think the point of the NPC guards is in the larger scale of many instances. You want them to win sometimes, and make the PKing pointless in those instances. The other times, the PKer has defeated the NPC, they have overcome an obstacle and can continue. This keeps the numbers of this instance lower for the Players to be able to handle it, and the PKers not overrun the game, and again, drive players away.
I'd expect that a good number of these NPC "guardians" would be MOB types, Pixies with poisoned arrows and invisibility, Treants, Centaur warriors, Giant Eagles, and the like. Not just humanoid races of that Factional area. This can add a lot of game play for both sides.
Here's some ideas I had several days ago. Posted this earlier, but I'm not sure if you read it.
Only
a sandbox MMORPG with some form of horizontal progression (in which not
everyone is able to be an adventurer or a hero [and in which players
are also able to be criminals or villains]) could possibly have the
potential of being a true role-playing game.
1)
A true rpg can have some form of limited vertical progression, but it
has to be more realistic. Because the most skilled warrior/martial
artists in history still had/have their limits. So the most mobs or
noobs a top tier player should be able to defeat single-handedly would
probably be between 10-20. Because no matter how powerful a person is,
they're still gonna run out of stamina/energy eventually. And even the
greatest warrior can stumble on a rock, slip in mud, or have the sun
glare in his or her eyes at just the wrong moment.
2) There could
be levels in skills, abilities, and talents as opposed to
class/character levels. There could be ranks as well, but they would be
social, economic, political, and military ranks, etc. Now, a deity
(played/controlled by a GM/Game Master might intervene in a battle and
choose to empower your character to defeat more mobs or other
player-characters at once. However, if there is more than one deity in
the game world, than an opposing deity/GM could also choose to empower
your enemies in a battle. Opposing deities/GMs might even choose to
empower both sides in a battle. Not saying that is necessary in a game
world, but it could make things more interesting. (OR the deity could
send his or her own avatar or supernatural subordinates to directly aid a
player-character in battle or with some non-combat ordeal/quest.)
3)
When the GM is offline, then a particular deity would be controlled by
AI. And, of course, your character would have to perform certain
tasks/duties/actions in order to gain the favor of their chosen deity or
deities. But other actions could also gain them the ire of another
deity or other deities.
4) Your character could also gain/lose
favor points with different factions. These could be political entities
as well as guilds/mercenary companies/bandit gangs/monster hordes,
etc. If your character gains enough favor with a certain faction, this
would lower prices for items in their settlements, reduce costs for
training, grant access to special buildings and NPCs, as well as unlock
the possibility for them to send NPCs to aid your character in battle.
However, by gaining favor with one faction or performing certain
actions, your character would also gain disfavor with another faction.
So other factions could become so angry with your character that they
might send out assassins or other such NPCs to atttack your character.
And your characters would have a general level of renown/infamy based on
the actions he or she chooses to perform and decisions he or she
chooses to make. There could be player-controlled factions as well as
AI controlled-factions. However, just the GMs, the Player-controlled
Factions would have rules as well as penalties for breaking those
rules. So not everything would be up to the whim of a particular GM or
Player (or group of Players).
(...to be continued...)
Yes, I read that. My mind is spinning about the possibilities, as well as the dangers if done wrong. It's hard to figure a response because those lines cross at every turn. lol
But I love the possibilities it can bring to game play, and also the Roleplay it can foster.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
Since they are rarely, if ever successful his premise still holds true.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
what Open World PvP MMORPG do you play?
Oh I played many, many years of eve online, 4+ years in Darkfall and rise of Agon, even AoC has mostly open world pvp servers that I played on, or did for the 6 months I put in there... but that doesn’t matter anyway. My point was I do find them fun and while dfo and roa may not be considered “successful” by mmorpg forum standards I still played both longer than almost every other game I ever touched. I got my money’s worth and to me that is a success. I got 3 months tops out if wow. Complete garbage.
Never played WoW, but I played DDO for.. well shit.. I still log in from time time.. and it's been well over 12 years now with that game alone, GW2 I have been on and off with since 2015.
But that was not my point to ask the question of how long you played those games, albeit longevity is an issue, which is it's own discussion, It was mainly to see if you played any modern games.
All too often people say they love PvP MMO's and the last one they played was like UO or EvE.
Added:
Also, you getting your money's worth is not a metric that matters regarding the success of a game, the company needs to make back their development investment plus interest for the game to be remotely successful. So the real question is.. did THEY get their money's worth.
Now, as others have said, PvP games are made because they are often easier to build then PvE games, since the Developers are making it so that the players are the content, not the game.
Equally so, there is a level of attraction to big money games like Fortnight, Overwatch, LoL, etc.. but.. for every one of those games, there are many others that end up like Atlas Reactor, Dead Garden, etc.
Pvp mmos made were all made because that’s what the developer wanted to play. Not because it’s easier. When you finally come to terms with that you’ll perhaps realize that this “metric” you speak of doesn’t matter like you think. Would they like to be the next WoW ? Sure, but they mainly just want to make a pvp mmo. They’re not doing it to turn max profit.
New World was likely built with the idea they could finally use AAA money to make a full featured open world pvp game but when the money providers caught wind of the complaints they out a stop to it before things could be done.
As for your original question; I knew it was loaded and answered that way on purpose. If you want to know what modern games I’ve played the most recent would be Archeage prior to pay to win otherwise the rest are garbage to me.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
Since they are rarely, if ever successful his premise still holds true.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
what Open World PvP MMORPG do you play?
Oh I played many, many years of eve online, 4+ years in Darkfall and rise of Agon, even AoC has mostly open world pvp servers that I played on, or did for the 6 months I put in there... but that doesn’t matter anyway. My point was I do find them fun and while dfo and roa may not be considered “successful” by mmorpg forum standards I still played both longer than almost every other game I ever touched. I got my money’s worth and to me that is a success. I got 3 months tops out if wow. Complete garbage.
Never played WoW, but I played DDO for.. well shit.. I still log in from time time.. and it's been well over 12 years now with that game alone, GW2 I have been on and off with since 2015.
But that was not my point to ask the question of how long you played those games, albeit longevity is an issue, which is it's own discussion, It was mainly to see if you played any modern games.
All too often people say they love PvP MMO's and the last one they played was like UO or EvE.
Added:
Also, you getting your money's worth is not a metric that matters regarding the success of a game, the company needs to make back their development investment plus interest for the game to be remotely successful. So the real question is.. did THEY get their money's worth.
Now, as others have said, PvP games are made because they are often easier to build then PvE games, since the Developers are making it so that the players are the content, not the game.
Equally so, there is a level of attraction to big money games like Fortnight, Overwatch, LoL, etc.. but.. for every one of those games, there are many others that end up like Atlas Reactor, Dead Garden, etc.
Pvp mmos made were all made because that’s what the developer wanted to play. Not because it’s easier. When you finally come to terms with that you’ll perhaps realize that this “metric” you speak of doesn’t matter like you think. Would they like to be the next WoW ? Sure, but they mainly just want to make a pvp mmo. They’re not doing it to turn max profit.
This crock of shit needs to die in the fire of ignorance it was born from.
Modern Dev's commonly not play their own games. They are not making the game they want to play,they went to college, got a sweet massive loan to pay off, and game development is now a 100K+ annual income field, they could not give a shit less if they would play these games or not, it's ALL about making the money, and you really need to come to terms with that.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
How about criminal and villainous PKers being hunted down by NPC soldiers or assassins of whatever faction or factions with whom they've earned a significant amount of disfavor? What about the possibility of earning the wrath of certain deities (perhaps those worshiped by the player characters he or she has slain) and being hounded by supernatural subordinates of those deities?
I don't know, truly. Would it be enough to deter you?
Punishment needs to fit the crime. The PKer just took possible hours of gameplay from their victim. They need to suffer likewise, in my eyes. As long as PKers can keep playing the game, there is no punishment.
PS: Are you aware of the "quote" button? It's much easier to follow multiple conversations
Depends on the terms, if you're put criminals inside a prision (or any location that removes them from the "normal" world in a way that makes sense and give them something to do I don't see how I cant work, Just like IRL.
How about criminal and villainous PKers being hunted down by NPC soldiers or assassins of whatever faction or factions with whom they've earned a significant amount of disfavor? What about the possibility of earning the wrath of certain deities (perhaps those worshiped by the player characters he or she has slain) and being hounded by supernatural subordinates of those deities?
I don't know, truly. Would it be enough to deter you?
Punishment needs to fit the crime. The PKer just took possible hours of gameplay from their victim. They need to suffer likewise, in my eyes. As long as PKers can keep playing the game, there is no punishment.
PS: Are you aware of the "quote" button? It's much easier to follow multiple conversations
Depends on the terms, if you're put criminals inside a prision (or any location that removes them from the "normal" world in a way that makes sense and give them something to do I don't see how I cant work, Just like IRL.
Well, if in RL the prison has a convenient escape tunnel and internet access for the prisoners to find the way, and they escape after a day or a few, and are right back on the streets performing major crimes, that's not RL. Worse, RL would turn into something that's way to familiar to gamers.
The consequence in MMORPG for PvP have to be harsh or they don't work.
1. Don't play PvP if you can't take being killed ever. It's dumb.
Obvious but it seems like cries rise up how they hear PvP in games. Don't play them. Just like when I cant stomach grinds or questhubs I don't play anymore.
2. You want to have being a good citizen more rewarding than average banditry.
You don't want random PKing to be too rewarding. People will do it just because. It should be hard life to he a bandit. Why play the legit game if you can make more money killing.
3. Penalties for failure as bandit need to be harsh.
If you murder and rob and lose your battle you should face something harsh like RT jailing/perm death/NPC bounty hunters/etc.
4. You need space and travel time to act as a buffer from running into bandits and enemies all the time.
A bandit is less likely to hound you if they die and get sent hours away to a non hostile area. This is more a sandbox type thing but applies to lot of PvP MMORPG. The being hounded outside of town should not be a chronic condition.
5. You need clear goals in PvP that are not easy to do like territorial conquest.
You need to know why your a doing PvP. Without clear goals you will have a more death match killing.
6. You want to try to attempt to get more rivalry PvP than random PvP.
Goes with 5. You want players killing their hatred enemies more so then just killing someone because they are bored or kill everything walking. This can be hard coded or player run.
How about criminal and villainous PKers being hunted down by NPC soldiers or assassins of whatever faction or factions with whom they've earned a significant amount of disfavor? What about the possibility of earning the wrath of certain deities (perhaps those worshiped by the player characters he or she has slain) and being hounded by supernatural subordinates of those deities?
I don't know, truly. Would it be enough to deter you?
Punishment needs to fit the crime. The PKer just took possible hours of gameplay from their victim. They need to suffer likewise, in my eyes. As long as PKers can keep playing the game, there is no punishment.
PS: Are you aware of the "quote" button? It's much easier to follow multiple conversations
Yes, I know about the Quote button. But I often found that it would take up too much room in my responses.
You're right that the punishment needs to fit the crime.
Faction-based Open World PVP is not exactly FFA. Chaotic Evil would generally only exist among some monster races, and players playing monsters would probably have a hard time getting far into any provinces controlled by good (or even evil) aligned NPC factions. Lawful/Neutral Evil Factions would generally not want players in their factions acting like loose cannons and potentially starting an unwanted war. Or a war they weren't ready for. Following orders and not bringing dishonor upon the throne or chieftain would probably be important in a Lawful Evil faction.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
5. You need clear goals in PvP that are not easy to do like territorial conquest.
You need to know why your a doing PvP. Without clear goals you will have a more death match killing.
This.
This is why Arena games and Battle Royal game are rockstars, and Open World PvP MMO's floundering on the bottom of the barrel.
In battle Arena games PvP has a goal, it has a direct and clear purpose in those games, it is the method used to win the match. There is a clear, direct, and decisive reason to be beating the hell out of each other in those PvP games.
on the flip side.
In PvP MMO's the PvP is little more than a distraction from the real game, which is PvE. The fact that players fuss about systems and means to limit PvP, or even stop it or control it, makes it more a bug in the system, a corruption of the game as opposed to an important integral valuable part of the game that has a purpose and meaning to be there.
As such, If the Developers have waste resources to put in a bunch of systems to reign in the PvP to stop abuse and what have you, that means there is no good reason to have the PvP to start with, and they are better off just focusing on the PvE that everyone wanted to do originally.
On the flip side of that, you have games like Crowfall where the whole point of the game is a Throne War, and the PvP is core of the game. Notice there are no systems in place to reign it in either, in fact, quite the opposite.
So for all the people that want PvP, if you have to think of a way to curtail or stop PvP abuse, that is your sign that PvP does not belong in that game, in case you were wondering what the sign was.. that's the sign.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
5. You need clear goals in PvP that are not easy to do like territorial conquest.
You need to know why your a doing PvP. Without clear goals you will have a more death match killing.
This.
This is why Arena games and Battle Royal game are rockstars, and Open World PvP MMO's floundering on the bottom of the barrel.
In battle Arena games PvP has a goal, it has a direct and clear purpose in those games, it is the method used to win the match. There is a clear, direct, and decisive reason to be beating the hell out of each other in those PvP games.
on the flip side.
In PvP MMO's the PvP is little more than a distraction from the real game, which is PvE. The fact that players fuss about systems and means to limit PvP, or even stop it or control it, makes it more a bug in the system, a corruption of the game as opposed to an important integral valuable part of the game that has a purpose and meaning to be there.
As such, If the Developers have waste resources to put in a bunch of systems to reign in the PvP to stop abuse and what have you, that means there is no good reason to have the PvP to start with, and they are better off just focusing on the PvE that everyone wanted to do originally.
On the flip side of that, you have games like Crowfall where the whole point of the game is a Throne War, and the PvP is core of the game. Notice there are no systems in place to reign it in either, in fact, quite the opposite.
So for all the people that want PvP, if you have to think of a way to curtail or stop PvP abuse, that is your sign that PvP does not belong in that game, in case you were wondering what the sign was.. that's the sign.
There is generally nothing to fight for in PVE games beyond myself and my own personal goals. Helping out a guild usually helps to increase my own personal power in some way. Certainly belonging to a guild can help me attain my goals faster and easier. Certainly this is so in the case of Raid Guilds. In PVE only games, there is generally no greater power or authority or idea to which my character owes loyalty and may choose to fight for. The only real reason to band together with others is to increase my own power and have the possibility of gaining greater wealth and power (getting better loot.)
There is no reason why players can't be given clear goals and reasons to fight (such as over territory*) in a PVE/PVP MMORPG. We don't have to allow FFA PVP everywhere. And, actually, Faction-based PVP is not necessarily FFA. Because my every significant choice and action can gain me favor or disfavor with various factions, having real consequences in the game. Even an evil character could, especially a lawful evil character, could suffer severe consequences for being disobedient to his or her lord or king. If a player character's king did not order him/her to go kill people in a certain province (potentially starting a war), then the player character might find him/herself severely reprimanded or even imprisoned when he/she returned home.
*There can be certain contested areas or one main contested area in which the various factions fight over resources, settlements, forts, strategic locations, trade routes, etc. There can also be dungeons within these contested zones.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
How about criminal and villainous PKers being hunted down by NPC soldiers or assassins of whatever faction or factions with whom they've earned a significant amount of disfavor? What about the possibility of earning the wrath of certain deities (perhaps those worshiped by the player characters he or she has slain) and being hounded by supernatural subordinates of those deities?
I don't know, truly. Would it be enough to deter you?
Punishment needs to fit the crime. The PKer just took possible hours of gameplay from their victim. They need to suffer likewise, in my eyes. As long as PKers can keep playing the game, there is no punishment.
PS: Are you aware of the "quote" button? It's much easier to follow multiple conversations
Depends on the terms, if you're put criminals inside a prision (or any location that removes them from the "normal" world in a way that makes sense and give them something to do I don't see how I cant work, Just like IRL.
Well, if in RL the prison has a convenient escape tunnel and internet access for the prisoners to find the way, and they escape after a day or a few, and are right back on the streets performing major crimes, that's not RL. Worse, RL would turn into something that's way to familiar to gamers.
It's more convenient to do the time than to try to escape, but the possibility is there. When I mentioned IRL is knowing that if you break the law expect a punishment for those actions.
How about this? If my player character not only gains too much disfavor (negative reputation) with opposing factions (and even allied factions), but also loses too much favor with my own faction by being too careless and disobedient (again negative reputation), then my character becomes an outlaw.
If my character is a faction-less wanted criminal or an insane murderous psychopath (or a villain so infamous that no faction wants to claim me as their own), then any other player character can then kill me with impunity. Unless or until I reform my ways to the point where I can find safety in some province, somewhere.
Though I may also want to play a character so evil that I can only find my home among undead or demons. Not to say there wouldn't be an undead faction. But an undead faction would generally ruled over by a lich or something and would probably be Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil rather than being Chaotic Evil.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
How about criminal and villainous PKers being hunted down by NPC soldiers or assassins of whatever faction or factions with whom they've earned a significant amount of disfavor? What about the possibility of earning the wrath of certain deities (perhaps those worshiped by the player characters he or she has slain) and being hounded by supernatural subordinates of those deities?
I don't know, truly. Would it be enough to deter you?
Punishment needs to fit the crime. The PKer just took possible hours of gameplay from their victim. They need to suffer likewise, in my eyes. As long as PKers can keep playing the game, there is no punishment.
PS: Are you aware of the "quote" button? It's much easier to follow multiple conversations
But it's supposed to be "play" punishment.
If a game has player killing then it's meant to be there. I really like his suggestions as they fit with game play.
Because if a player is really to be punished then why have the feature at all? It would be far easier for developers to not have player killing.
The punishment should be enough to dissuade but not enough to seem like the developers are hitting the players' hands with a ruler. Because again, "don't include player killing" if that's the route they are to go.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
How about criminal and villainous PKers being hunted down by NPC soldiers or assassins of whatever faction or factions with whom they've earned a significant amount of disfavor? What about the possibility of earning the wrath of certain deities (perhaps those worshiped by the player characters he or she has slain) and being hounded by supernatural subordinates of those deities?
I don't know, truly. Would it be enough to deter you?
Punishment needs to fit the crime. The PKer just took possible hours of gameplay from their victim. They need to suffer likewise, in my eyes. As long as PKers can keep playing the game, there is no punishment.
PS: Are you aware of the "quote" button? It's much easier to follow multiple conversations
But it's supposed to be "play" punishment.
If a game has player killing then it's meant to be there. I really like his suggestions as they fit with game play.
Because if a player is really to be punished then why have the feature at all? It would be far easier for developers to not have player killing.
The punishment should be enough to dissuade but not enough to seem like the developers are hitting the players' hands with a ruler. Because again, "don't include player killing" if that's the route they are to go.
Yes, we want to discourage players from endlessly abusing other players, but we don't want to discourage them from playing criminals or villains.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
Since they are rarely, if ever successful his premise still holds true.
I have no idea why anyone thinks Open World PvP games will be fun or successful.
I get that some people have this idealist dream that players will from into groups and build communities, they will work together, police and protect each other, defend from the trolls and pool shitters, and build and develop social systems that somehow magically generate civilized societies.. you're flat out fooling yourself.
The Dev's at New World also has such native' delusions as well, they quickly learned that shit does not go that way.
I find them fun so your first sentence is already flawed.
what Open World PvP MMORPG do you play?
Oh I played many, many years of eve online, 4+ years in Darkfall and rise of Agon, even AoC has mostly open world pvp servers that I played on, or did for the 6 months I put in there... but that doesn’t matter anyway. My point was I do find them fun and while dfo and roa may not be considered “successful” by mmorpg forum standards I still played both longer than almost every other game I ever touched. I got my money’s worth and to me that is a success. I got 3 months tops out if wow. Complete garbage.
Never played WoW, but I played DDO for.. well shit.. I still log in from time time.. and it's been well over 12 years now with that game alone, GW2 I have been on and off with since 2015.
But that was not my point to ask the question of how long you played those games, albeit longevity is an issue, which is it's own discussion, It was mainly to see if you played any modern games.
All too often people say they love PvP MMO's and the last one they played was like UO or EvE.
Added:
Also, you getting your money's worth is not a metric that matters regarding the success of a game, the company needs to make back their development investment plus interest for the game to be remotely successful. So the real question is.. did THEY get their money's worth.
Now, as others have said, PvP games are made because they are often easier to build then PvE games, since the Developers are making it so that the players are the content, not the game.
Equally so, there is a level of attraction to big money games like Fortnight, Overwatch, LoL, etc.. but.. for every one of those games, there are many others that end up like Atlas Reactor, Dead Garden, etc.
Pvp mmos made were all made because that’s what the developer wanted to play. Not because it’s easier. When you finally come to terms with that you’ll perhaps realize that this “metric” you speak of doesn’t matter like you think. Would they like to be the next WoW ? Sure, but they mainly just want to make a pvp mmo. They’re not doing it to turn max profit.
This crock of shit needs to die in the fire of ignorance it was born from.
Modern Dev's commonly not play their own games. They are not making the game they want to play,they went to college, got a sweet massive loan to pay off, and game development is now a 100K+ annual income field, they could not give a shit less if they would play these games or not, it's ALL about making the money, and you really need to come to terms with that.
"Because if a player is really to be punished then why have the feature at all? It would be far easier for developers to not have player killing."
This is akin saying if you have to have all these rules to players will PvE and group nicely, why do it? At the end of the day it's pointless commentary. All gameplay is heavily regulated PvE included.
5. You need clear goals in PvP that are not easy to do like territorial conquest.
You need to know why your a doing PvP. Without clear goals you will have a more death match killing.
This.
This is why Arena games and Battle Royal game are rockstars, and Open World PvP MMO's floundering on the bottom of the barrel.
In battle Arena games PvP has a goal, it has a direct and clear purpose in those games, it is the method used to win the match. There is a clear, direct, and decisive reason to be beating the hell out of each other in those PvP games.
on the flip side.
In PvP MMO's the PvP is little more than a distraction from the real game, which is PvE. The fact that players fuss about systems and means to limit PvP, or even stop it or control it, makes it more a bug in the system, a corruption of the game as opposed to an important integral valuable part of the game that has a purpose and meaning to be there.
As such, If the Developers have waste resources to put in a bunch of systems to reign in the PvP to stop abuse and what have you, that means there is no good reason to have the PvP to start with, and they are better off just focusing on the PvE that everyone wanted to do originally.
On the flip side of that, you have games like Crowfall where the whole point of the game is a Throne War, and the PvP is core of the game. Notice there are no systems in place to reign it in either, in fact, quite the opposite.
So for all the people that want PvP, if you have to think of a way to curtail or stop PvP abuse, that is your sign that PvP does not belong in that game, in case you were wondering what the sign was.. that's the sign.
I think you could make the argument that PvE is a distraction more than anything. All other aspects of MMORPG are bogged down in it and balance issue are never ending. How much potential of the genre has been lost to push the same questhub model down our throats the last 16 years?
"Because if a player is really to be punished then why have the feature at all? It would be far easier for developers to not have player killing."
This is akin saying if you have to have all these rules to players will PvE and group nicely, why do it? At the end of the day it's pointless commentary. All gameplay is heavily regulated PvE included.
I believe one of the goals of a rule-set in a functional Faction-based PVE/PVP Sandbox MMORPG would be to encourage/train players to generally only kill other player characters when there was reason for it. This reason or (number of reasons) could be based on what faction to which they belonged as well their alignment, race, class (pre-determined or chosen by developing certain skills & abilities), attributes, and personality. The players would be encouraged to take into account the goals, needs, and desires of their faction, allies, and their own character. To actually even ROLE-PLAY their character. Choices & actions with meaningful consequences (positive or negative) with evident/palpable risk vs reward certainly factor into that. Some choices/actions would be intended to help their own faction, allies, or themselves, while other actions might seek solely to harm opposing factions, enemies, and other player characters. Though those seemingly different sets of choices/actions would often be intertwined.
If a player wants to play an insane murderous psychopath, fine. But he or she will probably find it very difficult to find friends willing to help them in that case. Unless he or she happens to worship a mad, insane, chaotic god or demon of darkness. But even then, such an entity would likely be highly unreliable and untrustworthy.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
"Because if a player is really to be punished then why have the feature at all? It would be far easier for developers to not have player killing."
This is akin saying if you have to have all these rules to players will PvE and group nicely, why do it? At the end of the day it's pointless commentary. All gameplay is heavily regulated PvE included.
It's ok that there are rules for players. But those rules have to support the game play. If a game is to have player killing then of course there should be consequences but those consequences should also open up different game play.
I remember one of our clan killing some players who were trying to run our members out of an area by killing the mobs there before our people could get to them. So he went red. We then escorted him to a hidden area where he could work off his karma while we all stood guard.
That was exciting and it was the type of game play lineage 2 offered.
Had we been caught by a larger or better force, they would have killed us, killed the red member and he could have dropped some of his gear. That was the risk.
The problem is that you have players who don't want to play games with pk'ing but they do it anyway and then rant and rave that there aren't more protections.
Why would there be? Pk'ing is a part of the game. There should be consequences but the players want the pk'ers to essentially be shut down as permanently as possible. Don't play games where you don't like the rules.
I can't believe this is an issue.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
"Because if a player is really to be punished then why have the feature at all? It would be far easier for developers to not have player killing."
This is akin saying if you have to have all these rules to players will PvE and group nicely, why do it? At the end of the day it's pointless commentary. All gameplay is heavily regulated PvE included.
To an extent. But you make a good point, anything that needs to be overly regulated or forced is not a good design, and ultimately breaks immersion.
Case in point: Forced grouping mechanics, and autogrouping features, is often a failure in design. Not only does this not promote healthy and fun grouping, it develops bitterness towards grouping in general.
Ideally, groups should form organically, so as opposed to trying to force it, simply make it profitable to be in a group but not a necessity.
Those that want to group will, those that don't, won't, and no one in the game suffers from this.
Games like GW2 and DDO do quite well in this regard, where you are not forced to group. While GW2's claim to fame is their world bosses which are social events, but you are under no obligation to be a group to partake in them, and DDO hands down has the best dungeon design of any game on the market.
But your post reminds of back in EQ.
back in the golden era when players could attack any NPC, including but not limited to things like Guild Leaders, Priest of Discord, Etc etc etc, and many other NPC's, this of course led to guilds trying to kill every NPC. Well there were all kinds of faction hits, and other things that were designed to dissuade players from doing this, there were all kinds of events going on, and on one occasion even the GM's got involved to try and stop the killing of an NPC that they deemed should not be killable.
In the end, when the next Gen MMO's came out, as opposed to convoluted systems of faction, rewards, changing loot drops, and all these other issues begot from trying to regulate the players to not do something, they simply removed the ability for players to attack NPC they didn't want killed, and the problem was instantly solved.
This going back to the basic idea, if you don't want players to do something, if you have to waste time trying to police them, or making systems to dissuade them, it is simply far better and more profitable to remove that from the game.
This works for PvE as well. If you don't want players killing and attacking a specific mob, simply remove their ability to do so, and move on, as we have learned since EQ, absolutely nothing else will work.
Just like in Throne War and Faction games, typically you can't PK your own team members, a simple removal of the ability was all it took to remove the issues of infighting within a faction.
And surprisingly enough, this is the least intrusive way to control players.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
Punishment needs to fit the crime. The PKer just took possible hours of gameplay from their victim. They need to suffer likewise, in my eyes. As long as PKers can keep playing the game, there is no punishment.
PS: Are you aware of the "quote" button? It's much easier to follow multiple conversations
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
If the NPC actually stopped the PKERs, that just make the zone a safe zone, and also make ganking pointless.
If it is something in between, a weak NPC soldier can constantly follow the ganker around and weaken the ganker, that'll deter the ganker by making him more vulnerable to other player.
A prison system also sound fun. When a PKer died, he get sent to prison, and forced to mine for an hour before he can leave. (the person killed the ganker also get a portion of the mineral the ganker mined in prison) Alternatively the ganker can pay gold to leave the prison and the person killed the ganker can get a potion of the gold.
But that was not my point to ask the question of how long you played those games, albeit longevity is an issue, which is it's own discussion, It was mainly to see if you played any modern games.
All too often people say they love PvP MMO's and the last one they played was like UO or EvE.
Added:
Also, you getting your money's worth is not a metric that matters regarding the success of a game, the company needs to make back their development investment plus interest for the game to be remotely successful. So the real question is.. did THEY get their money's worth.
Now, as others have said, PvP games are made because they are often easier to build then PvE games, since the Developers are making it so that the players are the content, not the game.
Equally so, there is a level of attraction to big money games like Fortnight, Overwatch, LoL, etc.. but.. for every one of those games, there are many others that end up like Atlas Reactor, Dead Garden, etc.
Weird.
I do share your dislike of WOW and similar themeparks, they lack purpose, well at least as I define it.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think the point of the NPC guards is in the larger scale of many instances. You want them to win sometimes, and make the PKing pointless in those instances. The other times, the PKer has defeated the NPC, they have overcome an obstacle and can continue. This keeps the numbers of this instance lower for the Players to be able to handle it, and the PKers not overrun the game, and again, drive players away.
I'd expect that a good number of these NPC "guardians" would be MOB types, Pixies with poisoned arrows and invisibility, Treants, Centaur warriors, Giant Eagles, and the like. Not just humanoid races of that Factional area.
This can add a lot of game play for both sides.
Once upon a time....
Yes, I read that.
My mind is spinning about the possibilities, as well as the dangers if done wrong. It's hard to figure a response because those lines cross at every turn. lol
But I love the possibilities it can bring to game play, and also the Roleplay it can foster.
Once upon a time....
As for your original question; I knew it was loaded and answered that way on purpose. If you want to know what modern games I’ve played the most recent would be Archeage prior to pay to win otherwise the rest are garbage to me.
Modern Dev's commonly not play their own games. They are not making the game they want to play,they went to college, got a sweet massive loan to pay off, and game development is now a 100K+ annual income field, they could not give a shit less if they would play these games or not, it's ALL about making the money, and you really need to come to terms with that.
Depends on the terms, if you're put criminals inside a prision (or any location that removes them from the "normal" world in a way that makes sense and give them something to do I don't see how I cant work, Just like IRL.
Once upon a time....
1. Don't play PvP if you can't take being killed ever. It's dumb.
Obvious but it seems like cries rise up how they hear PvP in games. Don't play them. Just like when I cant stomach grinds or questhubs I don't play anymore.
2. You want to have being a good citizen more rewarding than average banditry.
You don't want random PKing to be too rewarding. People will do it just because. It should be hard life to he a bandit. Why play the legit game if you can make more money killing.
3. Penalties for failure as bandit need to be harsh.
If you murder and rob and lose your battle you should face something harsh like RT jailing/perm death/NPC bounty hunters/etc.
4. You need space and travel time to act as a buffer from running into bandits and enemies all the time.
A bandit is less likely to hound you if they die and get sent hours away to a non hostile area. This is more a sandbox type thing but applies to lot of PvP MMORPG. The being hounded outside of town should not be a chronic condition.
5. You need clear goals in PvP that are not easy to do like territorial conquest.
You need to know why your a doing PvP. Without clear goals you will have a more death match killing.
6. You want to try to attempt to get more rivalry PvP than random PvP.
Goes with 5. You want players killing their hatred enemies more so then just killing someone because they are bored or kill everything walking. This can be hard coded or player run.
This is why Arena games and Battle Royal game are rockstars, and Open World PvP MMO's floundering on the bottom of the barrel.
In battle Arena games PvP has a goal, it has a direct and clear purpose in those games, it is the method used to win the match. There is a clear, direct, and decisive reason to be beating the hell out of each other in those PvP games.
on the flip side.
In PvP MMO's the PvP is little more than a distraction from the real game, which is PvE. The fact that players fuss about systems and means to limit PvP, or even stop it or control it, makes it more a bug in the system, a corruption of the game as opposed to an important integral valuable part of the game that has a purpose and meaning to be there.
As such, If the Developers have waste resources to put in a bunch of systems to reign in the PvP to stop abuse and what have you, that means there is no good reason to have the PvP to start with, and they are better off just focusing on the PvE that everyone wanted to do originally.
On the flip side of that, you have games like Crowfall where the whole point of the game is a Throne War, and the PvP is core of the game. Notice there are no systems in place to reign it in either, in fact, quite the opposite.
So for all the people that want PvP, if you have to think of a way to curtail or stop PvP abuse, that is your sign that PvP does not belong in that game, in case you were wondering what the sign was.. that's the sign.
It's more convenient to do the time than to try to escape, but the possibility is there. When I mentioned IRL is knowing that if you break the law expect a punishment for those actions.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Yes, we want to discourage players from endlessly abusing other players, but we don't want to discourage them from playing criminals or villains.
This is akin saying if you have to have all these rules to players will PvE and group nicely, why do it? At the end of the day it's pointless commentary. All gameplay is heavily regulated PvE included.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Case in point: Forced grouping mechanics, and autogrouping features, is often a failure in design. Not only does this not promote healthy and fun grouping, it develops bitterness towards grouping in general.
Ideally, groups should form organically, so as opposed to trying to force it, simply make it profitable to be in a group but not a necessity.
Those that want to group will, those that don't, won't, and no one in the game suffers from this.
Games like GW2 and DDO do quite well in this regard, where you are not forced to group. While GW2's claim to fame is their world bosses which are social events, but you are under no obligation to be a group to partake in them, and DDO hands down has the best dungeon design of any game on the market.
But your post reminds of back in EQ.
back in the golden era when players could attack any NPC, including but not limited to things like Guild Leaders, Priest of Discord, Etc etc etc, and many other NPC's, this of course led to guilds trying to kill every NPC. Well there were all kinds of faction hits, and other things that were designed to dissuade players from doing this, there were all kinds of events going on, and on one occasion even the GM's got involved to try and stop the killing of an NPC that they deemed should not be killable.
In the end, when the next Gen MMO's came out, as opposed to convoluted systems of faction, rewards, changing loot drops, and all these other issues begot from trying to regulate the players to not do something, they simply removed the ability for players to attack NPC they didn't want killed, and the problem was instantly solved.
This going back to the basic idea, if you don't want players to do something, if you have to waste time trying to police them, or making systems to dissuade them, it is simply far better and more profitable to remove that from the game.
This works for PvE as well. If you don't want players killing and attacking a specific mob, simply remove their ability to do so, and move on, as we have learned since EQ, absolutely nothing else will work.
Just like in Throne War and Faction games, typically you can't PK your own team members, a simple removal of the ability was all it took to remove the issues of infighting within a faction.
And surprisingly enough, this is the least intrusive way to control players.