That sounds like bad players making a terrible time for people until other people have to come in and fix it.
This is idiocy. You call completive players bad.
Competitive players compete, not skitter around looking for easy targets and running from challenge.
Gankers are not competitive players, they are trolls.
This is again why controlled PvP experiences are so much more popular. Because they provide an actual challenge where this nonsense only offers a fleeting power trip.
Competitive players are not bad. Whiny trolls who want to pretend griefing people is "competition" are bad.
I agree with this to an extent.
As someone who plays both and isn't lumped into the pvper or carebear group I feel like you know what you are getting into. Those pvp servers are clearly labeled. Those games are obviously upfront about free for all pvp or the structure of the pvp in general.
I've played Shadowbane, pvp WoW servers, Everquest pve, Daoc, done battle grounds, ranked arena, City of Heroes, played tons of Planetside and everything in between.
Every single time it was very clearly spelled out by the game what I was getting into. By pvp flags, server choices, or the actual trailers for the games. Let's be real here every single player going into these games wants to be the top dog and do the killing and be the ganker. It's not trolling it's accepting the rule set presented by the game for you to play. If you don't want to risk being ganked you could clearly avoid it in every situation just by picking what game you are going to play by what rule set is presented.
Personally if the rule set let's high level players kill noobs who just spawned in and started, with no consequence and for no other reason other than to be griefing a-holes, the game itself is responsible for having crap design.
It's not just noobs, either. If you're a skilled Player, in a group of 5 skilled Players, and a gang of 20 PKers show up with a planned strategy to trap and mow you down, (And that becomes the typical game.) there's not a lot you can do about it. Except find another game.
Then there's that point where all of the PvEers have mostly left, and it becomes a game of PvPers against PvPers. And then the smaller groups and the less capable PvPers start leaving because they have no easy wins and only losses to the better PvPers.
Wide open PvP almost always drags a game down to a bare minimum of a few large and skilled groups who take turns "winning." That's not a formula for long term success.
That sounds like bad players making a terrible time for people until other people have to come in and fix it.
This is idiocy. You call completive players bad.
Competitive players compete, not skitter around looking for easy targets and running from challenge.
Gankers are not competitive players, they are trolls.
This is again why controlled PvP experiences are so much more popular. Because they provide an actual challenge where this nonsense only offers a fleeting power trip.
Competitive players are not bad. Whiny trolls who want to pretend griefing people is "competition" are bad.
I agree with this to an extent.
As someone who plays both and isn't lumped into the pvper or carebear group I feel like you know what you are getting into. Those pvp servers are clearly labeled. Those games are obviously upfront about free for all pvp or the structure of the pvp in general.
I've played Shadowbane, pvp WoW servers, Everquest pve, Daoc, done battle grounds, ranked arena, City of Heroes, played tons of Planetside and everything in between.
Every single time it was very clearly spelled out by the game what I was getting into. By pvp flags, server choices, or the actual trailers for the games. Let's be real here every single player going into these games wants to be the top dog and do the killing and be the ganker. It's not trolling it's accepting the rule set presented by the game for you to play. If you don't want to risk being ganked you could clearly avoid it in every situation just by picking what game you are going to play by what rule set is presented.
Personally if the rule set let's high level players kill noobs who just spawned in and started, with no consequence and for no other reason other than to be griefing a-holes, the game itself is responsible for having crap design.
I don't disagree with anything here, but I'd put a caveat that the problem I highlight is more ado about the justification that was given prior by ikcin trying to conflate gankers with competitive PvP.
A game can be designed to have gankers, but that does not make them competitive players. If the express goal of the player is to only engage in PvP when there is a clear advantage and little to no risk to themselves, they are not playing competitively. They have no capacity to claim they are being competitive or offering challenge to a game, because the challenge posed is nothing but a binary state.
It's no different from throwing a roaming "elite mob" into a "noob zone" in terms of challenge presented. So the original comment and chain of reasoning presented by ikcin under the pretense that PvP, and notably ganking scenarios like this which he described above, adding to the depth of a game experience, is simply a false statement.
The rest is just ultimately again why these kind of games end up being so niche. The implicit understanding that there are players who can and will harass others with minimal or no risk to themselves in such games immediately limits the willingness for the broader community to adopt said game. Which compounds with the point Amaranthar made, as even those that think this is what they want will bleed off from such experiences when they find themselves on the wrong end of the deal.
It is a question of what one enjoys and what you've described isn't something I would enjoy. I am not fond of games that are not fair and I especially dislike it when the odds are stacked against me in the form of people ganging up on me. So I shall avoid them and pick the games I like.
That sounds like bad players making a terrible time for people until other people have to come in and fix it.
This is idiocy. You call completive players bad.
Competitive players compete, not skitter around looking for easy targets and running from challenge.
Gankers are not competitive players, they are trolls.
This is again why controlled PvP experiences are so much more popular. Because they provide an actual challenge where this nonsense only offers a fleeting power trip.
Competitive players are not bad. Whiny trolls who want to pretend griefing people is "competition" are bad.
You assume competition should be fair,
Competition is competition when it is competitive. No amount of paragraphs of you wheedling about will change this fundamental fact.
That sounds like bad players making a terrible time for people until other people have to come in and fix it.
This is idiocy. You call completive players bad.
Competitive players compete, not skitter around looking for easy targets and running from challenge.
Gankers are not competitive players, they are trolls.
This is again why controlled PvP experiences are so much more popular. Because they provide an actual challenge where this nonsense only offers a fleeting power trip.
Competitive players are not bad. Whiny trolls who want to pretend griefing people is "competition" are bad.
You assume competition should be fair,
Competition is competition when it is competitive. No amount of paragraphs of you wheedling about will change this fundamental fact.
Indeed, competitive does not mean fair.
Not very good at honesty there. Competition by it's nature requires some level of parity to exist, or else it is not by definition a competition.
For gankers the very principle is in fact counter to that. People don't "choose to lose" by not joining a game and leveling at the exact same time and rate that someone else does. They don't "choose to lose" by creating an alt or doing some casual activity just to have someone outgearing, outleveling, or outnumbering them show up with the express goal of engaging in one-sided conflicts.
Your attempts at making misinfored twists in rationale very simply do not reflect reality.
In the PVP debate, this idea you know the rules before getting in is way too simplistic. The PVP games are sending a mixed message.
All these PVP games change the rules towards PVE friendly down the road. I have never seen a successful PVP game not start drifting towards PVE players as time goes. Many players have different thresholds of PVP they can tolerate, generally if you stay in a game long enough your threshold will be met or the game goes out of business. The PVE devs constantly try to suck in more PVE players to there game as the population starts to die off by changing the rules.
The problem is for the PVE player is that people that start early have a massive advantage over those that start later.
Maybe the PVP devs should be a little smarter and start their game at a sustainable ruleset from the beginning versus constantly move the goalpost.
Almost all these hardcore PVP games later switch to PVE mode down the road. So its not clear what the rules will be a few months or years.
Not very good at honesty there. Competition by it's nature requires some level of parity to exist, or else it is not by definition a competition.
For gankers the very principle is in fact counter to that. People don't "choose to lose" by not joining a game and leveling at the exact same time and rate that someone else does. They don't "choose to lose" by creating an alt or doing some casual activity just to have someone outgearing, outleveling, or outnumbering them show up with the express goal of engaging in one-sided conflicts.
Your attempts at making misinfored twists in rationale very simply do not reflect reality.
Again, thinking from WoW. Albion is classless game. You do not need alt for casual activity. And again, nobody stops you to outnumber your enemies. They play the same game, with the same rules.
Actually that was a comment applying to a very broad range of PvP game types. Moreover, you just reinforced one of the points with your Albion comments. highlighted for your convenience.
Your argument relying on anecdote does not really help either.
This is furthered by your curious insistence that "by its nature, any competition will reduce the number of the players". We can look to a large variety of massively popular PvP games and series where this is decidedly not an applicable belief.
Thing is, they are all lobby games.
PvP has it's appeal. It even has mass appeal. But there are in fact different types of PvP and different values and issues they bring. The more open you make PvP, the less people enjoy it. You can support a niche game with those people, but you will not support any kind of big ambitious title.
You also make quite an odd argument around PvE there. All players start at the same point in PvE. The difference in PvE and PvP is that mobs generally still exist across the expected range of experience PvE is meant to provide. PvE does not put the onus to match up against other players, but the challenge posed by the game.
The same cannot be said of PvP, as there's never a guarantee you will be joining a game and PvPing against players with an even level of gear and experience unless you are playing at launch. This means by default that anyone that joins a game "late" to PvP, is at a disadvantage to existing players.
See competition have winners and losers, that is how it works. At the end only the best players, or the players with most wins, stay. So by its nature, any competition will reduce the number of the players. And this is not very reliable from marketing perspective.
Yeah I just dont understand how you believe this is normal. I think this identifies the entire problem many PVP MMO's are having.
People play games for competition all the time. Well designed competitive games get more popular not less popular. The entire theory you have that PVP causes people to leave is completely a flawed design. What part of the design causes people to leave, FIX THAT.
Just look at real world, competitive sports, competitve board games and all kinds of competitive things attract more people that want that, it doesnt whittle them all away.
You thinking competitive things are only more popular at the start is a flawed theory.
That sounds like bad players making a terrible time for people until other people have to come in and fix it.
This is idiocy. You call completive players bad.
Competitive players compete, not skitter around looking for easy targets and running from challenge.
Gankers are not competitive players, they are trolls.
This is again why controlled PvP experiences are so much more popular. Because they provide an actual challenge where this nonsense only offers a fleeting power trip.
Competitive players are not bad. Whiny trolls who want to pretend griefing people is "competition" are bad.
You assume competition should be fair,
Competition is competition when it is competitive. No amount of paragraphs of you wheedling about will change this fundamental fact.
Indeed, competitive does not mean fair. But what is fair? To be equal? Then how will you compete, as there must not be winner. Fair is equal start and equal rules. Is the start line and rules different for the gankers? No. So ganking is completely fair competition. You lose, because you choose to lose, or because you are bad player. You may dislike ganking the gankers - your choice. Or you may be unable to cooperate and communicate so to get competitive advantage with support of other players - then you are simply bad player. You complain it is unfair because you are alone and your are ambushed. But nothing stops you to gather a party and to return the ambush. And actually as I pointed already - some players in Albion return the ambush solo and win. Even I won few fights 1 vs 2-3. And I was not very good.
We are talking about empirical fairness. So there will always be winners but the competition is fair. Your idea that no one can win is ridiculous as someone always wins in competitive games as skill isn't the same even if other things are equal.
Your argument is you want a stacked deck rather than compete fairly. That is why lobby games and MOBAs work better because people start the same but skill differentiates them. You cannot accept that and try to mock us calling us bad players but in reality you are so weak you want a stacked deck favouring yourself so you can win and call yourself a better player. Why am I not surprised.
@Brainy is correct that most of these games do loosen the rules down the line when their population dwindles unsurprisingly due to the income the game generates. Once you've chased off the easy prey the rest leave too. This does not happen with lobby games there is churn but new players also join all the time because it is a fair game right from the start.
Your idea that PvE games have long term effects on competition is probably your reference to end game raiding but that is something any new player can work their way to which you cannot actually do in a PvP game if you're constantly being targeted and killed as a new player. Many new players work hard and are able to reach raid level competency without being harassed and killed by other players in a PvE game. This is far from being unfair it is in fact a perfect example of how a PvE game is equal for all the players in the beginning.
I have played some PvP games but only the ones that afford me the opportunity to avoid it and do my own thing and interact with others when I choose to. I enjoy those games best and I do not like being chased down and repeatedly killed even before I can get my bearings in a game.
Uwakionna said: Not very good at honesty there. Competition by it's nature requires some level of parity to exist, or else it is not by definition a competition.
For gankers the very principle is in fact counter to that. People don't "choose to lose" by not joining a game and leveling at the exact same time and rate that someone else does. They don't "choose to lose" by creating an alt or doing some casual activity just to have someone outgearing, outleveling, or outnumbering them show up with the express goal of engaging in one-sided conflicts.
Your attempts at making misinfored twists in rationale very simply do not reflect reality.
You also make quite an odd argument around PvE there. All players start at the same point in PvE. The difference in PvE and PvP is that mobs generally still exist across the expected range of experience PvE is meant to provide. PvE does not put the onus to match up against other players, but the challenge posed by the game.
The same cannot be said of PvP, as there's never a guarantee you will be joining a game and PvPing against players with an even level of gear and experience unless you are playing at launch. This means by default that anyone that joins a game "late" to PvP, is at a disadvantage to existing players.
Again WoW thinking. We are talking about Albion - open world FFA PvP. It is not instanced and limited to events. Also levels and gear are PvE. Although in Albion you can get gear from PvP too. In a MMO focused game like Albion you are never late for PvP.
"Actually that was a comment applying to a very broad range of PvP game types. Moreover, you just reinforced one of the points with your Albion comments. highlighted for your convenience."
Your mind is far too linear on these topics, and you seem quite prone to cherry pick and avoid realization. Levels are not the only experience a player gathers.
Aside from that you seem to still fail to acknowledge your example game is a niche game. The most you can prove here is a small amount of overall players enjoys a subgenre of PvP. You wanna make a niche game go ahead, just don't expect the majority of people to like it or regard it as a good experience.
Maybe the PVP devs should be a little smarter and start their game at a sustainable ruleset from the beginning versus constantly move the goalpost.
Almost all these hardcore PVP games later switch to PVE mode down the road. So its not clear what the rules will be a few months or years.
I think they start out making the game they want, the game they are passionate about. However, they either don't have the resources, funding, experience to make a great game so they launch it, it leaves something to be desired, and they then scramble to keep it afloat.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Maybe the PVP devs should be a little smarter and start their game at a sustainable ruleset from the beginning versus constantly move the goalpost.
Almost all these hardcore PVP games later switch to PVE mode down the road. So its not clear what the rules will be a few months or years.
I think they start out making the game they want, the game they are passionate about. However, they either don't have the resources, funding, experience to make a great game so they launch it, it leaves something to be desired, and they then scramble to keep it afloat.
Sounds like a management problem. When companies do the same thing over and over again its beyond just mistakes, its plain stupid.
Its pretty much common knowledge this happens everytime, plan for it?
Sounds like a management problem. When companies do the same thing over and over again its beyond just mistakes, its plain stupid.
Its pretty much common knowledge this happens everytime, plan for it?
I think it comes down to "the risk takers."
Those people who just want to see if they can do it and they are fine failing but also want to succeed on their terms.
I worked for someone like this. They started a company, did whatever they could to show they were "successful" and then sold it so they could rinse and repeat.
They didn't always make the greatest decisions but it seems they didn't care.
Post edited by Sovrath on
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Old companies have an audience, new companies are seeking an audience.
If a new company doesn't take risks and do something different, then they are not bringing anything to the market that the old companies already offer.
If an old company does things different, they run the risk of alienating their current audience.
The exception to this is when something sufficiently new comes to market that replaces older conventions.
Guys we have six pages of trouble now; this is getting so bad I am thinking of calling in Kurt Russel and Dennis Dun...also Kim Cattrall as I've always wanted to take her on a date.
I can tell you one thing for sure. I'll never give money to another kickstarter/crowd funded MMORPG. They have all been massive fails. Either straight up scams, development hell with never-ending pre-alphas, and showing concept art after around a decade.
The ones that did launch like Crowfall and Shroud of the Avatar were just laughably bad. Heck this site couldn't even give away betas keys to Crowfall.
In fact I am so jaded by the utter lack of talent and missed delivery dates by years, along with the lies just to get money, that I won't even buy something new on release (if they even do release lol) I'll wait a month watch a bunch of gameplay and some reviews.
I'm sure some company with talent and money will release an actual MMORPG in the future but it's been a barren wasteland since Final Fantasy 14 and Elder Scrolls online back in what 2013 2014? New World was the only other noteworthy release in my book and it wasn't anything I would bother to write home about.
The doom and gloom people are right. The genre is in a sad state and the only stuff I play is really old.
The thing is all it would take is one amazing game to get millions of people back into this genre. However that means MMORPG devs are going to need to step up their game both literally and figuratively. No more hollow, broken promises and lies. Walk the walk not just talk the talk.
Yes! 10 years later, City of Titans has shown very little to me. There went $75 down the drain...
Yes, I gave them the benefit of the doubt this past decade because "small team learning how." I'm done paying for their schooling.
Post edited by AlBQuirky on
- 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
That sounds like bad players making a terrible time for people until other people have to come in and fix it.
This is idiocy. You call completive players bad.
Competitive players compete, not skitter around looking for easy targets and running from challenge.
Gankers are not competitive players, they are trolls.
This is again why controlled PvP experiences are so much more popular. Because they provide an actual challenge where this nonsense only offers a fleeting power trip.
Competitive players are not bad. Whiny trolls who want to pretend griefing people is "competition" are bad.
I agree with this to an extent.
As someone who plays both and isn't lumped into the pvper or carebear group I feel like you know what you are getting into. Those pvp servers are clearly labeled. Those games are obviously upfront about free for all pvp or the structure of the pvp in general.
I've played Shadowbane, pvp WoW servers, Everquest pve, Daoc, done battle grounds, ranked arena, City of Heroes, played tons of Planetside and everything in between.
Every single time it was very clearly spelled out by the game what I was getting into. By pvp flags, server choices, or the actual trailers for the games. Let's be real here every single player going into these games wants to be the top dog and do the killing and be the ganker. It's not trolling it's accepting the rule set presented by the game for you to play. If you don't want to risk being ganked you could clearly avoid it in every situation just by picking what game you are going to play by what rule set is presented.
Personally if the rule set let's high level players kill noobs who just spawned in and started, with no consequence and for no other reason other than to be griefing a-holes, the game itself is responsible for having crap design.
Usually, I'd 100% agree. However, I've "weathered awful PvP" for a system I enjoyed, like crafting. I leave those games quickly. The bad outweighs the good 1000 fold for me. Many MMOs with PvP have systems that I enjoy. Most of them, actually.
Don't get me wrong, I ENJOY PvP with friends. I despise those who PvP for internet points or to prove their "manhood." I give up. You Win. I don't need to prove anything to anyone. But I do enjoy PvP where ALL players are laughing, trying to do outrageous things, or are generally having a good time, NOT proving anything to anyone.
Again, I generally agree with "You CHOSE to play here!" angle. I tend to leave very quickly after that choice, though. Maybe that's just me?
- 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
When you look at the absolute graveyard of so many PVP games that dont give players a choice to opt out. There is so much failure.
Couple people are saying Albion is such a success, but it only had 450 players when it had a sub required. The game is completely free, thats the only reason it is surviving at all. In addition it makes only 6mil a year, not exactly some heavyweight compared to the big consentual PVP/PVE MMO's.
The overwhelming majority of players have spoken and they are not playing FFA Loot games.
I think developers should absolutely make what they want. 6 million isn't anything to scoff at if you're a small company so I think Albion Online is a success. I am not playing it but I am sure the people who do are thrilled that such a game is there just like I am about the games I enjoy.
I feel that companies do make compromises and they get flayed by the fans for making changes and it can be for the better or it can spell a decline. Everything about a successful threshold is balanced on a knife's edge in this genre. It always spirals down cascading because any loss of players leads to more loss and often unstoppable decline. This is why this genre is such a bitch to work with. You never quite know what can lead to players losing interest.
Some changes are positive like the introduction of Trammel in UO but not all PvP games benefit from PvE servers, I say this even as a player who only enjoys PvP in a closed setting like a battleground. If a game has just enough players to maintain their PvP and economy it may actually spell doom if they further divide that population with a PvE server. This is why games that have already got a thriving server are reluctant to introduce the PvE server for fear of losing some essential PvE players who are currently playing on their FFA full loot PvP server. That is a very delicate balance.
I feel the best time to introduce a PvE server is when you launch the game and doing so later is a very risky proposition unless your game is declining. I personally feel games that are like Albion Online are one of the best types of PvP games because you have clear areas where you're safe. You make the choice to move to a riskier zone and you do so fully aware of the consequences.
I think that is why EvE succeeded too because it gave the player the control over the decision to venture into more dangerous areas where you could lose your ship. I watched a youtube video about Wild Terra Online where this guy was targeting this new player over and over and never giving this person even a chance to get up. It went on for like 90 minutes of absolute torture and I guess the person hung on just to show the nature of the person killing her. It was actually a hopeless situation. I think had the person gotten a safe zone from which to play and gather resources and build themselves up it would have made the game better. That is why safe zones are essential for a player like me (not that I would ever play a game like Wild Terra Online but hypothetically speaking).
Making these online games are a huge investment and we must not forget it is also an investment for us players so choose wisely what you decide your game should be. Developers are extremely conscious of the short window of time to make their games a success these days simply because there are too many options and players can drop your game quickly.
I dont think anyone is saying a a dev team shouldnt be allowed to make a Full Loot PVP game. I think the point being addressed is what is the market cap for that space.
When you add up all the Full Loot PVP MMO's what are they getting in total like 10-20mil p/yr added all together? Meanwhile in other spaces there are multiple 100mil+ MMO's. The market is in the billions. Full Loot PVP MMO's are tiny little babies in comparison.
So lets not pretend their is this HUGE amount of players wanting these games. Its extremely small, and IF an Amazing full loot MMO was to come out, it would probably put out of business all the rest, and STILL only cap out at 20mil per year. Which is still probably not even equal to the employee health care budget of the other games.
We do not need more WoWs, we need more different games, newer games, evolution. Not just the same over and over again.
I disagree with this premise. Why shouldnt this genre get a new WoW, you say the same over and over, yet there hasnt been a game better than WoW released in 18 years. This genre could actually get popular again and finally kill off some of these extremely old games. Once investors see another gold mine in the genre money will start flowing in. There is barely any games releasing each year now, and they are all flopping.
Why cant we see big budget MMO's release over and over? Seems to work for movies like MCU.
First I would like a PVE focused sandbox like UO post trammel but updated graphics, with PVE and PVP servers separated. Havent had one of those for 20 years either.
This genre needs to be putting out games that appeal to its core instead of putting out games that die because nobody plays them. We dont need any more dead games like Crowfall, Elyon, Warhammer ........ list just goes on, with FFA PVP games topping the list.
Sick of people saying nobody wants MMO's all because some moron devs keep making games that cant get more than a few thousand to play.
I want to see an MMO that is overwhelmingly positive on steam. I dont care about some guy in a van down by the river that likes a super Niche MMO that dies shortly after release.
I dont care about some guy in a van down by the river that likes a super Niche MMO that dies shortly after release.
What is the problem with Super Niche MMO's? Why does an MMO have to be Super Ultra Mainstream supported by the mentally deficient (the masses)? Isn't that the problem that is being discussed?
First I would like a PVE focused sandbox like UO post trammel but updated graphics, with PVE and PVP servers separated. Havent had one of those for 20 years either.
If it's focused on PvE then no need to have separate servers. Keep the main thing the main thing and do it well.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I dont think anyone is saying a a dev team shouldnt be allowed to make a Full Loot PVP game. I think the point being addressed is what is the market cap for that space.
When you add up all the Full Loot PVP MMO's what are they getting in total like 10-20mil p/yr added all together? Meanwhile in other spaces there are multiple 100mil+ MMO's. The market is in the billions. Full Loot PVP MMO's are tiny little babies in comparison.
So lets not pretend their is this HUGE amount of players wanting these games. Its extremely small, and IF an Amazing full loot MMO was to come out, it would probably put out of business all the rest, and STILL only cap out at 20mil per year. Which is still probably not even equal to the employee health care budget of the other games.
Imagine if all games are WoW. Actually there are a lot of WoWs. To attack and smash every attempt for something different looks to me as terrible attitude. And this is what you do now. Most people play PvP games, just not MMORPGs. But Albion is good as PvP focused game. That is the selling point and it is well done. The rest is not, but anyway, kudos they try. We do not need more WoWs, we need more different games, newer games, evolution. Not just the same over and over again.
That really didn't counter anything Brainy said in the post you quoted.
Rather, that was quite the straw man.
Dunno how often people need to note they aren't arguing against the notion of people making a game for their desired niche. The reality is simply that one is talking about a niche.
Albion's PvP model is not the same as the more successful PvP models of the lobby shooters, MOBAs, etc. You can't point at those games and expect Ablion to pull the same kind of numbers as them as a consequence. It's just not going to happen.
It serves it's niche fine enough, but one has to be conscious of the differences in models and what it means for the resulting product.
This is part of why Albion works, because it's not trying to be overly ambitious in serving it's niche. Aside from the fact it already relies on a perpetual churn of free players, it also focuses down a lot on simple design and meta and managing their overhead. If they tried to do more, they'd probably go under as a company because they just won't be able to afford it.
Because they are selling to a niche that won't magically grow with their budget expenditure. They have wiggle room in the context of pulling fans from other titles, but you're now trying to pull players from one investment to another and that takes a lot of effort.
Just wanted to point out since I watched this video and thought about this thread that live service games are dying by the dozen. So it's not just the MMO genre that is doing poorly it's crap games and monetization models all around that are tanking. Heck look at crypto, blockchain and NFT's they died horribly as well.
I watch his videos a lot as he constantly bears down on every gaming company. He does tend to read the press releases but I still enjoy his analysis.
I have easily 1500 hours in Path of Exile.
I am there too at 1200 hours and it's baffling how many hours I have put into that game.
That really didn't counter anything Brainy said in the post you quoted.
Rather, that was quite the straw man.
Dunno how often people need to note they aren't arguing against the notion of people making a game for their desired niche. The reality is simply that one is talking about a niche.
Albion's PvP model is not the same as the more successful PvP models of the lobby shooters, MOBAs, etc. You can't point at those games and expect Ablion to pull the same kind of numbers as them as a consequence. It's just not going to happen.
It serves it's niche fine enough, but one has to be conscious of the differences in models and what it means for the resulting product.
This is part of why Albion works, because it's not trying to be overly ambitious in serving it's niche. Aside from the fact it already relies on a perpetual churn of free players, it also focuses down a lot on simple design and meta and managing their overhead. If they tried to do more, they'd probably go under as a company because they just won't be able to afford it.
Because they are selling to a niche that won't magically grow with their budget expenditure. They have wiggle room in the context of pulling fans from other titles, but you're now trying to pull players from one investment to another and that takes a lot of effort.
What is your problem? Are you shareholder? No. People play Albion, have fun. The game makes money. Niche or not, it does not matter. If you do not enjoy it, do not play, it is so easy. What makes me angry is your attitude. And you are not alone. There are a lot of people like you, who attack every new game, demanding to be like the old ones. This attitude changes nothing - literally. Publishers do not care about your opinion, they simply do not want to take risks. But what you do creates toxic environment in the fan base. Obviously many MMORPG players do not like existing MMORPGs. They may play and pay, but it is a fact that million jump on the hype for every new game. Still many ask for the same over and over again. Do you know what is the definition of stupidity? To do the same thing expecting different results. And stupidity is toxic.
Comments
If you're a skilled Player, in a group of 5 skilled Players, and a gang of 20 PKers show up with a planned strategy to trap and mow you down, (And that becomes the typical game.) there's not a lot you can do about it.
Except find another game.
Then there's that point where all of the PvEers have mostly left, and it becomes a game of PvPers against PvPers. And then the smaller groups and the less capable PvPers start leaving because they have no easy wins and only losses to the better PvPers.
Wide open PvP almost always drags a game down to a bare minimum of a few large and skilled groups who take turns "winning." That's not a formula for long term success.
Once upon a time....
A game can be designed to have gankers, but that does not make them competitive players. If the express goal of the player is to only engage in PvP when there is a clear advantage and little to no risk to themselves, they are not playing competitively. They have no capacity to claim they are being competitive or offering challenge to a game, because the challenge posed is nothing but a binary state.
It's no different from throwing a roaming "elite mob" into a "noob zone" in terms of challenge presented. So the original comment and chain of reasoning presented by ikcin under the pretense that PvP, and notably ganking scenarios like this which he described above, adding to the depth of a game experience, is simply a false statement.
The rest is just ultimately again why these kind of games end up being so niche. The implicit understanding that there are players who can and will harass others with minimal or no risk to themselves in such games immediately limits the willingness for the broader community to adopt said game. Which compounds with the point Amaranthar made, as even those that think this is what they want will bleed off from such experiences when they find themselves on the wrong end of the deal.
For gankers the very principle is in fact counter to that. People don't "choose to lose" by not joining a game and leveling at the exact same time and rate that someone else does. They don't "choose to lose" by creating an alt or doing some casual activity just to have someone outgearing, outleveling, or outnumbering them show up with the express goal of engaging in one-sided conflicts.
Your attempts at making misinfored twists in rationale very simply do not reflect reality.
All these PVP games change the rules towards PVE friendly down the road. I have never seen a successful PVP game not start drifting towards PVE players as time goes. Many players have different thresholds of PVP they can tolerate, generally if you stay in a game long enough your threshold will be met or the game goes out of business. The PVE devs constantly try to suck in more PVE players to there game as the population starts to die off by changing the rules.
The problem is for the PVE player is that people that start early have a massive advantage over those that start later.
Maybe the PVP devs should be a little smarter and start their game at a sustainable ruleset from the beginning versus constantly move the goalpost.
Almost all these hardcore PVP games later switch to PVE mode down the road. So its not clear what the rules will be a few months or years.
Your argument relying on anecdote does not really help either.
This is furthered by your curious insistence that "by its nature, any competition will reduce the number of the players". We can look to a large variety of massively popular PvP games and series where this is decidedly not an applicable belief.
Thing is, they are all lobby games.
PvP has it's appeal. It even has mass appeal. But there are in fact different types of PvP and different values and issues they bring. The more open you make PvP, the less people enjoy it. You can support a niche game with those people, but you will not support any kind of big ambitious title.
You also make quite an odd argument around PvE there. All players start at the same point in PvE. The difference in PvE and PvP is that mobs generally still exist across the expected range of experience PvE is meant to provide. PvE does not put the onus to match up against other players, but the challenge posed by the game.
The same cannot be said of PvP, as there's never a guarantee you will be joining a game and PvPing against players with an even level of gear and experience unless you are playing at launch. This means by default that anyone that joins a game "late" to PvP, is at a disadvantage to existing players.
Yeah I just dont understand how you believe this is normal. I think this identifies the entire problem many PVP MMO's are having.
People play games for competition all the time. Well designed competitive games get more popular not less popular. The entire theory you have that PVP causes people to leave is completely a flawed design. What part of the design causes people to leave, FIX THAT.
Just look at real world, competitive sports, competitve board games and all kinds of competitive things attract more people that want that, it doesnt whittle them all away.
You thinking competitive things are only more popular at the start is a flawed theory.
Your argument is you want a stacked deck rather than compete fairly. That is why lobby games and MOBAs work better because people start the same but skill differentiates them. You cannot accept that and try to mock us calling us bad players but in reality you are so weak you want a stacked deck favouring yourself so you can win and call yourself a better player. Why am I not surprised.
@Brainy is correct that most of these games do loosen the rules down the line when their population dwindles unsurprisingly due to the income the game generates. Once you've chased off the easy prey the rest leave too. This does not happen with lobby games there is churn but new players also join all the time because it is a fair game right from the start.
Your idea that PvE games have long term effects on competition is probably your reference to end game raiding but that is something any new player can work their way to which you cannot actually do in a PvP game if you're constantly being targeted and killed as a new player. Many new players work hard and are able to reach raid level competency without being harassed and killed by other players in a PvE game. This is far from being unfair it is in fact a perfect example of how a PvE game is equal for all the players in the beginning.
I have played some PvP games but only the ones that afford me the opportunity to avoid it and do my own thing and interact with others when I choose to. I enjoy those games best and I do not like being chased down and repeatedly killed even before I can get my bearings in a game.
Your mind is far too linear on these topics, and you seem quite prone to cherry pick and avoid realization. Levels are not the only experience a player gathers.
Aside from that you seem to still fail to acknowledge your example game is a niche game. The most you can prove here is a small amount of overall players enjoys a subgenre of PvP. You wanna make a niche game go ahead, just don't expect the majority of people to like it or regard it as a good experience.
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
Its pretty much common knowledge this happens everytime, plan for it?
Those people who just want to see if they can do it and they are fine failing but also want to succeed on their terms.
I worked for someone like this. They started a company, did whatever they could to show they were "successful" and then sold it so they could rinse and repeat.
They didn't always make the greatest decisions but it seems they didn't care.
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
Old companies have an audience, new companies are seeking an audience.
If a new company doesn't take risks and do something different, then they are not bringing anything to the market that the old companies already offer.
If an old company does things different, they run the risk of alienating their current audience.
The exception to this is when something sufficiently new comes to market that replaces older conventions.
- 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
- 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
When you look at the absolute graveyard of so many PVP games that dont give players a choice to opt out. There is so much failure.
Couple people are saying Albion is such a success, but it only had 450 players when it had a sub required. The game is completely free, thats the only reason it is surviving at all. In addition it makes only 6mil a year, not exactly some heavyweight compared to the big consentual PVP/PVE MMO's.
The overwhelming majority of players have spoken and they are not playing FFA Loot games.
I feel that companies do make compromises and they get flayed by the fans for making changes and it can be for the better or it can spell a decline. Everything about a successful threshold is balanced on a knife's edge in this genre. It always spirals down cascading because any loss of players leads to more loss and often unstoppable decline. This is why this genre is such a bitch to work with. You never quite know what can lead to players losing interest.
Some changes are positive like the introduction of Trammel in UO but not all PvP games benefit from PvE servers, I say this even as a player who only enjoys PvP in a closed setting like a battleground. If a game has just enough players to maintain their PvP and economy it may actually spell doom if they further divide that population with a PvE server. This is why games that have already got a thriving server are reluctant to introduce the PvE server for fear of losing some essential PvE players who are currently playing on their FFA full loot PvP server. That is a very delicate balance.
I feel the best time to introduce a PvE server is when you launch the game and doing so later is a very risky proposition unless your game is declining. I personally feel games that are like Albion Online are one of the best types of PvP games because you have clear areas where you're safe. You make the choice to move to a riskier zone and you do so fully aware of the consequences.
I think that is why EvE succeeded too because it gave the player the control over the decision to venture into more dangerous areas where you could lose your ship. I watched a youtube video about Wild Terra Online where this guy was targeting this new player over and over and never giving this person even a chance to get up. It went on for like 90 minutes of absolute torture and I guess the person hung on just to show the nature of the person killing her. It was actually a hopeless situation. I think had the person gotten a safe zone from which to play and gather resources and build themselves up it would have made the game better. That is why safe zones are essential for a player like me (not that I would ever play a game like Wild Terra Online but hypothetically speaking).
Making these online games are a huge investment and we must not forget it is also an investment for us players so choose wisely what you decide your game should be. Developers are extremely conscious of the short window of time to make their games a success these days simply because there are too many options and players can drop your game quickly.
When you add up all the Full Loot PVP MMO's what are they getting in total like 10-20mil p/yr added all together? Meanwhile in other spaces there are multiple 100mil+ MMO's. The market is in the billions. Full Loot PVP MMO's are tiny little babies in comparison.
So lets not pretend their is this HUGE amount of players wanting these games. Its extremely small, and IF an Amazing full loot MMO was to come out, it would probably put out of business all the rest, and STILL only cap out at 20mil per year. Which is still probably not even equal to the employee health care budget of the other games.
I disagree with this premise. Why shouldnt this genre get a new WoW, you say the same over and over, yet there hasnt been a game better than WoW released in 18 years. This genre could actually get popular again and finally kill off some of these extremely old games. Once investors see another gold mine in the genre money will start flowing in. There is barely any games releasing each year now, and they are all flopping.
Why cant we see big budget MMO's release over and over? Seems to work for movies like MCU.
First I would like a PVE focused sandbox like UO post trammel but updated graphics, with PVE and PVP servers separated. Havent had one of those for 20 years either.
This genre needs to be putting out games that appeal to its core instead of putting out games that die because nobody plays them. We dont need any more dead games like Crowfall, Elyon, Warhammer ........ list just goes on, with FFA PVP games topping the list.
Sick of people saying nobody wants MMO's all because some moron devs keep making games that cant get more than a few thousand to play.
I want to see an MMO that is overwhelmingly positive on steam. I dont care about some guy in a van down by the river that likes a super Niche MMO that dies shortly after release.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Rather, that was quite the straw man.
Dunno how often people need to note they aren't arguing against the notion of people making a game for their desired niche. The reality is simply that one is talking about a niche.
Albion's PvP model is not the same as the more successful PvP models of the lobby shooters, MOBAs, etc. You can't point at those games and expect Ablion to pull the same kind of numbers as them as a consequence. It's just not going to happen.
It serves it's niche fine enough, but one has to be conscious of the differences in models and what it means for the resulting product.
This is part of why Albion works, because it's not trying to be overly ambitious in serving it's niche. Aside from the fact it already relies on a perpetual churn of free players, it also focuses down a lot on simple design and meta and managing their overhead. If they tried to do more, they'd probably go under as a company because they just won't be able to afford it.
Because they are selling to a niche that won't magically grow with their budget expenditure. They have wiggle room in the context of pulling fans from other titles, but you're now trying to pull players from one investment to another and that takes a lot of effort.
That is insanity not stupidity.