DAoC was what you made of it. For most, the PvE and PvP went hand in hand. You needed to PvE to get the gear that would allow you to be competitive in the true end game PvP (which for me, was the best PvP ever, still to this day).
PvP is a slippery slope. I just hope it does not turn into a clan domination esports activity like what has happened in other games.
I'd accept a definition of a PvP game where the PvP is obligatory, or, er, forced
As long as other games can also have PvP. I guess we should call those "optional PvP" games to differentiate them from the "obligatory PvP" games.
Ashes of Creation then is not an optional PvP game, but an obligatory PvP game.
I've had a lot of fun playing PvP, in ESO, DAOC, PoTBS, and Ryzom. None of those are obligatory PvP games. I don't like obligatory PvP games, but I do like PvP.
I think it is simpler to just have PvP games, PvE games, and all other games described as having optional PvP endgames and so forth.
AoC would be a pure PvP game - which is the best description, because even if you're just a lone crafter you're contributing to the strength of a team which engages in PvP (1). That would also be why you're targeted - so that you stop contributing wealth to a city someone wants to overthrow.
NOTES ------------------------------------------------------- 1: That is my understanding of the game, at any rate.
The issue isn't about someone pulling the victim card. The issue is about profitability. The fact of the matter is in this oversaturated game market it's very difficult to make a game that will draw enough players to make money. Full loot PVP games have over and over again proven themselves to be financial failures. There's a handful of established games that the full loot PVP demographic plays and they're reluctant to leave because they don't want to leave behind the trust capital they have built over the years to start over in a new game. This means that you would have to tap into some new full loot PVP market that simply doesn't exist. This also means the established games like EVE continue to grow while anything new just dies on the vine. Even PVP games without full loot struggle. Just ask the New World team why they did an about face on their design and turned the game into a PvE theme park.
One thing I've seen full loot open pvp players really excel at is complaining long and loud about how casuals and care bears ruin their gaming life but in the very next breath complain about how the games that do support their play style suck. I hope you guys like EVE because that's pretty much all you're going to get in the foreseeable future.
DAoC was what you made of it. For most, the PvE and PvP went hand in hand. You needed to PvE to get the gear that would allow you to be competitive in the true end game PvP (which for me, was the best PvP ever, still to this day).
PvP is a slippery slope. I just hope it does not turn into a clan domination esports activity like what has happened in other games.
I like the vision AoC is selling.
I'm not a PvP person but I do like it when that is going on around me. The possibility and danger of getting jumped can make getting resources back to town entertaining. Being tied to the fate of your city can be interesting.
However, too often these things degrade into murder hobos sweeping the dungeons every 20 minutes. The hobos have no investment in the game (no town or city to protect) and have found a way to mitigate any risks. They don't even need the stuff I'm carrying - for them it is just lolz.
So good luck with that - probably the biggest challenge these guys face in making this game. The developers buy into their own vision for the game and don't consider it from the perspective of someone that just wants to break it.
I'd accept a definition of a PvP game where the PvP is obligatory, or, er, forced
As long as other games can also have PvP. I guess we should call those "optional PvP" games to differentiate them from the "obligatory PvP" games.
Ashes of Creation then is not an optional PvP game, but an obligatory PvP game.
I've had a lot of fun playing PvP, in ESO, DAOC, PoTBS, and Ryzom. None of those are obligatory PvP games. I don't like obligatory PvP games, but I do like PvP.
I think it is simpler to just have PvP games, PvE games, and all other games described as having optional PvP endgames and so forth.
AoC would be a pure PvP game - which is the best description, because even if you're just a lone crafter you're contributing to the strength of a team which engages in PvP (1). That would also be why you're targeted - so that you stop contributing wealth to a city someone wants to overthrow.
NOTES ------------------------------------------------------- 1: That is my understanding of the game, at any rate.
Not to nitpick, oh heck, I'll nitpick
DOAC's PvP isn't just at endgame, neither is ESO's. Any level can do PvP. You could play either game as what you are calling a "PvP game", where you level your character entirely in a PvP zone if you wanted to.
PoTBS fits some of your description. As a manufacturer of ammunition, I certainly was a big benefit to the PvP teams on our side. The ports I used to gather resources and make ammunition can certainly be targeted, and if they go into dispute, I would have to make a run through a PvP zone to get to my stuff at that port.
The end goal of PoTBS is to flip enough ports to take over the world, by PvP. Then the map resets and it starts over again. So it is a PvP-centric game, although not everybody is obliged to do PvP.
So I'd prefer a nomenclature of PvP game, PvPvE game, or PvE game.
The issue isn't about someone pulling the victim card. The issue is about profitability. The fact of the matter is in this oversaturated game market it's very difficult to make a game that will draw enough players to make money. Full loot PVP games have over and over again proven themselves to be financial failures. There's a handful of established games that the full loot PVP demographic plays and they're reluctant to leave because they don't want to leave behind the trust capital they have built over the years to start over in a new game. This means that you would have to tap into some new full loot PVP market that simply doesn't exist. This also means the established games like EVE continue to grow while anything new just dies on the vine. Even PVP games without full loot struggle. Just ask the New World team why they did an about face on their design and turned the game into a PvE theme park.
One thing I've seen full loot open pvp players really excel at is complaining long and loud about how casuals and care bears ruin their gaming life but in the very next breath complain about how the games that do support their play style suck. I hope you guys like EVE because that's pretty much all you're going to get in the foreseeable future.
There are some very large and successful PvP titles out there. In fact, gaming for centuries has been almost exclusively PvP - chess, checkers, etc.
So you cannot blame the developers for trying to tap into that.
So I'd prefer a nomenclature of PvP game, PvPvE game, or PvE game.
Works for me.
Or we could call 'em: Hardcore, Never Gonna Happen, and Carebears.
Not sure what Never Gonna Happen means. Again, DAOC is commonly held up as one of the best implementations of PvP, although in your terms it's not a PvP game. I'd even go out on a limb and predict that as many or more players are playing PvP in games that you don't call PvP games, as there are players in the obligatory/forced PvP games.
I can understand the concept of "forced" PVP, but it only makes sense from the perspective of MMOs (not counting Planetside)
You wouldn't say an online shooter or fighting game is forced PVP since the game is only PVP
In an MMO there are other things to do in the game that people might play that are not directly PVP, like crafting and PVE So PVP may be a mechanic but not the mechanic
So from that perspective if you are doing PVE and someone attacks you, you are being forced into PVP, your ability to do PVE is being interrupted by non voluntary PVP
The reverse doesn't really happen, you never have to stop doing PVP to go do a dungeon or whatever,
I think it is the dynamic of trying to do something else and having to stop to engage with PVP that makes it feel forced in that sense Not so much that the game is forcing you as other players are. So in a way open PVP is the least voluntary because you may not get to choose when you engage with it and it can prevent you from doing something else.
If a game were entirely PVP and had no PVE this wouldn't apply.
You could have this discussion about any pvp centric game pre-launch. We really will not know what we have until the game has been out for about a month. Not gunna lie, i was kind of looking forward to this game until i discovered it was pvp. However, i will probably still buy it and give it a go.
I can understand the concept of "forced" PVP, but it only makes sense from the perspective of MMOs (not counting Planetside)
You wouldn't say an online shooter or fighting game is forced PVP since the game is only PVP
In an MMO there are other things to do in the game that people might play that are not directly PVP, like crafting and PVE So PVP may be a mechanic but not the mechanic
So from that perspective if you are doing PVE and someone attacks you, you are being forced into PVP, your ability to do PVE is being interrupted by non voluntary PVP
The reverse doesn't really happen, you never have to stop doing PVP to go do a dungeon or whatever,
I think it is the dynamic of trying to do something else and having to stop to engage with PVP that makes it feel forced in that sense Not so much that the game is forcing you as other players are. So in a way open PVP is the least voluntary because you may not get to choose when you engage with it and it can prevent you from doing something else.
If a game were entirely PVP and had no PVE this wouldn't apply.
So if you were out gathering and a PK attacked you that would be forced PvP?
By that logic, if you were out gathering and you were attacked by a wild boar that would be forced PvE, correct?
The term 'forced' is never used for PvE because no person in their right mind would try to cast an unwanted PvE encounter as some kind of crime. In fact, try to post on a gaming forum about how a game has forced PvE and people will point and laugh.
The reason people attach the word 'forced' to PvP is because back in the day people tried to portray it as akin to rape (again, an unfortunate comparison). The 'forced' adjective is an attempt to make it appear as if the PK is infringing on someone's game time - making a person play a game they don't wish to play.
It is impossible for PvP to be 'forced' because all game play is voluntary.
What makes this tricky is balancing it from the PKs perspective too. The PKs should be able to have fun, if not, why would they play?
That's an important point. Developers don't put in pvp only to then fret about having it. They wouldn't put it in the game in the first place if the game wasn't supposed to be played that way.
The problem is this whole ridiculous "forced pvp" mindset. There is no forced pvp. Only games that have pvp and games that don't. Might as well just say "forced game play."
Forced PvP is very easy to understand. It's a game where you have no choice. There are some games like that.
There are also many more games that give the player a choice, they can do PvP if they want to, and don't have to if they don't want to. These tend to be much more popular.
DAOC is commonly held up as one of the most popular and well-done PvP games, but it isn't forced on players. You can easily play the whole time without PvP at all. So there are three kinds of games, forced PvP, PvE only, and a hybrid of both PvP and PvE.
If it is a PvP game there is no reason to use the word "forced".
The term "forced" has been used by the anti-PK crowd to describe unwelcome PvP encounters - it is an attempt to play the role of a victim. In fact, some people have gone so far as to liken it to rape, which is just unacceptable.
There is no "forced" PvP in video games in that sense.
Just turn the game off and it is gone - or apply this standard equally and say that Minecraft has "forced" crafting.
Victim: "Minecraft has forced crafting...."
Developer: "Uh, that is the game"
Victim: "Why are you abusing me?"
Well, I have to agree, "forcing" me to craft is a form of abuse, I should be able to prosper in a game without having to do it.
Yes, it really is all about me.
Lineage 2 comes to mind, you really had to roll a 2nd crafting only character to properly make good gear to wear.
I'm sure the intent was for clan crafters to supply their mates, but the more solo orientated player really struggled as the grind was very significant in that game.
Quite honestly, I cheated. I paid for gold to buy my SR's Tier C and B gear, and it was stupidly expensive, like $500.
When I realized what Tier A would cost, in terms of either grind or money I walked away.
Took a few more games for me to see the folly of pay to win, (Runes of Magic or early EVE being my last).
Now if a MMO has a really distasteful design like say, a raiding only end game, or heavy crafting reqs I just don't play that game instead of throwing money at the problem to avoid it.
Which is why I haven't played many modern MMORPGs over the past 6 years since leaving EVE, ESO being sole exception.
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
Lineage 2 comes to mind, you really had to roll a 2nd crafting only character to properly make good gear to wear.
I'm sure the intent was for clan crafters to supply their mates, but the more solo orientated player really struggled as the grind was very significant in that game.
Quite honestly, I cheated. I paid for gold to buy my SR's Tier C and B gear, and it was stupidly expensive, like $500.
When I realized what Tier A would cost, in terms of either grind or money I walked away.
That's why I quit Lineage 2. I was pretty high level, wearing my "S" gear and I realized the amount of time and in game money it would take to continue the character was just not possible in my life.
Right now I'm playing Black Desert and I don't really do quests so I'm just happily grinding along and selling whatever I get in order to upgrade gear. I have no intent to be competitive like my Lineage 2 days so it's just a relaxation device.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
"In order to obtain the best gear in game, dungeons will have to be ran.
This is much different than before when crafted gear and AP gear was
just as good if not better than dropped gear."
An interesting thread where the PvP crowd is whining that they are *forced* to do PvE to get the best gear. From Sept 2015.
What makes this tricky is balancing it from the PKs perspective too. The PKs should be able to have fun, if not, why would they play?
That's an important point. Developers don't put in pvp only to then fret about having it. They wouldn't put it in the game in the first place if the game wasn't supposed to be played that way.
The problem is this whole ridiculous "forced pvp" mindset. There is no forced pvp. Only games that have pvp and games that don't. Might as well just say "forced game play."
Forced PvP is very easy to understand. It's a game where you have no choice. There are some games like that.
There are also many more games that give the player a choice, they can do PvP if they want to, and don't have to if they don't want to. These tend to be much more popular.
DAOC is commonly held up as one of the most popular and well-done PvP games, but it isn't forced on players. You can easily play the whole time without PvP at all. So there are three kinds of games, forced PvP, PvE only, and a hybrid of both PvP and PvE.
If it is a PvP game there is no reason to use the word "forced".
The term "forced" has been used by the anti-PK crowd to describe unwelcome PvP encounters - it is an attempt to play the role of a victim. In fact, some people have gone so far as to liken it to rape, which is just unacceptable.
There is no "forced" PvP in video games in that sense.
Just turn the game off and it is gone - or apply this standard equally and say that Minecraft has "forced" crafting.
Victim: "Minecraft has forced crafting...."
Developer: "Uh, that is the game"
Victim: "Why are you abusing me?"
Based on that reasoning, DAOC is not a PvP game, right? It just happens to have a lot of players who enjoy PvP and it has been celebrated as one of the best PvP games.
Perhaps it is just semantics. In your defintion, a PvP game means open PvP that people must participate in. If that is the case, then the word "forced" doesn't need to be used.
How would you describe DAOC then? It's not a PvP game, but it has really good PvP?
Every single player in DAOC is affected by PvP. Every one. The effects of PvP are realm-wide with buffs and access to certain places (Darkness Falls!!!!) all hinge on Realm success. The difference between your "PvE" character when your Realm has lost all their Relics and that same character when your Realm has 4 Extra Relics in place is huge.
So in DAOC you can choose to not participate in the killing and dying to other players directly, but since the entire game was built around the Realm War, even a "PvE" character that never sets foot in the Frontier will be affected by PvP. It's the ultimate PvP game in my mind.
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'd accept a definition of a PvP game where the PvP is obligatory, or, er, forced
As long as other games can also have PvP. I guess we should call those "optional PvP" games to differentiate them from the "obligatory PvP" games.
Ashes of Creation then is not an optional PvP game, but an obligatory PvP game.
I've had a lot of fun playing PvP, in ESO, DAOC, PoTBS, and Ryzom. None of those are obligatory PvP games. I don't like obligatory PvP games, but I do like PvP.
I think it is simpler to just have PvP games, PvE games, and all other games described as having optional PvP endgames and so forth.
AoC would be a pure PvP game - which is the best description, because even if you're just a lone crafter you're contributing to the strength of a team which engages in PvP (1). That would also be why you're targeted - so that you stop contributing wealth to a city someone wants to overthrow.
NOTES ------------------------------------------------------- 1: That is my understanding of the game, at any rate.
Crowfall had such a hardcore PvP base that they complained that they had to do any PvE content at all...
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
"In order to obtain the best gear in game, dungeons will have to be ran.
This is much different than before when crafted gear and AP gear was
just as good if not better than dropped gear."
An interesting thread where the PvP crowd is whining that they are *forced* to do PvE to get the best gear. From Sept 2015.
Well I think the difference there is that they CHANGED the game mid-stream right? Thats quite different from complaining about a game that launches with what they say it will launch with.
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 can understand the concept of "forced" PVP, but it only makes sense from the perspective of MMOs (not counting Planetside)
You wouldn't say an online shooter or fighting game is forced PVP since the game is only PVP
In an MMO there are other things to do in the game that people might play that are not directly PVP, like crafting and PVE So PVP may be a mechanic but not the mechanic
So from that perspective if you are doing PVE and someone attacks you, you are being forced into PVP, your ability to do PVE is being interrupted by non voluntary PVP
The reverse doesn't really happen, you never have to stop doing PVP to go do a dungeon or whatever,
I think it is the dynamic of trying to do something else and having to stop to engage with PVP that makes it feel forced in that sense Not so much that the game is forcing you as other players are. So in a way open PVP is the least voluntary because you may not get to choose when you engage with it and it can prevent you from doing something else.
If a game were entirely PVP and had no PVE this wouldn't apply.
So if you were out gathering and a PK attacked you that would be forced PvP?
By that logic, if you were out gathering and you were attacked by a wild boar that would be forced PvE, correct?
The term 'forced' is never used for PvE because no person in their right mind would try to cast an unwanted PvE encounter as some kind of crime. In fact, try to post on a gaming forum about how a game has forced PvE and people will point and laugh.
The reason people attach the word 'forced' to PvP is because back in the day people tried to portray it as akin to rape (again, an unfortunate comparison). The 'forced' adjective is an attempt to make it appear as if the PK is infringing on someone's game time - making a person play a game they don't wish to play.
It is impossible for PvP to be 'forced' because all game play is voluntary.
Buyer beware.
Well sure, if you don't want a game with open PVP then don't play it, which is why I am only lukewarm to cold about AoC.
But I do not think people are comparing PVP to rape, rather which mechanic of the 2 is more likely to disrupt and prevent the other one.
PVP is conducted by humans, humans can use it to be, intentionally or not, disruptive to other types of content Combined with gross differences in power limiting your ability to do anything about it in return. Disruption plus limited recourse, not to mention deliberate griefing
PVE is more predictable and avoidable, Now if boars were programmed to behave like people and roam around and attack players who are engaged in PVP, then yeah that would be forced PVE, because PVE would keep disrupting or preventing your PVP.
But you aren't going to be prevented from doing PVP because a roving quest line keeps forcing you to complete it or die, but it will happen the other way around.
I know they are using a flag system, which is a precarious balance of penalties for PKs so they don't kill people too much but not so many penalties that PKs don't exist at all. And their whole thing is PVX, but the relationship between PVE and PVP is not an equal one.
It will be the PVP portion that can prevent players from doing PVE, PVP has the greatest spoiler effect and the aspect that if they balance it wrong can break the game.
** on a side note, did the devs ever say if they are going to equalize power between players in PVP in the open world? That could help with at least letting players fight back.
** on a side note, did the devs ever say if they are going to equalize power between players in PVP in the open world? That could help with at least letting players fight back.
I'm a little skeptical about this one.
If I put all my time and energy into creating a beastmode PvP 'toon it would seem odd if a half-arsed crafter could give me a beat down. How could that be satisfying? Additionally, even if the two 'toons were identical the guy that PvPs 24/7 is gonna whip the arse of the guy who PvPs only as necessary.
I'm not criticizing you... I just think this sounds like fairy dust answers to a real problem with the design.
** on a side note, did the devs ever say if they are going to equalize power between players in PVP in the open world? That could help with at least letting players fight back.
I'm a little skeptical about this one.
If I put all my time and energy into creating a beastmode PvP 'toon it would seem odd if a half-arsed crafter could give me a beat down. How could that be satisfying? Additionally, even if the two 'toons were identical the guy that PvPs 24/7 is gonna whip the arse of the guy who PvPs only as necessary.
I'm not criticizing you... I just think this sounds like fairy dust answers to a real problem with the design.
Well character progression and competitive PVP are fundamentally at odds I think.
If you can win by virtue of being stronger the PVP is no longer competitive, you end up with default victories and losses.
That feeds into the whole issue of griefing. The killer doesnt really have to try and the victim is just killed repeatedly and not able to do anything about it.
Power equalization shifts the PVP to be more about player ability, which curbs griefing by making victory less certain. The attacker still has to play well to win.
I guess it depends if people want to play PVP more from the perspective of looking for someone to challenge, or looking for someone to kill.
So with the AoC open PVP system plus big power differences you are encouraging people to attack people who are too low level to fight back, get an easy win and resources and let your flag go back to normal before you do it over again. Power equalization makes attacking players more dangerous and something you have to put more planning into.
There is no real solution for simply just bringing more dudes though, that is a whole other can of worms.
We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay.– Steven sharif
Comments
AoC would be a pure PvP game - which is the best description, because even if you're just a lone crafter you're contributing to the strength of a team which engages in PvP (1). That would also be why you're targeted - so that you stop contributing wealth to a city someone wants to overthrow.
NOTES
-------------------------------------------------------
1: That is my understanding of the game, at any rate.
I'm not a PvP person but I do like it when that is going on around me. The possibility and danger of getting jumped can make getting resources back to town entertaining. Being tied to the fate of your city can be interesting.
However, too often these things degrade into murder hobos sweeping the dungeons every 20 minutes. The hobos have no investment in the game (no town or city to protect) and have found a way to mitigate any risks. They don't even need the stuff I'm carrying - for them it is just lolz.
So good luck with that - probably the biggest challenge these guys face in making this game. The developers buy into their own vision for the game and don't consider it from the perspective of someone that just wants to break it.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Or we could call 'em: Hardcore, Never Gonna Happen, and Carebears.
In fact, gaming for centuries has been almost exclusively PvP - chess, checkers, etc.
So you cannot blame the developers for trying to tap into that.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
You wouldn't say an online shooter or fighting game is forced PVP since the game is only PVP
In an MMO there are other things to do in the game that people might play that are not directly PVP, like crafting and PVE
So PVP may be a mechanic but not the mechanic
So from that perspective if you are doing PVE and someone attacks you, you are being forced into PVP, your ability to do PVE is being interrupted by non voluntary PVP
The reverse doesn't really happen, you never have to stop doing PVP to go do a dungeon or whatever,
I think it is the dynamic of trying to do something else and having to stop to engage with PVP that makes it feel forced in that sense
Not so much that the game is forcing you as other players are.
So in a way open PVP is the least voluntary because you may not get to choose when you engage with it and it can prevent you from doing something else.
If a game were entirely PVP and had no PVE this wouldn't apply.
By that logic, if you were out gathering and you were attacked by a wild boar that would be forced PvE, correct?
The term 'forced' is never used for PvE because no person in their right mind would try to cast an unwanted PvE encounter as some kind of crime. In fact, try to post on a gaming forum about how a game has forced PvE and people will point and laugh.
The reason people attach the word 'forced' to PvP is because back in the day people tried to portray it as akin to rape (again, an unfortunate comparison). The 'forced' adjective is an attempt to make it appear as if the PK is infringing on someone's game time - making a person play a game they don't wish to play.
It is impossible for PvP to be 'forced' because all game play is voluntary.
Buyer beware.
Yes, it really is all about me.
Lineage 2 comes to mind, you really had to roll a 2nd crafting only character to properly make good gear to wear.
I'm sure the intent was for clan crafters to supply their mates, but the more solo orientated player really struggled as the grind was very significant in that game.
Quite honestly, I cheated. I paid for gold to buy my SR's Tier C and B gear, and it was stupidly expensive, like $500.
When I realized what Tier A would cost, in terms of either grind or money I walked away.
Took a few more games for me to see the folly of pay to win, (Runes of Magic or early EVE being my last).
Now if a MMO has a really distasteful design like say, a raiding only end game, or heavy crafting reqs I just don't play that game instead of throwing money at the problem to avoid it.
Which is why I haven't played many modern MMORPGs over the past 6 years since leaving EVE, ESO being sole exception.
"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 just had a thought reading your post - maybe us old folks are getting priced out of gaming?
Right now I'm playing Black Desert and I don't really do quests so I'm just happily grinding along and selling whatever I get in order to upgrade gear. I have no intent to be competitive like my Lineage 2 days so it's just a relaxation device.
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
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
So in DAOC you can choose to not participate in the killing and dying to other players directly, but since the entire game was built around the Realm War, even a "PvE" character that never sets foot in the Frontier will be affected by PvP. It's the ultimate PvP game in my mind.
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
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
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
But I do not think people are comparing PVP to rape, rather which mechanic of the 2 is more likely to disrupt and prevent the other one.
PVP is conducted by humans, humans can use it to be, intentionally or not, disruptive to other types of content
Combined with gross differences in power limiting your ability to do anything about it in return.
Disruption plus limited recourse, not to mention deliberate griefing
PVE is more predictable and avoidable,
Now if boars were programmed to behave like people and roam around and attack players who are engaged in PVP, then yeah that would be forced PVE, because PVE would keep disrupting or preventing your PVP.
But you aren't going to be prevented from doing PVP because a roving quest line keeps forcing you to complete it or die, but it will happen the other way around.
I know they are using a flag system, which is a precarious balance of penalties for PKs so they don't kill people too much but not so many penalties that PKs don't exist at all.
And their whole thing is PVX, but the relationship between PVE and PVP is not an equal one.
It will be the PVP portion that can prevent players from doing PVE, PVP has the greatest spoiler effect and the aspect that if they balance it wrong can break the game.
** on a side note, did the devs ever say if they are going to equalize power between players in PVP in the open world? That could help with at least letting players fight back.
If I put all my time and energy into creating a beastmode PvP 'toon it would seem odd if a half-arsed crafter could give me a beat down. How could that be satisfying? Additionally, even if the two 'toons were identical the guy that PvPs 24/7 is gonna whip the arse of the guy who PvPs only as necessary.
I'm not criticizing you... I just think this sounds like fairy dust answers to a real problem with the design.
If you can win by virtue of being stronger the PVP is no longer competitive, you end up with default victories and losses.
That feeds into the whole issue of griefing.
The killer doesnt really have to try and the victim is just killed repeatedly and not able to do anything about it.
Power equalization shifts the PVP to be more about player ability, which curbs griefing by making victory less certain. The attacker still has to play well to win.
I guess it depends if people want to play PVP more from the perspective of looking for someone to challenge, or looking for someone to kill.
So with the AoC open PVP system plus big power differences you are encouraging people to attack people who are too low level to fight back, get an easy win and resources and let your flag go back to normal before you do it over again.
Power equalization makes attacking players more dangerous and something you have to put more planning into.
There is no real solution for simply just bringing more dudes though, that is a whole other can of worms.
The glorious ashes wiki: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Gear
We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay.– Steven sharif