I won't even go near a FFA PVP game unless its like Albion Online (and how it sounds Dune Awakening will be) where there is FFA zones. Even then it becomes a question of risk vs. reward and how much can I enjoy the game avoiding those zones if I so choose. But if I am in a group of good PVP'ers, I would be more likely to go out there. Maybe.
Why are people so afraid of losing stuff that doesn't matter? Part of the gameplay should be getting that stuff back, whether it's finding that person and killing them, or just running content again to get it. In SWG when my armour was shot, I just went and got it again. Some of the best fun I've ever had was in Dayz and you'd spend hours and days getting geared up, then you die and you have to start it again.... But it was ok because that was the fun part of the game.
It just has always weirded me out that people cling on to in game items that are totally meaningless.... Now if this game were on Steam and the items had real world value, then I could see people having a problem.
In fact Raph, use the Steam Marketplace and let's have a real world economy going! I want to sell all my loot for Steam Decks!
Saying that pixels in a game don't mean anything is like me saying pixels on your screen while examining a bank statement mean nothing. So if your bank account read $0.00 in pixels on your screen you'd be okay with calling the bank and them responding "Dude, chill, it's only pixels".
Some pixels represent a significant time investment. Other pixels represent necessary steps to get to new content.
I don't play games to simply blow 100s of hours of time - I'm usually working towards a goal and for goals in a game to mean anything at all the pixels that represent those goals must have some kind of value to the players.
It's okay to be new to video games, but maybe read up on the concept first before throwing ideas around.
PvP to PvE balancing is the hardest thing for a MMO to do properly. We know this because there are so few games that do it properly, many skirt the issue like ESO (arena) and even when they put players in a "PvP Park" the internal PvP can be up the creek (ESO's balancing is not bad in my option, just not great).
Another issue is PvP players are more sensitive to balance, which IMHO, is why games where each side starts with exactly the same thing works well for PvP but can be boring for PvE. (chess, Battlefield, etc). In a PvE game a meta is less destructive because while your pyro mage may blow up trolls in 10 seconds, the fact it takes my Bard 20 seconds doesn't destroy the fun.
I think the problems go so far beyond the shallow rejoinders (you care about pixels too much, git gud, etc). Until people begin to explore the deeper issues with the design there will continue to be bad solutions.
The best way to handle PvP and PvE balance is to have two classes for each player. Let's call your class Animal Lord, in PvE it plays like a sort of Druid, in PvP it plays like a Warg. Split the two entirely and balancing issues in PvP are a lot simpler, it effect this is what Lotro did, but in my vision the level class is determined by the PvE "Druid" level. If you have regional PvP zones like DAOC you assume your PvP "form" as you go into the zone, or in a tagged PvP system when choosing to be PvP and so on.
The huge drawback to this is all the extra work needed when creating the PvP class in addition to the PvP one, this is why most MMOs will not jump on a concept like this.
I would love to play a game where I wasn't forced to choose between gearing out for PVE efficiency at the expense of PVP proficiency.
I realize in the real world no one uses a submarine or destroyer to go fishing, but it would be great if attacking a PVE target was sometimes pretty risky, much like a pride of lions often find out when they try to attack a water buffalo herd over in Africa.
(They lose more often than win)
My go to African animal expert rated Cape Buffalo as the second most dangerous critter to go hunting there. Lions were a lot lower.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I won't even go near a FFA PVP game unless its like Albion Online (and how it sounds Dune Awakening will be) where there is FFA zones. Even then it becomes a question of risk vs. reward and how much can I enjoy the game avoiding those zones if I so choose. But if I am in a group of good PVP'ers, I would be more likely to go out there. Maybe.
Why are people so afraid of losing stuff that doesn't matter? Part of the gameplay should be getting that stuff back, whether it's finding that person and killing them, or just running content again to get it. In SWG when my armour was shot, I just went and got it again. Some of the best fun I've ever had was in Dayz and you'd spend hours and days getting geared up, then you die and you have to start it again.... But it was ok because that was the fun part of the game.
It just has always weirded me out that people cling on to in game items that are totally meaningless.... Now if this game were on Steam and the items had real world value, then I could see people having a problem.
In fact Raph, use the Steam Marketplace and let's have a real world economy going! I want to sell all my loot for Steam Decks!
Saying that pixels in a game don't mean anything is like me saying pixels on your screen while examining a bank statement mean nothing. So if your bank account read $0.00 in pixels on your screen you'd be okay with calling the bank and them responding "Dude, chill, it's only pixels".
Some pixels represent a significant time investment. Other pixels represent necessary steps to get to new content.
I don't play games to simply blow 100s of hours of time - I'm usually working towards a goal and for goals in a game to mean anything at all the pixels that represent those goals must have some kind of value to the players.
It's okay to be new to video games, but maybe read up on the concept first before throwing ideas around.
Not even on the right planet with that lame analogy.
Gear loss, be it via PvP, or corpse runs in PvE, or gear breakage, or any other method, is a way of increasing the stakes of an encounter. Some folks want all reward with no risk. There are plenty of games like that. Some folks like to risk something to get their reward, there are some (fewer) game like that.
What we have to remember is that NOT EVERY GAME HAS TO BE FOR EVERY PLAYER. Some folks want some risk. Some folks want some PvP. Some folks like neither. Some people want both.
IMHO as long as a game is HONEST about what it's going for, it's all good.
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 won't even go near a FFA PVP game unless its like Albion Online (and how it sounds Dune Awakening will be) where there is FFA zones. Even then it becomes a question of risk vs. reward and how much can I enjoy the game avoiding those zones if I so choose. But if I am in a group of good PVP'ers, I would be more likely to go out there. Maybe.
Why are people so afraid of losing stuff that doesn't matter? Part of the gameplay should be getting that stuff back, whether it's finding that person and killing them, or just running content again to get it. In SWG when my armour was shot, I just went and got it again. Some of the best fun I've ever had was in Dayz and you'd spend hours and days getting geared up, then you die and you have to start it again.... But it was ok because that was the fun part of the game.
It just has always weirded me out that people cling on to in game items that are totally meaningless.... Now if this game were on Steam and the items had real world value, then I could see people having a problem.
In fact Raph, use the Steam Marketplace and let's have a real world economy going! I want to sell all my loot for Steam Decks!
Saying that pixels in a game don't mean anything is like me saying pixels on your screen while examining a bank statement mean nothing. So if your bank account read $0.00 in pixels on your screen you'd be okay with calling the bank and them responding "Dude, chill, it's only pixels".
Some pixels represent a significant time investment. Other pixels represent necessary steps to get to new content.
I don't play games to simply blow 100s of hours of time - I'm usually working towards a goal and for goals in a game to mean anything at all the pixels that represent those goals must have some kind of value to the players.
It's okay to be new to video games, but maybe read up on the concept first before throwing ideas around.
Not even on the right planet with that lame analogy.
Gear loss, be it via PvP, or corpse runs in PvE, or gear breakage, or any other method, is a way of increasing the stakes of an encounter. Some folks want all reward with no risk. There are plenty of games like that. Some folks like to risk something to get their reward, there are some (fewer) game like that.
What we have to remember is that NOT EVERY GAME HAS TO BE FOR EVERY PLAYER. Some folks want some risk. Some folks want some PvP. Some folks like neither. Some people want both.
IMHO as long as a game is HONEST about what it's going for, it's all good.
I vivdly remember a ganker/griefer says in a discussion. "Why would I fight 1 against a bunch of people. Do I look stupid."
No ganker/griefer ever fight when they felt they are in danger. They just run of to safe area or log of if they are in danger.
But PvE players have to be there to level up, get items to level up crafting.
I think it depend on the design but really, how often do ganker/griefer felt in danger.
I vivdly remember a ganker/griefer says in a discussion. "Why would I fight 1 against a bunch of people. Do I look stupid."
No ganker/griefer ever fight when they felt they are in danger. They just run of to safe area or log of if they are in danger.
But PvE players have to be there to level up, get items to level up crafting.
I think it depend on the design but really, how often do ganker/griefer felt in danger.
The player bases have become too lazy to play DnD video games. Twenty years ago, people would fight 1v8 and always win. I used to watch this on a daily basis. They were some epic fights. I used to watch stealther's take out 20+ people by themselves. It's all in how you prepare the fight. You have to put the time in and build your character.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
I won't even go near a FFA PVP game unless its like Albion Online (and how it sounds Dune Awakening will be) where there is FFA zones. Even then it becomes a question of risk vs. reward and how much can I enjoy the game avoiding those zones if I so choose. But if I am in a group of good PVP'ers, I would be more likely to go out there. Maybe.
Why are people so afraid of losing stuff that doesn't matter? Part of the gameplay should be getting that stuff back, whether it's finding that person and killing them, or just running content again to get it. In SWG when my armour was shot, I just went and got it again. Some of the best fun I've ever had was in Dayz and you'd spend hours and days getting geared up, then you die and you have to start it again.... But it was ok because that was the fun part of the game.
It just has always weirded me out that people cling on to in game items that are totally meaningless.... Now if this game were on Steam and the items had real world value, then I could see people having a problem.
In fact Raph, use the Steam Marketplace and let's have a real world economy going! I want to sell all my loot for Steam Decks!
Saying that pixels in a game don't mean anything is like me saying pixels on your screen while examining a bank statement mean nothing. So if your bank account read $0.00 in pixels on your screen you'd be okay with calling the bank and them responding "Dude, chill, it's only pixels".
Some pixels represent a significant time investment. Other pixels represent necessary steps to get to new content.
I don't play games to simply blow 100s of hours of time - I'm usually working towards a goal and for goals in a game to mean anything at all the pixels that represent those goals must have some kind of value to the players.
It's okay to be new to video games, but maybe read up on the concept first before throwing ideas around.
Not even on the right planet with that lame analogy.
Gear loss, be it via PvP, or corpse runs in PvE, or gear breakage, or any other method, is a way of increasing the stakes of an encounter. Some folks want all reward with no risk. There are plenty of games like that. Some folks like to risk something to get their reward, there are some (fewer) game like that.
What we have to remember is that NOT EVERY GAME HAS TO BE FOR EVERY PLAYER. Some folks want some risk. Some folks want some PvP. Some folks like neither. Some people want both.
IMHO as long as a game is HONEST about what it's going for, it's all good.
You're not even in the same galaxy with your rebuttal.
There are plenty of risk avenues that don't involve all the baggage and glossed over issues FFA full loot PvP bring. A lot of PvE games have total loss conditions where game is lost and over. PvP games are rarely permadeath or game over on a loss.
Adding on to that, the vast majority of PvP players don't like massive loss in their games either because the most popular and competitive PvP games have zero lost when it comes to item and gear access. Those that do like Tarkov and EVE, have various insurance and recovery systems in place to mitigate the impact of that loss. Why? Because losing high value items in a full loot game stings a lot and players go so far as to cheat and exploit to avoid it.
So, please let's not pretend like placing value on pixels is a PvE kink because we all know what the story is. We've all been there. We know how it works out in reality.
I do agree though, if the game is up front about it, then that's the player's choice to engage.
I won't even go near a FFA PVP game unless its like Albion Online (and how it sounds Dune Awakening will be) where there is FFA zones. Even then it becomes a question of risk vs. reward and how much can I enjoy the game avoiding those zones if I so choose. But if I am in a group of good PVP'ers, I would be more likely to go out there. Maybe.
Why are people so afraid of losing stuff that doesn't matter? Part of the gameplay should be getting that stuff back, whether it's finding that person and killing them, or just running content again to get it. In SWG when my armour was shot, I just went and got it again. Some of the best fun I've ever had was in Dayz and you'd spend hours and days getting geared up, then you die and you have to start it again.... But it was ok because that was the fun part of the game.
It just has always weirded me out that people cling on to in game items that are totally meaningless.... Now if this game were on Steam and the items had real world value, then I could see people having a problem.
In fact Raph, use the Steam Marketplace and let's have a real world economy going! I want to sell all my loot for Steam Decks!
Saying that pixels in a game don't mean anything is like me saying pixels on your screen while examining a bank statement mean nothing. So if your bank account read $0.00 in pixels on your screen you'd be okay with calling the bank and them responding "Dude, chill, it's only pixels".
Some pixels represent a significant time investment. Other pixels represent necessary steps to get to new content.
I don't play games to simply blow 100s of hours of time - I'm usually working towards a goal and for goals in a game to mean anything at all the pixels that represent those goals must have some kind of value to the players.
It's okay to be new to video games, but maybe read up on the concept first before throwing ideas around.
Not even on the right planet with that lame analogy.
Gear loss, be it via PvP, or corpse runs in PvE, or gear breakage, or any other method, is a way of increasing the stakes of an encounter. Some folks want all reward with no risk. There are plenty of games like that. Some folks like to risk something to get their reward, there are some (fewer) game like that.
What we have to remember is that NOT EVERY GAME HAS TO BE FOR EVERY PLAYER. Some folks want some risk. Some folks want some PvP. Some folks like neither. Some people want both.
IMHO as long as a game is HONEST about what it's going for, it's all good.
You're not even in the same galaxy with your rebuttal.
There are plenty of risk avenues that don't involve all the baggage and glossed over issues FFA full loot PvP bring. A lot of PvE games have total loss conditions where game is lost and over. PvP games are rarely permadeath or game over on a loss.
Adding on to that, the vast majority of PvP players don't like massive loss in their games either because the most popular and competitive PvP games have zero lost when it comes to item and gear access. Those that do like Tarkov and EVE, have various insurance and recovery systems in place to mitigate the impact of that loss. Why? Because losing high value items in a full loot game stings a lot and players go so far as to cheat and exploit to avoid it.
So, please let's not pretend like placing value on pixels is a PvE kink because we all know what the story is. We've all been there. We know how it works out in reality.
I do agree though, if the game is up front about it, then that's the player's choice to engage.
I think you missed the part where I described each player's desire/tolerance for risks is exactly that. Each player's. You might want to read it again. You responded by saying "NO MOST PLAYERS WANT X". OK, then go play a game that has "X". So is this where I can be cute and say "Not even in the same Universe?"
It really and truly IS that simple.
Just don't go into a game that has "Y" and complain that it SHOULD HAVE "X". Go play one of multitudes of games that have X.
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
Not all games are for all players, this is true. However, once you add FFA non-consensual PvP to a game, then it severely cuts down on how many players want to play it. I'd say that most players don't want to get ganked with no recourse. I'd also say that few full loot FFA PvP MMO games are a big success, if any.
To me, the game is better if you have choices. I do like PvP, when I can plan for it. Put some of the top resources into a PvP zone, that is fine and is a good risk/reward decision to make. Or allow a port to be put into contention, like in PoTBS, and then I can decide if what I want from that port is worth the PvP risk of getting there. I can gear up for the challenge.
DAOC is widely regarded as having good PvP, but you can play the entire game without doing any PvP if you choose. Games like this appeal to a much broader market.
Will I complain if a game doesn't do it the way I want? no, I just won't play it. My prediction is that if this game has non-consensual PvP with no way to opt out, it won't be a big success.
I vivdly remember a ganker/griefer says in a discussion. "Why would I fight 1 against a bunch of people. Do I look stupid."
No ganker/griefer ever fight when they felt they are in danger. They just run of to safe area or log of if they are in danger.
But PvE players have to be there to level up, get items to level up crafting.
I think it depend on the design but really, how often do ganker/griefer felt in danger.
Depends on the game. My only real experience with ffa pvp was Lineage 2. There were gankers/griefers and yes they did die at times.
Several times, in my experience, a clan would kill some of our people in an area and so we'd bring a group to fight them. Sometimes we'd win, sometimes not.
A solo "ganker/griefer" is there to just gank and grief. I've taken care of my share of those.
So I say once again, a pve player who plays a game with ffa pvp or any type of game where they are exposed to pvp is playing a "pvp game" and they should make that choice.
I am absolutely not clear why this isn't "clear" other than to acknowledge that there is a good group of players who think every game should be for every player. And that's just not possible.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Raph and company can make whatever game they want so long as they plan their budget around how many players they will sustain. Regardless of PVP or PvE the game will have a huge influx at launch. This always happens because players are starved for a good MMO. The question will be how many stick around past the 3rd month? Historically PvP full loot FFA games have a very small following. The WoW of these PvP games, EVE Online, has never come even close to WoW numbers and every full loot PvP game other than EVE has gotten even fewer players. It's just not a big market. Not a lot of players have the appetite for it in spite of how many posts and rebuttals they create on game forums. The few and the loud. I'm sure Raph is aware of this. Anyway they've been a bit vague on how exactly PvP works in this game so we'll have to wait and see, but I doubt it's going to be EVE null sec all over again. But maybe? We'll see.
My god. Not only that the graphic (style) look absolutely appalling, the style like its a mobile game for 4 year olds, the world looks like worst amateur survival game slapped in unity engine with store assets.
Combine this with overly complicated simulation of water , stone , gasses physics that will not only cause development to last ages , but also dont add nothing to gameplay really.
This was the secret hope for MMO genre that was kept under secrecy for years ?♂️
Graphics are clearly placeholders which makes sense cause they've clearly been working on the world building and it's simulation.
Saying that work "adds nothing to gameplay" seems a bit short-sided and premature to say the least.
Show's how bad it is to share early development stages to the general gaming world though.
I strongly suspect the art design will not change. I am eager to be pleasantly surprised though.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Raph has been replying to comments on the MassivelyOP article. In response to someone saying that the art style looks like a child's game, he said "We have a long way to go on visuals yet."
Raph has been replying to comments on the MassivelyOP article. In response to someone saying that the art style looks like a child's game, he said "We have a long way to go on visuals yet."
Visuals will change but notice he does not say style or art or anything like that. I think he is referring to enhancing the visuals, not changing them entirely.
Raph has been replying to comments on the MassivelyOP article. In response to someone saying that the art style looks like a child's game, he said "We have a long way to go on visuals yet."
Visuals will change but notice he does not say style or art or anything like that. I think he is referring to enhancing the visuals, not changing them entirely.
Yeah I can't imagine a complete graphics overhaul or anything like that.
PvP to PvE balancing is the hardest thing for a MMO to do properly. We know this because there are so few games that do it properly, many skirt the issue like ESO (arena) and even when they put players in a "PvP Park" the internal PvP can be up the creek (ESO's balancing is not bad in my option, just not great).
Another issue is PvP players are more sensitive to balance, which IMHO, is why games where each side starts with exactly the same thing works well for PvP but can be boring for PvE. (chess, Battlefield, etc). In a PvE game a meta is less destructive because while your pyro mage may blow up trolls in 10 seconds, the fact it takes my Bard 20 seconds doesn't destroy the fun.
I think the problems go so far beyond the shallow rejoinders (you care about pixels too much, git gud, etc). Until people begin to explore the deeper issues with the design there will continue to be bad solutions.
The best way to handle PvP and PvE balance is to have two classes for each player. Let's call your class Animal Lord, in PvE it plays like a sort of Druid, in PvP it plays like a Warg. Split the two entirely and balancing issues in PvP are a lot simpler, it effect this is what Lotro did, but in my vision the level class is determined by the PvE "Druid" level. If you have regional PvP zones like DAOC you assume your PvP "form" as you go into the zone, or in a tagged PvP system when choosing to be PvP and so on.
The huge drawback to this is all the extra work needed when creating the PvP class in addition to the PvP one, this is why most MMOs will not jump on a concept like this.
I would love to play a game where I wasn't forced to choose between gearing out for PVE efficiency at the expense of PVP proficiency.
I realize in the real world no one uses a submarine or destroyer to go fishing, but it would be great if attacking a PVE target was sometimes pretty risky, much like a pride of lions often find out when they try to attack a water buffalo herd over in Africa.
(They lose more often than win)
I don't know how many times I've suggested having two skill sets, PvE and PvP, where there's only one spell but it has two effects depending on player or NPC target. Always got hit with "That's too much overhead for the server and too much work for the devs!" If it's too much work for the server in this day and age, your network guys are incompetent. And never having to appease PvE players who are rightfully pissed for having their skills ruined by constant nerfs or buffs, because adjustments can now be made strictly affecting PvP players, not only decreases workload but enhances overall player enjoyment and thus, player retention rates.
I won't even go near a FFA PVP game unless its like Albion Online (and how it sounds Dune Awakening will be) where there is FFA zones. Even then it becomes a question of risk vs. reward and how much can I enjoy the game avoiding those zones if I so choose. But if I am in a group of good PVP'ers, I would be more likely to go out there. Maybe.
Why are people so afraid of losing stuff that doesn't matter? Part of the gameplay should be getting that stuff back, whether it's finding that person and killing them, or just running content again to get it. In SWG when my armour was shot, I just went and got it again. Some of the best fun I've ever had was in Dayz and you'd spend hours and days getting geared up, then you die and you have to start it again.... But it was ok because that was the fun part of the game.
It just has always weirded me out that people cling on to in game items that are totally meaningless.... Now if this game were on Steam and the items had real world value, then I could see people having a problem.
In fact Raph, use the Steam Marketplace and let's have a real world economy going! I want to sell all my loot for Steam Decks!
Because most people aren't masochistic gluttons for punishment and play games to relax. They can run the real rags to riches to rags story everyday in real life.
Raph has been replying to comments on the MassivelyOP article. In response to someone saying that the art style looks like a child's game, he said "We have a long way to go on visuals yet."
Visuals will change but notice he does not say style or art or anything like that. I think he is referring to enhancing the visuals, not changing them entirely.
If he can lean a little bit towards CoH, just a little, enough to get away from the kid's coloring book look, I'd be happy. This means the game can function more smoothly, especially with the Sandbox features and the world changing before our eyes.
4 Kilometers per side worlds. That doesn't sound very big to me. It's certainly not the game world I want. But it may be an interesting game to play anyways. Just...different.
All I can say is regardless of Koster's past glories he is also the main consultant behind the dismally disappointing, hot mess, gank fest that was Crowfall. I think its time good old Raff had the epiphany that the brunt of those types of gamers, due to age, or responsibilities, or just other interests, have moved the fuck on from the MMORPG landscape. And have not been replaced with new blood. Much like the brunt of the gaming industry.
If he wants to make a small indie niche hard core PVP MMO I say have at it, I'm your huckleberry. However if he wants to draw in a large player base he needs to realize older PVPcentric players like myself are few and far between these days. And to quote yet another film, this aggression will not stand.
All I can say is regardless of Koster's past glories he is also the main consultant behind the dismally disappointing, hot mess, gank fest that was Crowfall. I think its time good old Raff had the epiphany that the brunt of those types of gamers, due to age, or responsibilities, or just other interests, have moved the fuck on from the MMORPG landscape. And have not been replaced with new blood. Much like the brunt of the gaming industry.
If he wants to make a small indie niche hard core PVP MMO I say have at it, I'm your huckleberry. However if he wants to draw in a large player base he needs to realize older PVPcentric players like myself are few and far between these days. And to quote yet another film, this aggression will not stand.
I think there are enough players for just about any type of game; however, I think developers are making a couple of mistakes when it comes to measuring failure and success.
I don't have the data to back this up, it is just a feeling.
When FO launched it hit a peak of 1,500 players online with no advertising. It attracted some early adopters that raised a stink and I'm not sure the developers understood who they were dealing with, hence, the quick backpedal.
Group #1: These guys didn't read the box and left in droves when they found out they could lose some stuffs to PKs.
Group #2: The UO '98 wannabes who thought they were going to relive the glory days of ganking 100s of players in a single evening and rolling in phat loot. They left in droves when they found out a working justice system was in place.
Group #3: The Tourists, who left FO and have already joined and left 3 other games in the past 4 months.
I hope Raph has the wisdom to ignore these players, identify a core demographic, and go for it. All three of these groups are packed with LOSERS who will either leave soon or destroy the game no matter what you do. Ignore them.
All I can say is regardless of Koster's past glories he is also the main consultant behind the dismally disappointing, hot mess, gank fest that was Crowfall. I think its time good old Raff had the epiphany that the brunt of those types of gamers, due to age, or responsibilities, or just other interests, have moved the fuck on from the MMORPG landscape. And have not been replaced with new blood. Much like the brunt of the gaming industry.
If he wants to make a small indie niche hard core PVP MMO I say have at it, I'm your huckleberry. However if he wants to draw in a large player base he needs to realize older PVPcentric players like myself are few and far between these days. And to quote yet another film, this aggression will not stand.
All Raph consulted on with Crowfall was the world economy, as far as I know.
There's no indication that he wants a PvP centric game. It looks like he's limiting it to battle zones, via requiring Players to take over a "world" and turn it into a PvP zone (with various options). That's the way I understand it, at least.
Comments
Some pixels represent a significant time investment.
Other pixels represent necessary steps to get to new content.
I don't play games to simply blow 100s of hours of time - I'm usually working towards a goal and for goals in a game to mean anything at all the pixels that represent those goals must have some kind of value to the players.
It's okay to be new to video games, but maybe read up on the concept first before throwing ideas around.
Make pvp players kill each other.
My go to African animal expert rated Cape Buffalo as the second most dangerous critter to go hunting there. Lions were a lot lower.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Gear loss, be it via PvP, or corpse runs in PvE, or gear breakage, or any other method, is a way of increasing the stakes of an encounter. Some folks want all reward with no risk. There are plenty of games like that. Some folks like to risk something to get their reward, there are some (fewer) game like that.
What we have to remember is that NOT EVERY GAME HAS TO BE FOR EVERY PLAYER. Some folks want some risk. Some folks want some PvP. Some folks like neither. Some people want both.
IMHO as long as a game is HONEST about what it's going for, it's all good.
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 vivdly remember a ganker/griefer says in a discussion. "Why would I fight 1 against a bunch of people. Do I look stupid."
No ganker/griefer ever fight when they felt they are in danger. They just run of to safe area or log of if they are in danger.
But PvE players have to be there to level up, get items to level up crafting.
I think it depend on the design but really, how often do ganker/griefer felt in danger.
The player bases have become too lazy to play DnD video games. Twenty years ago, people would fight 1v8 and always win. I used to watch this on a daily basis. They were some epic fights. I used to watch stealther's take out 20+ people by themselves. It's all in how you prepare the fight. You have to put the time in and build your character.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
It really and truly IS that simple.
Just don't go into a game that has "Y" and complain that it SHOULD HAVE "X". Go play one of multitudes of games that have X.
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
To me, the game is better if you have choices. I do like PvP, when I can plan for it. Put some of the top resources into a PvP zone, that is fine and is a good risk/reward decision to make. Or allow a port to be put into contention, like in PoTBS, and then I can decide if what I want from that port is worth the PvP risk of getting there. I can gear up for the challenge.
DAOC is widely regarded as having good PvP, but you can play the entire game without doing any PvP if you choose. Games like this appeal to a much broader market.
Will I complain if a game doesn't do it the way I want? no, I just won't play it. My prediction is that if this game has non-consensual PvP with no way to opt out, it won't be a big success.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
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
I strongly suspect the art design will not change. I am eager to be pleasantly surprised though.
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
Edit for article link: https://massivelyop.com/2024/06/28/raph-kosters-new-mmorpg-is-called-stars-reach-and-yes-its-basically-star-wars-galaxies-2/
This means the game can function more smoothly, especially with the Sandbox features and the world changing before our eyes.
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
I could see you playing a knock-off Wookiee in Raph's game.
I don't have the data to back this up, it is just a feeling.
When FO launched it hit a peak of 1,500 players online with no advertising. It attracted some early adopters that raised a stink and I'm not sure the developers understood who they were dealing with, hence, the quick backpedal.
- Group #1: These guys didn't read the box and left in droves when they found out they could lose some stuffs to PKs.
- Group #2: The UO '98 wannabes who thought they were going to relive the glory days of ganking 100s of players in a single evening and rolling in phat loot. They left in droves when they found out a working justice system was in place.
- Group #3: The Tourists, who left FO and have already joined and left 3 other games in the past 4 months.
I hope Raph has the wisdom to ignore these players, identify a core demographic, and go for it. All three of these groups are packed with LOSERS who will either leave soon or destroy the game no matter what you do. Ignore them.There's no indication that he wants a PvP centric game. It looks like he's limiting it to battle zones, via requiring Players to take over a "world" and turn it into a PvP zone (with various options).
That's the way I understand it, at least.
Once upon a time....