Originally posted by Paldarion Flame away, I habe asbestos grieves of fire protection +5
Oh no I agree with you on pretty much almost every point you made.
I hate the Gank factor and the "lets gang up on the noob" style of play enganged in by a significant number of PvPers. However I feel the "interuption" factor is a part of a dynamic game-world and that, as well as the community, is why I play MMORPG's.
Thus I feel that PKing (which to be frank is the usual outcome of PvP) should have serious concequences to the killers. As I tried to reply above before the great ghost of MMORP.com ate my post; I don't like playing murder. I stopped playing the great GTA titles because I felt sickened by the constant blood spatter. I feel that if people want to play murderers and serial killers they should suffer the concequences o f their actions even if it means making their character's unplayable.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-- I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference." -- The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost
Thus I feel that PKing (which to be frank is the usual outcome of PvP) should have serious concequences to the killers. As I tried to reply above before the great ghost of MMORP.com ate my post; I don't like playing murder. I stopped playing the great GTA titles because I felt sickened by the constant blood spatter. I feel that if people want to play murderers and serial killers they should suffer the concequences o f their actions even if it means making their character's unplayable.
I completely agree. It's a much more realistic approach.
I don't like all these PvP zones. I don't like that game model because it makes the game feel artificial instead of immersive. It makes PvP feel like a separate feature, a separate game within the game. The game world doesn't feel complete, and all aspects of war, crime, and justice are taken out of the basic game and placed in their own little arena. You didn't see Alexander the Great looking for zones to do battle in. You never read about Conan the Barbarian asking for a duel. And the Hobbits feared for the safety of the Shire.
Yet, it's just as unrealistic to have players come back time and again to PvP, with no end in sight.
This is all on WoW and I am keeping the rage in check for public viewing.
WoW was my real first encounter with "unwilling" (world) PVP. I actually quit my PVP server (Mal'Ganis) because it is one of the worst with ganking (more of groups of very high levels roaming around lowbie areas and killing every lowbie they see.) It is quite a shock to come from games like Diablo II which strove to make it harder and harder to world PVP to a game where I could expect to be killing by an insecure level 60 with epic gear who got bored.
I personally do not mind random world PVP with a fair fight. When a 46 Horde warlock who was standing by me for a long time suddenly attacked my 42 rogue while I was busy with a monster, I didn't get pissed; I kicked him in the face (literally) and stabbed him. However when on a 38 priest and a level 60 on an epic mount road by, dismounted, two hit me, and mounted and ran off, that pisses me off. Because see its at that point of "let's fight and have fun" and "lol I'm bored and you're dead aren't I a badass".
Have I ever killed someone more than 10 levels under me? Of course. But I can say it's never been more than 15, while even then, not a 100% fair fight, it has been motivated more by revenge than anything else. It's funny to say it but "they started it." If my lowbie characters (1 27, 2 38s, 1 41, 1 42, 1 48, I guess they are all technically low) had never been bothered by roaving bands of morons, I would not feel like this. My server is very bad with this and bad with people on Alliance (my faction) saying "pvp noob leave or stop whining" and not doing anything about lowbie attacks.
I just wish that there was some kind of penelty for THEM for doing this. I find it funny that the worst that happens is they don't get any honor points from it. Wouldn't it be more fair for them to get a negative mark? They get one for killing civilians, should not they get one for being such cowards? Maybe even preventing such high spans from attacking each other would be an extreme but effective step in stopping what really is a hateful action and what enrages SO many players. I don't want to lose the ability to have random fights with people I have even a slight chance against, I just wish I could level characters without living in constant fear that some loser is angry his mommy didn't hug him enough.
Originally posted by Amaranthar Originally posted by PlanetNiles Thus I feel that PKing (which to be frank is the usual outcome of PvP) should have serious concequences to the killers. As I tried to reply above before the great ghost of MMORP.com ate my post; I don't like playing murder. I stopped playing the great GTA titles because I felt sickened by the constant blood spatter. I feel that if people want to play murderers and serial killers they should suffer the concequences o f their actions even if it means making their character's unplayable. I completely agree. It's a much more realistic approach. I don't like all these PvP zones. I don't like that game model because it makes the game feel artificial instead of immersive. It makes PvP feel like a separate feature, a separate game within the game. The game world doesn't feel complete, and all aspects of war, crime, and justice are taken out of the basic game and placed in their own little arena. You didn't see Alexander the Great looking for zones to do battle in. You never read about Conan the Barbarian asking for a duel. And the Hobbits feared for the safety of the Shire. Yet, it's just as unrealistic to have players come back time and again to PvP, with no end in sight.
If you're hinting at say, Warcraft's separate PVP zones, the reason for this is it's not supposed to be a full out war (yet)! Many places it is said the factions are "close to all-out war, with skirmishes in disputed areas."
To say that this doesn't make sense is to say that you should be able to attack your own faction members, steal from vendors, loot bodies (oh no UO).
I would LIKE to see Blizzard (sorry all my talk is about WoW but thats my world PVP experience) have some balls and make zones change holding based on how players are doing in PVP in that area, or at least, according to their own story line. I'd also like to see faction NPCs who are like you, who go out and fight the other side. There are of course mobs who look like different races but more often than not, either side can attack them.
I'll never understand the mind-numbingly stupid belief amongst MMO players that a game should last forever. Really, are you honestly dense enough to think that UO is "dead" because of <insert your barely legible, laughably implausible nonsense quoted below here>. Do you think, perhaps, that it might have something to do with the game being nearly 10 years old?
How many 10 year old single player games do you fire up on a regular basis? Or, for that matter, how many 10 year old single player games have over 100,000 people playing them on a regular basis still?
Originally posted by Elandrial wow open pvp,where have i heard that before,oh yeah ULTIMA online.oh its DEAD. why cause people got tired of making a lvl 1 char,walking outside and getting ganked. why doesnt open pvp work??cause the VAST majority of pvp'ers are cowards and chickenshits. they attack low levels for fun, they attack people in a monster fight,they camp out corpses.why do people like pvp ,cause they can kill low levels and feel good about themselves. frankly people like pvp cause tehy cant play pve worth crap. i played on a text mud, we had this kingdom battle.one kingdom attracted the pvp'ers.the other the pvp'ers. the non pvp kingdom kicked the pvp kingdom ass in every battle.why cause they were more discplined,they were used to following orders,they were used to fightening fair fights.they showed up at the battles.
Originally posted by preka I'll never understand the mind-numbingly stupid belief amongst MMO players that a game should last forever. Really, are you honestly dense enough to think that UO is "dead" because of <insert your barely legible, laughably implausible nonsense quoted below here>. Do you think, perhaps, that it might have something to do with the game being nearly 10 years old? How many 10 year old single player games do you fire up on a regular basis? Or, for that matter, how many 10 year old single player games have over 100,000 people playing them on a regular basis still?
Originally posted by Elandrial wow open pvp,where have i heard that before,oh yeah ULTIMA online.oh its DEAD. why cause people got tired of making a lvl 1 char,walking outside and getting ganked. why doesnt open pvp work??cause the VAST majority of pvp'ers are cowards and chickenshits. they attack low levels for fun, they attack people in a monster fight,they camp out corpses.why do people like pvp ,cause they can kill low levels and feel good about themselves. frankly people like pvp cause tehy cant play pve worth crap. i played on a text mud, we had this kingdom battle.one kingdom attracted the pvp'ers.the other the pvp'ers.the non pvp kingdom kicked the pvp kingdom ass in every battle.why cause they were more discplined,they were used to following orders,they were used to fightening fair fights.they showed up at the battles.
Put the hate away dude. FYI I would reckon claiming that nobody plays 10+ year old games is considered a much more stupid statement/idea than the belief that a MMORPG should be around forever (which he didn't say, he said it died because it wasn't fun for newbies). Personally I play a 20 year old system on a regular basis (NES) and I am restoring a much older system for regular play (Atari 2600). Computer wise, Doom is one of my favorite games and that's around your 10 year claim. I won't even bother to go and look at my games, as I don't have a huge urge to try to explain why you are pretty ignorant. Older games are *constantly* played by many many people and just because YOU seem to value being hip n' modern over doing something that's good doesn't mean everyone else does.
As for multiplayer old games, have you ever heard of a little game called Diablo II? It's getting up there and still has a massive amount of players. EQ is getting up there too. Anything else that failed, failed for reasons besides being old (mostly being suck or they became inacessable to newbies).
Kronchev, you'll have all out war in WoW when they say you will. In other words, the players will have nothing to do with it. There will be no meaning to it except to claim the hill top. And that claim will shift regularly, determined by who's on at the time. It's all so artificial, and totally lacks any cohesiveness to the rest of the game, or any meaning at all.
"To say that this doesn't make sense is to say that you should be able to attack your own faction members, steal from vendors, loot bodies (oh no UO)."
That's precisely the reason for a justice system that works. If there's a justice system that has a harsh enough penalty that most players don't want to risk it, then it mimics reality. It also mimics the books and movies of the genre, the worlds they reveal. Under these circumstances, you can allow looting, because it's not going to happen much. This also mimics these worlds that the games are supposed to be fashioned after. And under this system, you can have battles and wars that mean something.
"The Thrill of Victory The Agony of Defeat"
Where is it in these games now? They aren't even games. They're hand outs. You are guaranteed success. It's tasteless, colorless, and odorless. They never stink, nor do they ever have that sweet smell of victory. Bland and stagnant.
First of all, I never said, "No one plays 10 year old games." You apparently fail at reading comprehension, which is an unfortunate disability when communicating via text.
You play old games? Good for you. Have the cookie you think you so righteously deserve. Do you think the same number of people are firing up the original Legend of Zelda game today as there were in 1986?
He said it "died because it wasn't fun for newbies..." Except...it didn't. It's still going, first and foremost. But, hey, don't let petty details like that get in the way of making blindingly ignorant declarative statements.
UO hasn't "died" any more than EQ (which has no where near the subscriber numbers it once did) has "died". Games get old, people move on to something new. It's not about being "hip" and "trendy" - it's simply the way things are. You can't "win" an MMO, but you can finish it.
Trying to attribute its "death" (which, again, is idiotic in the first place considering it hasn't died) to "omg teh open PvPz!1!" isn't just stupid - it's pathetically inaccurate. It takes only the slightest bit of effort to note that the game reached, within a few thousands of subscribers, its highest numbers at right around the same time as the release of Renaissance, which split the game into PvP and non-PvP shards. The number of subscribers had, until that point, been continually climbing.
Try to follow along now...
Pre-UO:R: continually climbing population
Post-UO:R: Flatlined population for several years before eventually seeing a significant decline.
If we were to readily accept that UO "died" because it had open PvP and wasn't newb friendly, surely a revision in which open-PvP was nullified wouldn't have resulted in an almost complete cessation in the population growth of the game, eh?
Originally posted by kronchev
Originally posted by preka I'll never understand the mind-numbingly stupid belief amongst MMO players that a game should last forever. Really, are you honestly dense enough to think that UO is "dead" because of <insert your barely legible, laughably implausible nonsense quoted below here>. Do you think, perhaps, that it might have something to do with the game being nearly 10 years old? How many 10 year old single player games do you fire up on a regular basis? Or, for that matter, how many 10 year old single player games have over 100,000 people playing them on a regular basis still?
Originally posted by Elandrial wow open pvp,where have i heard that before,oh yeah ULTIMA online.oh its DEAD. why cause people got tired of making a lvl 1 char,walking outside and getting ganked. why doesnt open pvp work??cause the VAST majority of pvp'ers are cowards and chickenshits. they attack low levels for fun, they attack people in a monster fight,they camp out corpses.why do people like pvp ,cause they can kill low levels and feel good about themselves. frankly people like pvp cause tehy cant play pve worth crap. i played on a text mud, we had this kingdom battle.one kingdom attracted the pvp'ers.the other the pvp'ers.the non pvp kingdom kicked the pvp kingdom ass in every battle.why cause they were more discplined,they were used to following orders,they were used to fightening fair fights.they showed up at the battles.
Put the hate away dude. FYI I would reckon claiming that nobody plays 10+ year old games is considered a much more stupid statement/idea than the belief that a MMORPG should be around forever (which he didn't say, he said it died because it wasn't fun for newbies). Personally I play a 20 year old system on a regular basis (NES) and I am restoring a much older system for regular play (Atari 2600). Computer wise, Doom is one of my favorite games and that's around your 10 year claim. I won't even bother to go and look at my games, as I don't have a huge urge to try to explain why you are pretty ignorant. Older games are *constantly* played by many many people and just because YOU seem to value being hip n' modern over doing something that's good doesn't mean everyone else does.
As for multiplayer old games, have you ever heard of a little game called Diablo II? It's getting up there and still has a massive amount of players. EQ is getting up there too. Anything else that failed, failed for reasons besides being old (mostly being suck or they became inacessable to newbies).
[quote]Originally posted by Amaranthar [b]Kronchev, you'll have all out war in WoW when they say you will. In other words, the players will have nothing to do with it. There will be no meaning to it except to claim the hill top. And that claim will shift regularly, determined by who's on at the time. It's all so artificial, and totally lacks any cohesiveness to the rest of the game, or any meaning at all. [/quote]
I know this, and I think its a shame. The universe is very static and completly undynamic and personally, I'm not a huge fan of games that seem to stand still in time.
"To say that this doesn't make sense is to say that you should be able to attack your own faction members, steal from vendors, loot bodies (oh no UO)." That's precisely the reason for a justice system that works. If there's a justice system that has a harsh enough penalty that most players don't want to risk it, then it mimics reality. It also mimics the books and movies of the genre, the worlds they reveal. Under these circumstances, you can allow looting, because it's not going to happen much. This also mimics these worlds that the games are supposed to be fashioned after. And under this system, you can have battles and wars that mean something.
I agree with this too. I would not mind being ganked if I could somehow have some hope for justice. At most, I can ask for assistance and rarely will someone come and kick his ass. To put it back into WoW's perspective, the looting wouldn't really be a huge deal due to soulbound items and such, as blizzard is very against recycling and sharing equipment, for some reason. I would love to see what you speak of.
[quote] "The Thrill of VictoryThe Agony of Defeat" Where is it in these games now? They aren't even games. They're hand outs. You are guaranteed success. It's tasteless, colorless, and odorless. They never stink, nor do they ever have that sweet smell of victory. Bland and stagnant.[/b][/quote]
Thats why I like reasonable PVP. When I win, its glorious. When I lose, it sucks for me, but I dont really LOSE anything except my time. When its an absurd situation and a 60 comes and kills my poor sub-40 in 2 hits, where's his victory? All I taste is disgusting defeat, but it's not a defeat that was my fault, or my flaw, it was just not fun for either side, not counting the childish mentality of the ganker.
Kronchev, if you want to see a game design that works like what I'm talking about, just follow the link in my signature. They don't have funding yet, but they have the only workable solution to making a world more exciting, more realistic (for a fantasy MMO, anyways), and much more well rounded.
If you have any questions, just post them on their boards. (You need to sign up for their news letter first to be able to post). Also, they have a nifty search funtion on the message boards.
I'm personally a fan of the action-consequence form of pvp.
Hell, im a great fan of an action-consequence form of competition. Where pvp encompasses everything, not just combat between players.
I also like cooperative play, which would seem the direct opposite. Yet it is not, to play cooperatively you do not exclude competing with other groups at all. Just not within your own group.
Anyway, I think the main discussion is somewhat polarised artificially. Since the viewpoints of both parttakers are not mutually exclusive at all. A game with a basically darwinistic competitive approach where every action has a consequence for every other player can also have zoned pvp combat areas. You simply vary the consequences applied to pvp combat in different areas of the game.
Where I think the key problem lies is with the form these consequences take. They should not be gloabal rulesets or AI-inspired reactons. Instead, one should always strive to provide the correct tool and incentive for the correct situation to players. Let players attach the consequence to another payers actions, be that an action in the context of pvp combat or economic pvp or political pvp. Have those features combined and overlap well enough and you can tweak your way into a balanced overall competition.
Rod_B, that's fine. Players like you deserve a game like you want just like anyone else. And it can work, for that play style, better than what's been put out so far.
But those of us who want open PvP, restricted by justice, generally want a more realistic game world. Here's some things that your game wouldn't have that we feel would make our game more realistic and more entertaining: -The threat of crime, anywhere and any time. It would be reduced to a very acceptable level by the justice system's punishment, yet also give us the excitement of hunting down the criminal(s). -Wars that mean even more, the same results as your game in resources control and the like, but we'd have our own cities to protect, not just some outpost. -The politics involved would be enhanced to a much higher level due to the implications of war, creating a whole new play style that lacks meaning in other game types. -Player bandits, just like ganking, would always be a risk even if a semi-rare occurance. Immagine this with caravans in a more realistic game world. -Bounty hunting, not for profit (which can be abused), but for protection and fame in one's city. -"Badlands" areas, due to the lack of social protections through justice and distance from cities, yet parties could still seek out justice with punative expeditions. -Thieves, held in check by the justice system, yet always a threat. This creates game play with guards, but also with investigations. -Evil player characters allying with evil NPCs. They'd pay a price in the end through the justice system, but what fun it would be to be challenged by real intelligence once in a while. -Add in here, evil masterminds, Prof. Moriarty types, if they can live long enough to attain this status. -And Sherlock Holmes types, to seek out and defeat the above, more than just a bounty hunter. -"Helen of Troy" style game play
I have no idea whay Devs go to so much trouble putting content into a Game with PvP
when all PvPers want is a Town with one door that leadas in and out just so thay can stand there and Gank noobies and kill eachother for no reason whatsoever.
Whatever happined to respect, now all these online game are is Gank,cheat,hack and be as foulmouthed as thay possibly can be.
I am 50+ years of age and am very tired of what i am paying for these days.
Zangfei, there are boatloads of us that don't want what you are talking about. Yet, we would like to have reasonable PvP in a more realistic fashion. Wars, once in a while an attack that makes sense, like in a caravan waylay, or catching thieves trying to steal a valuable artifact from a temple of ours, things like that.
Would you still be against PvP if a strong justice system prevented the kind of grief play you're talking about? Believe me, the vast majority of us don't want that at all. We're as sick of it as you are.
Comments
Oh no I agree with you on pretty much almost every point you made.
I hate the Gank factor and the "lets gang up on the noob" style of play enganged in by a significant number of PvPers. However I feel the "interuption" factor is a part of a dynamic game-world and that, as well as the community, is why I play MMORPG's.
Thus I feel that PKing (which to be frank is the usual outcome of PvP) should have serious concequences to the killers. As I tried to reply above before the great ghost of MMORP.com ate my post; I don't like playing murder. I stopped playing the great GTA titles because I felt sickened by the constant blood spatter. I feel that if people want to play murderers and serial killers they should suffer the concequences o f their actions even if it means making their character's unplayable.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-- The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost
Oops double post trouble.
Can someone please fix this damn board so that it works for tabbed browsing.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-- The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost
I completely agree. It's a much more realistic approach.
I don't like all these PvP zones. I don't like that game model because it makes the game feel artificial instead of immersive. It makes PvP feel like a separate feature, a separate game within the game. The game world doesn't feel complete, and all aspects of war, crime, and justice are taken out of the basic game and placed in their own little arena. You didn't see Alexander the Great looking for zones to do battle in. You never read about Conan the Barbarian asking for a duel. And the Hobbits feared for the safety of the Shire.
Yet, it's just as unrealistic to have players come back time and again to PvP, with no end in sight.
Once upon a time....
This is all on WoW and I am keeping the rage in check for public viewing.
WoW was my real first encounter with "unwilling" (world) PVP. I actually quit my PVP server (Mal'Ganis) because it is one of the worst with ganking (more of groups of very high levels roaming around lowbie areas and killing every lowbie they see.) It is quite a shock to come from games like Diablo II which strove to make it harder and harder to world PVP to a game where I could expect to be killing by an insecure level 60 with epic gear who got bored.
I personally do not mind random world PVP with a fair fight. When a 46 Horde warlock who was standing by me for a long time suddenly attacked my 42 rogue while I was busy with a monster, I didn't get pissed; I kicked him in the face (literally) and stabbed him. However when on a 38 priest and a level 60 on an epic mount road by, dismounted, two hit me, and mounted and ran off, that pisses me off. Because see its at that point of "let's fight and have fun" and "lol I'm bored and you're dead aren't I a badass".
Have I ever killed someone more than 10 levels under me? Of course. But I can say it's never been more than 15, while even then, not a 100% fair fight, it has been motivated more by revenge than anything else. It's funny to say it but "they started it." If my lowbie characters (1 27, 2 38s, 1 41, 1 42, 1 48, I guess they are all technically low) had never been bothered by roaving bands of morons, I would not feel like this. My server is very bad with this and bad with people on Alliance (my faction) saying "pvp noob leave or stop whining" and not doing anything about lowbie attacks.
I just wish that there was some kind of penelty for THEM for doing this. I find it funny that the worst that happens is they don't get any honor points from it. Wouldn't it be more fair for them to get a negative mark? They get one for killing civilians, should not they get one for being such cowards? Maybe even preventing such high spans from attacking each other would be an extreme but effective step in stopping what really is a hateful action and what enrages SO many players. I don't want to lose the ability to have random fights with people I have even a slight chance against, I just wish I could level characters without living in constant fear that some loser is angry his mommy didn't hug him enough.
If you're hinting at say, Warcraft's separate PVP zones, the reason for this is it's not supposed to be a full out war (yet)! Many places it is said the factions are "close to all-out war, with skirmishes in disputed areas."
To say that this doesn't make sense is to say that you should be able to attack your own faction members, steal from vendors, loot bodies (oh no UO).
I would LIKE to see Blizzard (sorry all my talk is about WoW but thats my world PVP experience) have some balls and make zones change holding based on how players are doing in PVP in that area, or at least, according to their own story line. I'd also like to see faction NPCs who are like you, who go out and fight the other side. There are of course mobs who look like different races but more often than not, either side can attack them.
Put the hate away dude. FYI I would reckon claiming that nobody plays 10+ year old games is considered a much more stupid statement/idea than the belief that a MMORPG should be around forever (which he didn't say, he said it died because it wasn't fun for newbies). Personally I play a 20 year old system on a regular basis (NES) and I am restoring a much older system for regular play (Atari 2600). Computer wise, Doom is one of my favorite games and that's around your 10 year claim. I won't even bother to go and look at my games, as I don't have a huge urge to try to explain why you are pretty ignorant. Older games are *constantly* played by many many people and just because YOU seem to value being hip n' modern over doing something that's good doesn't mean everyone else does.
As for multiplayer old games, have you ever heard of a little game called Diablo II? It's getting up there and still has a massive amount of players. EQ is getting up there too. Anything else that failed, failed for reasons besides being old (mostly being suck or they became inacessable to newbies).
Kronchev, you'll have all out war in WoW when they say you will. In other words, the players will have nothing to do with it. There will be no meaning to it except to claim the hill top. And that claim will shift regularly, determined by who's on at the time. It's all so artificial, and totally lacks any cohesiveness to the rest of the game, or any meaning at all.
"To say that this doesn't make sense is to say that you should be able to attack
your own faction members, steal from vendors, loot bodies (oh no UO)."
That's precisely the reason for a justice system that works. If there's a justice system that has a harsh enough penalty that most players don't want to risk it, then it mimics reality. It also mimics the books and movies of the genre, the worlds they reveal. Under these circumstances, you can allow looting, because it's not going to happen much. This also mimics these worlds that the games are supposed to be fashioned after. And under this system, you can have battles and wars that mean something.
"The Thrill of Victory
The Agony of Defeat"
Where is it in these games now? They aren't even games. They're hand outs. You are guaranteed success. It's tasteless, colorless, and odorless. They never stink, nor do they ever have that sweet smell of victory. Bland and stagnant.
Once upon a time....
Put the hate away dude. FYI I would reckon claiming that nobody plays 10+ year old games is considered a much more stupid statement/idea than the belief that a MMORPG should be around forever (which he didn't say, he said it died because it wasn't fun for newbies). Personally I play a 20 year old system on a regular basis (NES) and I am restoring a much older system for regular play (Atari 2600). Computer wise, Doom is one of my favorite games and that's around your 10 year claim. I won't even bother to go and look at my games, as I don't have a huge urge to try to explain why you are pretty ignorant. Older games are *constantly* played by many many people and just because YOU seem to value being hip n' modern over doing something that's good doesn't mean everyone else does.
As for multiplayer old games, have you ever heard of a little game called Diablo II? It's getting up there and still has a massive amount of players. EQ is getting up there too. Anything else that failed, failed for reasons besides being old (mostly being suck or they became inacessable to newbies).
[quote]Originally posted by Amaranthar
[b]Kronchev, you'll have all out war in WoW when they say you will. In other words, the players will have nothing to do with it. There will be no meaning to it except to claim the hill top. And that claim will shift regularly, determined by who's on at the time. It's all so artificial, and totally lacks any cohesiveness to the rest of the game, or any meaning at all.
[/quote]
I know this, and I think its a shame. The universe is very static and completly undynamic and personally, I'm not a huge fan of games that seem to stand still in time.
I agree with this too. I would not mind being ganked if I could somehow have some hope for justice. At most, I can ask for assistance and rarely will someone come and kick his ass. To put it back into WoW's perspective, the looting wouldn't really be a huge deal due to soulbound items and such, as blizzard is very against recycling and sharing equipment, for some reason. I would love to see what you speak of.
[quote]
"The Thrill of VictoryThe Agony of Defeat"
Where is it in these games now? They aren't even games. They're hand outs. You are guaranteed success. It's tasteless, colorless, and odorless. They never stink, nor do they ever have that sweet smell of victory. Bland and stagnant.[/b][/quote]
Thats why I like reasonable PVP. When I win, its glorious. When I lose, it sucks for me, but I dont really LOSE anything except my time. When its an absurd situation and a 60 comes and kills my poor sub-40 in 2 hits, where's his victory? All I taste is disgusting defeat, but it's not a defeat that was my fault, or my flaw, it was just not fun for either side, not counting the childish mentality of the ganker.
Kronchev, if you want to see a game design that works like what I'm talking about, just follow the link in my signature. They don't have funding yet, but they have the only workable solution to making a world more exciting, more realistic (for a fantasy MMO, anyways), and much more well rounded.
If you have any questions, just post them on their boards. (You need to sign up for their news letter first to be able to post). Also, they have a nifty search funtion on the message boards.
Once upon a time....
I'm personally a fan of the action-consequence form of pvp.
Hell, im a great fan of an action-consequence form of competition. Where pvp encompasses everything, not just combat between players.
I also like cooperative play, which would seem the direct opposite. Yet it is not, to play cooperatively you do not exclude competing with other groups at all. Just not within your own group.
Anyway, I think the main discussion is somewhat polarised artificially. Since the viewpoints of both parttakers are not mutually exclusive at all. A game with a basically darwinistic competitive approach where every action has a consequence for every other player can also have zoned pvp combat areas. You simply vary the consequences applied to pvp combat in different areas of the game.
Where I think the key problem lies is with the form these consequences take. They should not be gloabal rulesets or AI-inspired reactons. Instead, one should always strive to provide the correct tool and incentive for the correct situation to players. Let players attach the consequence to another payers actions, be that an action in the context of pvp combat or economic pvp or political pvp. Have those features combined and overlap well enough and you can tweak your way into a balanced overall competition.
Rod_B, that's fine. Players like you deserve a game like you want just like anyone else. And it can work, for that play style, better than what's been put out so far.
But those of us who want open PvP, restricted by justice, generally want a more realistic game world. Here's some things that your game wouldn't have that we feel would make our game more realistic and more entertaining:
-The threat of crime, anywhere and any time. It would be reduced to a very acceptable level by the justice system's punishment, yet also give us the excitement of hunting down the criminal(s).
-Wars that mean even more, the same results as your game in resources control and the like, but we'd have our own cities to protect, not just some outpost.
-The politics involved would be enhanced to a much higher level due to the implications of war, creating a whole new play style that lacks meaning in other game types.
-Player bandits, just like ganking, would always be a risk even if a semi-rare occurance. Immagine this with caravans in a more realistic game world.
-Bounty hunting, not for profit (which can be abused), but for protection and fame in one's city.
-"Badlands" areas, due to the lack of social protections through justice and distance from cities, yet parties could still seek out justice with punative expeditions.
-Thieves, held in check by the justice system, yet always a threat. This creates game play with guards, but also with investigations.
-Evil player characters allying with evil NPCs. They'd pay a price in the end through the justice system, but what fun it would be to be challenged by real intelligence once in a while.
-Add in here, evil masterminds, Prof. Moriarty types, if they can live long enough to attain this status.
-And Sherlock Holmes types, to seek out and defeat the above, more than just a bounty hunter.
-"Helen of Troy" style game play
Once upon a time....
PvP has no place at all in MMORPG.
I have no idea whay Devs go to so much trouble putting content into a Game with PvP
when all PvPers want is a Town with one door that leadas in and out just so thay can stand there and Gank noobies and kill eachother for no reason whatsoever.
Whatever happined to respect, now all these online game are is Gank,cheat,hack and be as foulmouthed as thay possibly can be.
I am 50+ years of age and am very tired of what i am paying for these days.
Online gameing is very close to its end for me.
Zangfei, there are boatloads of us that don't want what you are talking about. Yet, we would like to have reasonable PvP in a more realistic fashion. Wars, once in a while an attack that makes sense, like in a caravan waylay, or catching thieves trying to steal a valuable artifact from a temple of ours, things like that.
Would you still be against PvP if a strong justice system prevented the kind of grief play you're talking about? Believe me, the vast majority of us don't want that at all. We're as sick of it as you are.
Once upon a time....