Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is PVP with no risk like Poker with no money ?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I don't usually care for PvP, being ganked by high level gangs..no thank you.
But I agree with the OP that more MMOs should have a high stakes PvP server. Obviously their are enough people out there that want it, it doesn't affect my gameplay, and I can sympathize with the need for more risk. Why shouldn't PvPers be allowed to have that kind of fun?
The question from a developer's standpoint would be, "Are there enough of this type of gamer to warrant the expense for a deciated server of this kind?"
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
/quit
Everyone except someone that matters ie a Dev. Everything else is just a matter of opinion, unless you have some inside information on exactly how much it costs to change rulesets in every MMORPG?
What do you mean developers didn't put this "dumbass type of gameplay in" (again, showing your maturity). I'll give you one recent example - Vanguard. FFA server with coin looting, durability hit and a vision to add item looting. Huh? Eve's still one of the most popular MMORPG's around. Go figure.
Oh, not to mention AOC have already announced this "dumbass, oudated and useless" ruleset will be in for launch. I'd hazard a guess and say WAR will have one as well.
I think you better call them and educate them before they make a terrible mistake!
CaptainRPG made me LMAO - again!
I'm not sure I can agree with that. In Asheron's Call they had dedicated PvP servers with high stakes losses and those servers did quite well.
In terms of population, WoW has "8 million subscribers", but you'd really only need about 3,000 hardcore PvPers to populate their own server. I think it's more of a case that since hardcore pvpers are a minority, without some definite numbers it would probably be pointless to consider it.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Woohoo, a bump!
Everyone except someone that matters ie a Dev. Everything else is just a matter of opinion, unless you have some inside information on exactly how much it costs to change rulesets in every MMORPG?
What do you mean developers didn't put this "dumbass type of gameplay in" (again, showing your maturity). I'll give you one recent example - Vanguard. FFA server with coin looting, durability hit and a vision to add item looting. Huh? Eve's still one of the most popular MMORPG's around. Go figure.
CaptainRPG made me LMAO - again!
Eve Online got 90k people last year and the number of people join this year is 75% less. Popular, far from it. I don't know why you even mention Vanguard considering WoW has the same type of rules in their pvp and the game isn't too popular either. You're just mad no one other the group of trolls on this post agrees with your opinion. You're only bumping this post to pick a fight and someone else will agree.
Quit trolling and let the post die.
And in Non-MMORPGs like NWN, server quickly became "ghost towns" because of the unruly ganking and looting that went on. I agree with you in that people should be able to play their own type of gameplay, but what should be offer to the player is that something is realistically going to work. FFA isn't too realistic.
Quit trolling and let the post die.
Nice job dodging the facts that proved your theories wrong - yet again.
WOW has a FFA server with PVP death penalties? Damn...i must have missed it!
Vanguard not popular? The memo i got must be wrong. Considering it's listed on amazon under their top selling pc games.
Damn, i'm really out of the loop.
& WOW PVP is pretty much the opposite of the ruleset we are pushing for, as people have pointed out numerous times. AC1 - the population on the pve servers have dwindled even more so than the 'hardcore' server, whats your point here? That PVE isn't popular?
Oh, back to NWN analogies, joy!
edit Thanks for the bumps!
It went from getting 90k players last year to 70k players this year, which is 75% less for total of 150k.
75% of 90k is 22.5k If youre going to use math a basis for your argument you might consider checking your calculations before you post.
Quit trolling and let the post die.
Nice job dodging the facts that proved your theories wrong - yet again.
WOW has a FFA server with PVP death penalties? Damn...i must have missed it!
Vanguard not popular? The memo i got must be wrong. Considering it's listed on amazon under their top selling pc games.
Damn, i'm really out of the loop.
& WOW PVP is pretty much the opposite of the ruleset we are pushing for, as people have pointed out numerous times. AC1 - the population on the pve servers have dwindled even more so than the 'hardcore' server, whats your point here? That PVE isn't popular?
Oh, back to NWN analogies, joy!
edit Thanks for the bumps!
- They are plenty of PvE servers and there is only ONE hardcore server in AC.
- In WoW, the game you never played, your armor gets damaged in PvP (Yes, that's right, WoW has risk) and if you die the players loot money of your corpse.
- No, one, but your fellow trolls friend agreed that WoW wasn't a good example BASED on YOUR ANIMOSITY for the game.
- Vanguards total population hasn't even been calculated yet. One story says 100k and another say 800k.
- It's no surprise you know nothing about what went in NWN, which is why again, it's not legitmate in this argument. It's surprise that games you hate and game you haven't played can't be used as evidence aganist your argument or you simply can't come up with a counter argument.
I think it's safe to let this post die now. (After you make your last post.)
Again, using your argument I could quote EQ1 as an example. EQ1 lost 250,000 players between 05-06. Therefore PVE games are failures.
WOW is not the PVP we are arguing for. It doesn't have the rulset we are requesting so using it as an example of why PVP games are failures is hardly relevant.
Logic my friend, logic.
The fact is, you should never be wearing your best equipment in a PvP game.. because you should be able to loose everything you have equiped.
The Koreans are much better at making a PvP game than the Americans.
The game you guys all want to play and argue for is CBO (Carebear Online); In which everyone is a lolly-pop wielding CareBear that shoot rainbows out of their butts, and like to hug, sing and dance all day.
- I though you just said WOW had the same server ruleset as Vanguard? Where's the FFA? Where's the 20% coin drop in world PVP? Wheres the long walk back to the battle? Wheres the plan to add equipment looting?
- WOW's PVP is not the ruleset this thread is about. We are pushing for a hardcore ruleset, WOW doesn't offer this and as such isn't a basis for camparison.
- As i said, Amazon is simply one retailer of Vanguard and it is in their top selling PC games list. Whats so hard to understand? And lets just say the 100k story is correct, 100,000 players in 6 days is hardly 'unpopular'.
- I played NWN but it's hardly comparible to a MMO. I don't feel the need to educate you on the fundamental differences.
I find it funny that you continually use the same arguments, that are either wrong or completely irrelevant.
Good game. You are welcome to click respawn now and run along like a good puppy, with all your 'valuable' belongings still intact. Yay!
(lets see if you do actually have enough self control to resist posting again in this thread as you claim. I have my popcorn and wait in anticipation.)
1. ROFL!!! Play any game with open PvP and let someone gank you for 30 minutes to 1hr, spawn camping your ass and then come backaand tell me if that PvP was good. I pretty sure they are a couple million WoW and Lineage II fans who will disagree hugely with that notion. Getting spawn camped is not fun and is the main reason they had an exodus in WoW because high levels characters were ganking lower levels characters every chance they got. Let's not forget how the Night Elves use to gank pvp characters by going in stealth or Hunter character would catch people who were relaxing/hanging out. Blizzard had to nuff both the hunters and Night Elves because of those ganking incidences.
2. That makes your best equipment all that more useless to have and use. LMAO! If I can't use my best equipment then what's the point of having it? And what's the point of PvP looting and if you're going to find yourself looting the same shit each time you gank you me.
What do you think goes on now? Why do you think people don't frequently ask for FFA ruleset and why developers don't put that ruleset in?
3. Lineage II the worse FFA pvp you could ever play.
4. And the games you want to play have less than stellar number of players on those servers.
Anyway, time for the topic to die.
I totally agree that there is a lack of PvP benefit/loss in MMORPGs today. In fact, it's probably the biggest reason why I recently quit WoW.
Personally, I loved the game Everquest. I liked it because it was difficult to play (and sometimes even frustrating) to the point that I was constantly looking over my shoulder for that rogue mob that would wtfpwn me in 2 hits. Then, I joined the 4-team PvP server, Solusek Ro (I believe). Even better, because on this server any person that killed you could loot the gold off of your corpse. Now I had to look over my shoulder for that druid running around looking to loot the hard-earned cash from some grinders. I learned where most players ran through zones, where I could hide, and from and to where I could safely pull mobs. It added so much to the game. Of course, I helped other players grow by in turn looking for grinders to make some cash off of for myself. The game was in a delicate balance: If I kill this player, will I have enough health to run away and recuperate, or will another player come and kill me afterwards, getting my 'stolen' gold? Does this player belong to one of the guilds that are known to protect their members? There were so many unknowns and variables that thinking and preparation were as much a part of the game as fighting. Did it suck to be level 10 and have level 19s camping the newbie dungeon zones? At times, I got really annoyed. So, you have at least two characters so you can play the other while you wait for them to leave, or, again, you learn how to pull effectively and stealthily. After I left the 'blue' servers (non-pvp), I never went back. There were even more hardcore servers. Servers that ANYBODY within 6 levels could attack you, and they were not only able to take your gold, but also a piece of equipment (these were the other 'Ro' servers, and this description may be a little bit off; I played a long time ago before the Planes of Power expansion), but that wasn't to my taste.
Basically, as a mature gamer, the constant danger of losing all of my money (actually, just the money I hadn't already placed in the bank, and I found myself running to the bank very often when I started PvP) to some high-level ganker was exciting. It added another gameplay factor, the "smart, unbeatable opponent" that I had to hide from in different ways than I had to hide from mobs. I think that most people don't like that factor; I got a nice break from it in WoW (when you get PvPed in the world, all you have to do is run back to your corpse; you don't lose anything and there are no penalties). I was amazed in WoW when people consistently complained angrily about somebody PvPing them in the middle of a quest. IT WAS A PvP SERVER. YOU DON'T LOSE ANYTHING. I didn't see the problem.
The fact of the matter is that these people did not belong on a PvP server. On a PvP server, you accept the risks involved willingly. I think that were the PvP system of WoW more strict, something like the attacking player loots a percent of your gold, etc., these players would have left the server out of frustration before they leveled to 30.
But I digress. What I'm trying to say is that a 'hardcore' PvP server of some sort is not a bad idea overall. I feel that saying that making a server of this type is a bad idea is ignorant; the existence of such a server does not effect players on other servers directly. The only indirect cost is that of the time used to develop such a server, which, talking to many other hardcore gamers such as myself, could easily be recovered by the additional subscriptions it garners. Simply saying "No, it's a bad idea, idiot" is just mindless hating; why don't you leave it up to the developers and marketers to determine whether or not such a server would be well-accepted? That's all we hardcore PvPers are asking: We would like the developers of the better MMORPGs out there to honestly inquire into whether or not players would be interested server with modified PvP rules.
Blizzard has heard this complaint, and with the addition of the Arena in The Burning Crusade, teams of 1, 3, 4, or 5 (I may be mistaken on the exact team tiers) compete to gain the most points for wins each month, the highest team getting special uber gear. Now, this isn't exactly what appeals to me, for there is no loss incurred from this type of PvP (and still no loss incurred in random World PvP, nor a large benefit), but this is certainly a step in the right direction, and this approach most definitely appeals to a wider variety of gamers (those that don't like losing their hard-earned items/money). If the Arena system turns out to be an overwhelming success, perhaps Blizzard's next MMORPG release will allow for stricter PvP rules (doubtful for WoW, given the game mechanics), as well as typical PvE-based servers.
We don't want to change you, we just want something for ourselves.
2. Rewards or penalties should not be the reason people pvp. I mean people don't give the homeless food because they want other to see them as good people, but because they are good people who careless about criticism to do the right thing. However, if these people are only doing this for the benefit of being recognition then they never cared for the homeless to begin with. The same applies to those who wish to put rewards or penalties behind PvP. PvP and acknowledgement of the skill level should be the only reward we look forward too.
- CaptainRPG
3. Yes, it's personal choice. However, I (and other game companies) have seen that "risk rules" have more CONS then PROS making such pvp difficult, if not impossible, to implement in today's rpgs. Today's pvp is decided by CLASS, TEAMWORK THEN SKILL, the way it should be. MMORPG now carter to larger audiences and moreover, a general audience.
These guys who are bitching and moaning about how PvP has gotten worse are simply people who can't adjust to change and wish to MMORPG world to go back to dark ages of gaming where everything is exclusive. This view alone makes all of their arguments invalidate because they are trying to go backwards rather than forward in gaming advancement. They aren't trying to make EVERYONE HAPPY, they are trying to make THEMSELVES HAPPY by trying (and failing) to convience people to bring back a system of gaming that's long been outdate.
And no, I don't think MMORPG should make servers or option for incredibly small group of people because they wish to be ol'school deviants. Again, let's move on people, nothing to see and stop feeding the trolls.
3) There are personal rewards and group rewards. Most of the FFA PvP crowd seems obsessed with personal rewards rather than rewards that would benefit their guild and / or faction. In other words, they would rather get that uber sword of pwnage than capture a shrine that would give all the members of their faction +10 fire damage DPS on every attack.
4) There's this weird BDSM vibe that seems to infect these kinds of discussions. When you hear the anecdotal "evidence" these guys give, it's always about the thrill they got when winning. If it's about Risk vs. Reward, why don't we hear more about the inevitable losses that come with risk? – Jimmy_Scythe
"That's why developers didn't put this dumbass type of gameplay in..."
Dumbass huh.
You've lost me and all the point you ever made are worthless. Nice 1 cobba.
----
MMORPG's I've Played: World of Warcraft: 10/10 - Rappelz: 7/10 - Ragnarok Online: 8/10 - DnD Online: 2/10 - Runescape: 6/10 - LotR Online: 5/10 - Anarchy Online: 7/10 - CoV: 8/10 - Rohan Online: 8/10 - Guild Wars: 7/10 - Flyff: 8/10 - Warhammer Online: 8/10
My HARDCORE Story
it's uselessness is proven by Jimmy's document that players don't like getting gank and such server eventually get a below average population or none at all.
I just wanted to clarify that the document in question doesn't specifically say that FFA PvP servers are destined to fail. It says that their is a relationship between the four different types of players (explorers, achievers, socializers, and killers) and how they inversely affect one another. It basically boils down to the fact that explorers, achievers, and socialers can live pretty well without killers, but not vice versa. If a company was to open a game that was centered around FFA PvP, there would have to be some very heavy handed community management going on to make sure that the percentage of killers never got above a certain point. Too many killers kill any game. Logically, FFA PvP servers would wither up from low population.
Said document was written by Richard Bartle, the creator of the original MUD. Just FYI...
By no one you mean the 150,000 players in EVE? That's just one example.
Um.... not everyone that plays Eve is treating it like a deathmatch. There a large number of corps that only deal with the business and industry side of the game and only engage in PvP out of necessity. There are still other corps that do nothing but run missions and do salvage. Seriously, my experience with Eve so far leads me to believe that this game isn't anywhere near as "hardcore" as some of its fanbois let on. Don't forget that you can buy jump clones and insure all your ships, totally minimizing any risk in PvP.
Wrong. You will find a MUCH MORE guild orientated focus in FFA PVP games. I have no idea how you reached this conclusion.
I reached that conclusion from the posts on this forum. I honestly have never met anyone in a game that used the word "hardcore" to describe themselves. Nor have I ever heard anyone in game use efeminizing slang like "carebear" or "ghey" in reference to someone that doesn't want to PvP. The people I play with are too busy kicking ass to act like total asshats. Even in victory we show class and dignity. I won't waste my time hanging out with anyone that doesn't.
By reading over the past few pages it seems that "your crowd" are doing most of the name calling, pigeon holing & using derogatory terms to describe PVP players. So by that i must conclude that PVE games have less of a guild focus?
Hmm... Interesting.
2. Rewards or penalties should not be the reason people pvp. I mean people don't give the homeless food because they want other to see them as good people, but because they are good people who careless about criticism to do the right thing. However, if these people are only doing this for the benefit of being recognition then they never cared for the homeless to begin with. The same applies to those who wish to put rewards or penalties behind PvP. PvP and acknowledgement of the skill level should be the only reward we look forward too.
- CaptainRPG
3. Yes, it's personal choice. However, I (and other game companies) have seen that "risk rules" have more CONS then PROS making such pvp difficult, if not impossible, to implement in today's rpgs. Today's pvp is decided by CLASS, TEAMWORK THEN SKILL, the way it should be. MMORPG now carter to larger audiences and moreover, a general audience.
These guys who are bitching and moaning about how PvP has gotten worse are simply people who can't adjust to change and wish to MMORPG world to go back to dark ages of gaming where everything is exclusive. This view alone makes all of their arguments invalidate because they are trying to go backwards rather than forward in gaming advancement. They aren't trying to make EVERYONE HAPPY, they are trying to make THEMSELVES HAPPY by trying (and failing) to convience people to bring back a system of gaming that's long been outdate.
And no, I don't think MMORPG should make servers or option for incredibly small group of people because they wish to be ol'school deviants. Again, let's move on people, nothing to see and stop feeding the trolls.
3) There are personal rewards and group rewards. Most of the FFA PvP crowd seems obsessed with personal rewards rather than rewards that would benefit their guild and / or faction. In other words, they would rather get that uber sword of pwnage than capture a shrine that would give all the members of their faction +10 fire damage DPS on every attack.
4) There's this weird BDSM vibe that seems to infect these kinds of discussions. When you hear the anecdotal "evidence" these guys give, it's always about the thrill they got when winning. If it's about Risk vs. Reward, why don't we hear more about the inevitable losses that come with risk? – Jimmy_Scythe
I couldn't disagree with you more on every point. I will number my responses to each as you have numbered them to avoid confusion.
2. Acknowledgement of skill level is important, sure, but when you're in a game in which there are thousands of players on a single server, you can only bump in to the same people so many times (even at the highest level, new veterans emerge into the world each day). When do you get your recognition? When you start seeing players flee when they see you? When you beat the same player over and over, and they realize that you are better (that's fun for neither person)? Is it in-game displayed rankings (very rarely seen)? No.
The only recognition of my skill that I strive for is my own recognition of that skill. I like to know that I beat that person, whether that be by defeating him/her, hiding from him/her, or otherwise outsmarting him/her. But then again, what is the motivation for attaining this recognition of skill, when the game itself does not recognize it through concrete gains? Say there were a game completely based on PvP, and when the random mobs in the world killed you or when you killed them, you got nothing; would you ever kill the random mobs? No, it would be only an annoyance.
This following point not only follows from my answer to "2." but a previous post I saw (maybe even on page 1?) about WoW PvP: This type of mentality is what breeds the griefers of WoW, etc. There is no point to PvP, so the only reason these people do it is to annoy you, and since that's the goal of PvP, they've gotten very good at it. For the person being griefed, knowing that there is no point to the person doing that to you other than to annoy you only makes you hate the person for doing something just to be a jerk. If there were a reason the griefer did not want to grief you (say, the chance that you would kill him and get your gold back, plus his/hers), then after one kill the player would more than likely leave you alone (I did it many times in Everquest). When you give players a reason to PvP, it makes it a fact of life; knowing that you would do the same in the other's shoes. In fact, given a reason to kill a player, such as a gold drop, the PvPer would be BETTER OFF to leave you alone and go find another player to kill. Then, you have the chance to go somewhere else before he/she returns, level up quickly and move on, etc.
There is no such thing as a "fallout" from a game just because it provides PvP servers. Those people that don't like it simply join the PvE servers.
Lastly, you say in "2." that the aim of PvP should be to be recognized for your skill. In "3." you say that skill is the last determinant of success in PvP (I even consider being able to work in a team as skill, though in a different aspect). If proving skill is the aim, and skill is not the best determinant of success in PvP, then would you not agree PvP is broken (even in your own definition, which is a slightly toned-down version of what I would like to see in PvP)?
3. Who determines what a CON is and what a PRO is in PvP? The players, I hope. And each individual player is different. So why not provide different servers for different players based on what they decide the PROS and CONS are? Yes, it is DEFINITELY true that today's MMORPGs are no longer the vice of the select few 'hardcore' gamers: They DO in fact cater to millions of players worldwide, from all ages, societies, and interests. I can think of no better example than the giant that is WoW. And, as I said in my previous post (please read through it again, more carefully, there are many points you failed to answer to, and more that you simply ignored when writing your responses, which I have already answered to), I don't think initiating a more rewarding/dangerous PvP rule server would work in it; but this is not the case for other MMORPGs out there (or it at least doesn't have to be, as it didn't use to be). And if a wonderful, general-audience game DID include a PvP server, would they have any less of an audience? I fail to see how they would. They would simply have one more server that caters to a NEW audience. They would actually cater to a LARGER audience (ie me). We are trying to make EVERYBODY HAPPY. We are part of everybody, everybody else is happy, and they would be no less happy if there were one server for us, so more people would be happy. You have provided no logic to your conclusion. I said nothing about making games "exclusive" like in the "dark ages," I simply put forth the idea that there are players that would like to be heard when they ask for a PvP server, and that this idea should be looked in to. Please read my post again, because I said nothing about "moving backwards," I do not want to change what has been happening to MMORPGs, I simply want to add something to it that has maybe been forgotten.
In fact, I think our voices have been heard, with the developments of Warhammer Online and Age of Conan, which boasts about its tough PvP and mature player target audience.
3) Again, I disagree, you're arguing against another type of PvPer, if that type exists. I would be more than ecstatic to see a PvP system in which a guild gets points for guildmates' PKs; though even the smallest personal incentive is still necessary to keep each guildmate motivated, and a small penalty for being PKed is necessary to keep players competitive and alert, not giving up kills, or letting themselves be farmed, etc.
Besides that, if that type of player DOES exist, then why not give him/her a server of their own if there are enough of that type interested in one?
4) I have to laugh a little bit at your choice of last quote. Did you even read my post? The most prevalent subject of it was my discussion on THE THRILLS AND DANGER OF BEING KILLED. That's the best part! It keeps us hardcore gamers on the edges of our seat, more than any thrill/horror flick, because this time WE are the hunted, and WE make the decisions (honestly, who hides in the little closet when being chased by a smart killer?). I LOVE BEING KILLED AND LOSING SOMETHING I'VE WORKED HARD FOR. Otherwise, I just don't care.
Lastly, you keep on saying that it's not viable to do a PvP server... there are obviously enough people interested, just look at the thread posts. Even if the server is not FFA PvP (which, again, read my above post, I have not tried, and have a feeling I would not enjoy that extreme), then there would be a better place for those that like FFA PvP. In fact, a good strategy would be for game developers to determine what level of PvP most players like, and then make a server with a ruleset that caters to the majority of those persons without alienating other PvP lovers (so, make not a FFA server, but perhaps a server where you can loot all of the currency off of a player; that way you would have those players that like that style of PvP rules, as well as the FFA lovers; which I estimate would be a fairly large player-base).
You simply cannot argue against something that doesn't concern you. I agree that PvP with no risk/rewards is like poker with no money.
So you reached the conclusion that FFA games have less guild focus without even needing to have played one
Spent a year on UO during the first expansion, "The Second Age" if I remember correctly, Played for about 6 months on Asheron's call, over half that time on Darktide. Currently playing Eve online.....
While you couldn't throw a rock on UO without hitting some shit talking little punk, AC and Eve don't seem to have that problem. It's only on these forums that self proclaimed "hardcore" FFA PvP sling macho insecurity around like monkey poo.
Anything else you want conveniently ignore?
By reading over the past few pages it seems that "your crowd"
But what exactly is my "crowd?" Technically, I'm not even an MMORPG fan. I come from a flight sim, wargaming, tactical shooter background. I also dig fighting games in a major way. In short, I L-O-V-E competition. I just don't think it has much of a place in MMORPGs. My "crowd", if you want to call it that, is made up of people that enjoy the act of competing regardless of any external rewards or punishments. We'd rather perfect our game than be given something shiny. It's only if the rewards benefit our team's long term goals that we pursue it. I know... I know.... it's just too olde skool for most of you to grasp.
doing most of the name calling, pigeon holing & using derogatory terms to describe PVP players.
Funny, I only see a group of people that are sick of being insulted by macho insecure little boys and girls that think that name calling will goad people into playing their game, their way. Yes, there should be FFA PvP servers in all MMORPGs. If only to keep these egocentric children segregated from the rest of us. Not that they'll be playing on said server. No prey, no play ;-)
FFA PvP server = Roach Motel
You know, you made me change my vote. I now think they should have FFA PvP servers.
Bring on the FFA servers!