Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Can you kill your enemy or only make him respawn?
Zeknichov
Member Posts: 98
After one has acquired the best equipment, maxed his level and stats can you kill him or will he keep coming back zerg rushing kekekeke. Yes I am going to pull the EVE card. If they keep coming back I keep killing their ships and eventually they have no money they cannot fight me anymore, I've won. Is WAR going to have that aspect or once everyone hits max level and PvPs non-stop for a year everyone will just get bored and leave because the fighting has no value but to be mindless enjoyment like WoW?
Comments
From: Warhammer Grab Bag #9
Q: Do you know anything more about the death penalty/resurrection mechanics?
A: I was told that at this time we do not plan any experience loss at death (but don’t take that to mean there will be NO loss of any kind – just that it won’t be XP). No corpse runs, no shadow crossing, etc, either – you will respawn at the point where you are resurrected, or at a designate spawn point such as a camp or a graveyard.
There will likely be different types of resurrection spells, and different penalties to the recipients for them all. But again, XP loss appears to be off the table.
As usual, I want to remind you all, that things can and will change before launch, and after launch to boot. This answer is dated December 7, 2006. If you try to bludgeon me with it in 2011, I will... well, admittedly I won’t actually do anything but sigh and curse the eternal nature of the internet. But it will be a BIG sigh.
Perhaps not the most up to date information we have but this is what we know from the developers thus far. I think more gamers have to get used to the fact that the way they want to play the game isnt the way its going to play for a number of different reasons. Off the top of my head I could probably say fun! So to the opener. Yes (to the last question in your post) I am quite confident that the game will have a system that does not appeal to you.
Which FF Character Are You?
Well I can't say I've read that myself, but it would fit the whole idea of not XP punishing you for death. If your strength is decreased each time you resurrect (for example), you'd have to wait for it to go up again before heading into battle.
Or run in naked, but the idea of several hundred naked dwarves running towards me would put me out of the war
Gamer Profile : http://www.guildcafe.com/member/Icucme
But I do share your view if put this way(almost you way). there's only 2 sides,will most likely be uneven action,i.e on a server all or most of the fighting will occur between 2 capitols.those 2 caps will be where all the grps and zergs are formed and will fight back and fourth till the cows come home.Is that close to what you mean,cause I see that an issue.
Daoc had a 3rd realm/side to fight so it was a 3 way way with more intrigue.WAR's main war does seem a bit scripted.funneled,one-dimensional.will this be a huge issue? Its probably the more sceptical aspect of the game,imo.Origianally I thought WAR would be more chaotic,where there would be infighting amongst order and chaos races.
If it becomes or is an issue,it's to late to fix.theyll have to fix it with expansion races,and patches,allowing more than one path to cap a city,and maybe adding a 3rd faction and make it less linear.
"I actually cook my meat with nothing but my burning hatred for vegetables"
It appears WAR may have a death penalty to prevent the "zerg rush" (when you die you enter the battle right away and it's as if you didn't die at all), but it's still missing this economic aspect of wars and individual battles have no meaning to them. I suggest first of all that items on death are permanently destroyed (the number dictated just by how easy these items are to obtain,) and secondly that the value of the "best" items, the ones everyone will be using to PvP be not hard or easy to obtain but moderate to obtain. That way people are more than likely to have many sets of equipment.
Of course this system will only work if there are areas where you can gain these sets of items without risk of being attacked but at a MUCH lower rate then in areas where you can be attacked.
I'll play WAR regardless because it's going to be the next MMOG worth playing after WoW was released but I mean if only a game would take EVE's PvP system and implement it with the combat of fantasy based MMOGs because that would be the best MMOG ever made.
Sounds similar to the Res sickness Guild Wars uses (outside of PvP). You die, lose 15% to all your stats, and then as you kill things, that % becomes less and less.
Playing - --
Played - AO, CoH/CoV, DDO, Eve, Guildwars, LOTRO, WoW.
Waiting - For WAR, Fury.
"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"
On the main topic: I will be blunt: in a game where ETERNAL war is the main focus, you would want permadeath?
"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"
From: Warhammer Grab Bag #9
Q: Do you know anything more about the death penalty/resurrection mechanics?
A: I was told that at this time we do not plan any experience loss at death (but don’t take that to mean there will be NO loss of any kind – just that it won’t be XP). No corpse runs, no shadow crossing, etc, either – you will respawn at the point where you are resurrected, or at a designate spawn point such as a camp or a graveyard.
There will likely be different types of resurrection spells, and different penalties to the recipients for them all. But again, XP loss appears to be off the table.
As usual, I want to remind you all, that things can and will change before launch, and after launch to boot. This answer is dated December 7, 2006. If you try to bludgeon me with it in 2011, I will... well, admittedly I won’t actually do anything but sigh and curse the eternal nature of the internet. But it will be a BIG sigh.
Perhaps not the most up to date information we have but this is what we know from the developers thus far. I think more gamers have to get used to the fact that the way they want to play the game isnt the way its going to play for a number of different reasons. Off the top of my head I could probably say fun! So to the opener. Yes (to the last question in your post) I am quite confident that the game will have a system that does not appeal to you.
That's a shame. If they actually keep to such a light policy on death, then I might aswell cross WAR out as one of my main anticipated games. I mean, what the hell is the point in PvP if you can't win?Gonna take Eve as an example like the OP. In eve losing a ship means losing the ship, AND the equipment and anything you carried in it. If you get podded too then you lose any implants you had and maybe even SP if you didn't have an upto-date clone. This way, any large corporation or alliance in Eve always had to have both PvP, and industry to sustain any war. This added a new dimension to strategy as cutting off its logistics or disrupting its industry was a valid tactic and way of winning a war.
It's not actually something i've really seen in any MMO, but i'd like a similar concept.
For example: Dying shouldn't mean you lose XP (as that means more grinding) but it should mean you lose everything you carried. That way it makes sense. That way people actually RISK when they PvP, and that means if a horde of guys are running after you, the situation actually becomes tense. If you know you won't lose anything then there's no danger. No danger hence no excitement. This is probably my main gripe with PvP in MMOs today. The penalties aren't there. If they were, then people would be wearing less of that fancy amazing shiny armor, and more common armor.
Imagine you send out a 10 man close combat squad with steel armor, but with them another 5 archers. The guild would provide the archers very high level bows and armor because they would be fighting from a distance and their dying would be less likely, while the meat grinder close combat squad would be "disposable", or at least their equipment would. This would add a whole new dimension. Guilds would have to use more tactics and be clever about PvP or lose a lot of money on armor and weapons. They'd have to have active harvesters getting all sorts of materials for their blacksmiths to manufacture new swords and armor. Then they'd have armed escorts with caravans of armaments shipping to their frontline outposts. So if you want to disrupt their activities or steal their weapons and armor, you could send in a small squad of steathy assasins to ambush their caravan and steal their stuff, behind enemy lines.I know i'm dreaming here, but it's honestly not THAT hard to implement, and it would make PvP infintely more interesting. As well as giving crafters and blacksmiths a real job.
Make sure that NPCs don't sell weapons or armor above a certain level, so that it would create a player driven market. If no one loses any items, then demand would be low, etc. If you actually lost all your stuff when you died, then demand for player made goods would be massive, and this would create perhaps whole guilds of blacksmiths, that would sell their merchandise to the highest bidding guild at war. There would be guilds specialising in armed escorts and getting items safely to their required location. Guilds specialising in ambushing and assasination of important convoys... This would actually be FUN! Let alone have incredible replay value for years, especially if you make various outposts constructible/destructible or at least claimable in PvP wars.
This is what would make a GREAT game.
From that quote there, I don't think WAR is even considering being anything like this. Well, i'll leave my hopes for AOC.
If you want a real harsh death penalty, go play Russian Roulet. - Hamzal
Making analogies linked to Eve online .... so i guess you are into the "spend 6 months raising skills offline" business.
Like Lithdov stated your assuming everybody thinks like you. In fact I believe many people requesting hardcore PvP assume that there is a massive market for this type of game and that everybody wants to play this when reality has shown us that this is not the case. Even games like Counter Strike and Unreal Tournamet are played endlessly often in the same maps because people enjoy that short conflict, dying then being able to come back to battle.
The reality of making a game that gear or item dependant would mean people would spend a lot of time farming in order to be able to do any PvP. Yes you might think its amazing and the sense of dread you feel that you might lose everything when you go into battle is undeniable but in order to appeal to the biggest market and I say this again to be FUN for a grand mayority of players and not the niche hardcore group demanding permanent death (just an example) the game has to accomodate them in providing simple accessible gameplay without being overly harsh.
Besides EvE has PvP but I never saw it as a game that revolves around that fact. Rather a game based on economics, careful planning and a fair bit of grinding.
in EvE, i spent ages flying round passari (0.4) in my rifter looking for a fight, i wanted to learn pvp, didnt have much in the way of skills and fully expected to die, i just wanted to feel what eve pvp was. in 12 hours i managed to get one (1) fight, against a cruiser that warped off.
in WAR, people are going to want to pvp all the time, i expect to have 20-30 fights in an hour, more in an instance... could you explain to me how the pvp-looting from eve would be good in WAR?
pvp looting would lead to endless pve grinding to afford a new set of gear to pvp in, youd spend more time grinding mobs for crappy gear that you would beating up players. how is this good?
True PvP'ers as you so put it are in a minority especially with the expectations you have. Like I stated games like Counter Strike and Unreal Tournament are still going strong despite death being relatively inconsequential. The fact is the conflict and victory itself a great part of the reward. Not knowing that your kill just means the player on the other side has to gring a lot. The reason people were (are?) dissilussioned with World of Warcrafts PvP system is because its small, by comparison to the PvE aspects of the game, completely dominated by those with the best gear and until recently it was impossible to advance through PvP alone.
WAR looks to fix all of these errors. You can level, gain gold and items/gear from the get go from PvP. WAR is everywhere and the variety of different scenarios and mayor city sieges is bound to keep people excited. Your reasoning that people will up and leave (and get bored of WARs mindless PvP) is based on nothing but personal preference.
if im fighting 20 fights an hour, i expect to die at least 5 times an hour. AT LEAST. and what about those that are no good at PvP? they'd get so bored of grinding so they could pvp, and think "well, if i have to grind to pvp i might as well play WoW".
As soon as WAR has a warping system that allows me to warp straight up several million kilometers and sit in a safespot, i might agree with you.
thats your opinion, not everyone agrees with you. most dont. there is substance to it, capital city raids, getting points and having FUN.
what about fun? game, fun? do you really need someone else to suffer for you to have fun? i dont. i can have fun even if my opponent is enjoying themselves.
well, you will excuse me mr TRUE PVPER, but i can feel like im achieving something without spending 4 hours grinding mobs just so i can go pvp for half an hour.
what? being able to capture land...? look. i dont think WAR is the game for you, they have already made their decision on this and if they went with your TWUE PVP mechanic (which requires a lot of PvE) then a great many people wouldnt play. i left eve because it was a bit too annoying, no one would ever fight for fun, the only time people would ever engage is when they were sure they would win, and it took HOURS to find a fight only to have them warp off. can you imagine that in WAR? the game is so hardcore twue pvp leet that noone ever dares set foot in the pvp areas?
im going to be playing WAR and im going to enjoy it, im going to enjoy dying, im going to enjoy standing on top of a pile of dead enemies and cheering, im not going to grind mobs.
if that isnt what you want from a game, then darkfall looks promising and lineage is apparently quite good.
if im fighting 20 fights an hour, i expect to die at least 5 times an hour. AT LEAST. and what about those that are no good at PvP? they'd get so bored of grinding so they could pvp, and think "well, if i have to grind to pvp i might as well play WoW".
The point is you balance how easily items are to acquire with how often the average person dies. So let me get this straight, you're defending people bad at PvP as if they should have some chance in a PvP oriented game?
As soon as WAR has a warping system that allows me to warp straight up several million kilometers and sit in a safespot, i might agree with you.
If you're fighting in a 40v40 fight to the finish yeah 40 people at least will die, however in EVE what kills people is focused fire and lag. I was jumping to conclusions of course because it will depend on whether or not this games skills are oriented for running away or not or balanced.
thats your opinion, not everyone agrees with you. most dont. there is substance to it, capital city raids, getting points and having FUN.
Did you quote that from someone on the WoW forums because that is the exact argument I hear them using for their PvP. Fun gets boring after a time. I mean any game does. But only having fun as the substance to your PvP will mean people will get bored faster. The more meaning something has the more likely people are to get hooked into it for a longer period of time.
what? being able to capture land...?
And what does this land give you? Bragging rights?
I think more so to the point is that your definition of what is meaningful is not the same as what it is too many other people here (or even in general). For example you state that PvP would (will) have no meaning unless the other player suffers consequences (in your case rather severe) upon death. How about an opposite approach which is what WAR will have, instead of punishing players for failing at PvP reward the players who are good at it? Do we not achieve the same goal through a different means here? I believe so and thats what WAR is doing. I have stated the difference between World of Warcrafts PvP system and WARs and Im sure you understand it yourself.
The fact is bringing real life to support your argument for a FICTIONAL world and game is never going to give you any credibility. Yes if you killed somebody in real life they wouldnt come back if they did come back it would make death inconsequential? Yes so what is the point of that argument? We dont have Orcs, Elves, Chaos in real life, no magic, no people walking around in armor from teeth to foot, not to mention in real life we sleep, we eat, etc. There is a balance to be achieved between making something ground in reality and fun.
PvP is meaningful in this game because your action leads to a reaction on part of the world. You are doing well in PvP you help capture land for rewards. You gain trophies and even abilities (as hinted at in some of the video interviews) from doing PvP. Your argument to making PvP meaningful is to make the loser suffer, WARs approach is rather to simply reward the winner. Killing somebody and watching them lose all their gear or money gives you what? Satisfaction? Bragging rights? More so than conquering a city? Taking other factions lands? Visual trophies? New abilities? Better gear?
Your argument isnt strong enough and again is very niche. Any game gets boring after a while and stops becoming fun. Fun doesnt become boring. If something is boring it isnt fun and introducing penalties that will keep all but the most ardent PvPers playing isnt good for anybody.
Just Drop the loss of gear approach,and lets try to think of a less milder was to deal with what could be a perpetual zergfest,I burned my last brain cell atm maybe someone has a good idea.