Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why take a decent game and gum it all up with PvP ???
Xoremus
Member Posts: 9
I have been playing TR for a few weeks now and loving it., Its different its what the gameing community needs as far as innovations go and its an all around fun game.....But now there is talk of this great game going to PvP or at least mostly PvP which in my opinion is going to kill the games popularity ...If You want PvP go play Planetside or something this game should stay persistent or at least more PvE based I think it would be a crying shame to add more PvP content to TR it would just be nice to see a game of this type with a more life like feel not just blatently killing others for fun ......Sorry to you PvP'ers out there but ...its just not for me....What do you all think ??
Xoremus
Comments
IF TR develops some kind of balance PvP system, i will be there to try it out, so far NCSoft has gave us some nice PvP games, they do have the background to bring a interesting PvP system into TR and please pve and pvp audiences.
Why?
Subscriptions = Money = Return on Investment = Possible Profit = Happy StockHolders
It also shows the absence of desire to create an online "world" as opposed to just another "hoping to make money" mmo's the market has been saturated with.
I am not saying PvP is not fun, it is, but without meaning it is...well...meaningless.
PvP does not fit into the world Mr. Garriot falsely told the gaming world for 5 years he was creating.
I enjoy PVP sometimes. I hope if impletmented they do not make every area PVP. Like in Ultima online they have two mirror images of the world. One was PVP the other was PVE. If you were willing to go risk a mob of PVP people you did so at your own risk.
and that is what killed ultima online, was those two 'facets'. Without pvp there was a restriction on the whole freedom chose how you live roleplay world that UO was supposed to be. There was a huge risk in being red in UO. Stat loss, Skill Loss, being hunted by 'noto-pkers'. That risk was the last thrill I had in online gaming. Choosing to be a murderer, shaping a character anyway you saw fit. It even made being a crafter exciting. You had to always worry about being jumped by bandits or being robbed. There was player justice. Groups that hunted murderers. If they did go that route with Tabula Rasa it would be a god sent. If you chose to be a murderer. You would be banned from AFS outposts and hunted by everyone. I don't see that being the case though. If anything it would be a 'choose to pvp' faction system or a series of instanced 'war games'.
Ranghar LoD
Lords of Death
Riiiiiight. Actually, it only ruined the game for PK'ers when the devs separated the two worlds. The PK'ers attitudes and actions were the first reason why UO began dying off. People were already sick of being PK'd and hunted by other people while they were in the wilderness. After putting up with it for a year, I left because of that crap. When they split the world into two, there was a lot of players leaving that game. However, they were just ticked off pk'ers. When I returned after the split, It was refreshing not having to put up with the threat of being pk'd all the time.
As I have stated before, FFA PvP games without safe areas for the players that don't want to PvP will fail compared to the games that do have non PvP areas. Shadowbane is a prime example.
Having FFA PvP for TR would not only kill the game off, it would also go completely against the main story of this game. Why would Humans fight against each other when the Bane were the ones that destroyed Earth? There's no sensible argument you could make to allow FFA PvP based on what you described above. However, I have no qualms about a PvP system in any game, so long as players are not forced to participate in it (FFA PvP).
Riiiiiight. Actually, it only ruined the game for PK'ers when the devs separated the two worlds. The PK'ers attitudes and actions were the first reason why UO began dying off. People were already sick of being PK'd and hunted by other people while they were in the wilderness. After putting up with it for a year, I left because of that crap. When they split the world into two, there was a lot of players leaving that game. However, they were just ticked off pk'ers. When I returned after the split, It was refreshing not having to put up with the threat of being pk'd all the time.
As I have stated before, FFA PvP games without safe areas for the players that don't want to PvP will fail compared to the games that do have non PvP areas. Shadowbane is a prime example.
Having FFA PvP for TR would not only kill the game off, it would also go completely against the main story of this game. Why would Humans fight against each other when the Bane were the ones that destroyed Earth? There's no sensible argument you could make to allow FFA PvP based on what you described above. However, I have no qualms about a PvP system in any game, so long as players are not forced to participate in it (FFA PvP).
It wouldn't really go against the story line. Every army has its traitors and war criminals. Also, you are missing the true spirit of roleplaying. FFA pvp, when it is a choice, but the risk is always there provides a range of roleplaying. I know there were some a******* who were pkers, but there were also murderers who roleplayed and treated it as a persona. If you want a true living breathing world in which you can play a role, you can't have restrictions about who you can kill. I can walk up to anyone and kill them in real life, but I would have to deal with the risks that come along with that. That is how I feel about it, in TR I would never choose to be a murderer because I like the whole AFS theme, but I wouldnt mind hunting down players who were traitors and war criminals and punish them for killing my fellow soldiers. It just provides more of a roleplaying experience for me. Instead of thinking of it as a 'ffa pvp' system. Think of it as expending the roleplaying experience. Instead of looking at it in terms of skill points and levels, look at it as a persona that has choices, and the ability to decided to do the right thing or the wrong thing(ganking the innocent). I personally love when games give me the choice to decide and let me develope my characters persona.
Ranghar LoD
Lords of Death
Well if they are looking to expand on their pvp in this game thats a good thing as far as im concerned.
But it better not be some EQ2 PVP where people are just kiling each other for the hell of it, oh wait thats what it is now. They better bring some meaning into pvp like Land ownership, stats bonus's for those that own said land or something.
And I agree with what others have said, if they do bring more PVP into the game make it a option. I love to pvp more then anything but sometimes I just want to go out and level, explore, quest, etc. I do not want to have to deal with gankers. So make it like AO's pvp, where certain areas are PVP out of your mind. And then some other areas are 0 PVP for Uhoo.
They need to do something though, cause its fairly obvious that the game is not exactly thriving the way it is, Sub wise that is.
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
I'm not usually a big pvp fan. but without it, this game seems to be missing something. It does get boring going to a different zone to wack the same group of npc's of a different lv.
But I do agree pvp without meaning = gank = no fun. having to take a cp from a group of bane traitors would be fun though. DAOC has done one of the better jobs on this. RvR seems a better game than PvP.
FFA PvP can work in a game that is designed around that concept. You cant just add something like that to a game that has already launched and expect it to work. The story behind TR really does limit it to the amount and types of PvP that you can have and actually have it make sense. The idea of traitors or what have you just isnt going to work. It would be an after thought and it would be blatantly obvious no matter how well they tried to implement that it just doesnt fit in to what TR is supposed to be about.. This game was designed around PVE. I wouldnt expect to see much more than some instanced BG's like in WoW.
the games going more pvp centric?any links to this?
It could be a good thing if its done properly.An extension of the current clanwars system would be nice,and also stuff like a duelling arena or team play area.
I totally agree. I think PVP in TR would break the lore of the TR worlds so bad. Come on now, hmans are fighting the bane for its existance. The only meaningful pvp would be making some bane playable, give them a world to level up on, and then have each side try to invade the other (as the NPCs do now).
In other words, the only meaningful pvp is RvR like the old DAOC and upcoming WAR.
______________
Mark E. Cooper
AKA Tohrment
Proud member of Damned Souls since 2007.
http://www.damnedsouls.eu
Xoremus
Hm i think you wrote this?
Im over with this topic before mod ban me from mmorpg after 5 years hehehehe
My problem isn't with PvP. What I miss is the Shadowbane days when you could alter the world and destroy the hard work of someone else. PvP for the same of killing has less thrill that PvP with the ability to alter the world.
I totally agree. I think PVP in TR would break the lore of the TR worlds so bad. Come on now, hmans are fighting the bane for its existance. The only meaningful pvp would be making some bane playable, give them a world to level up on, and then have each side try to invade the other (as the NPCs do now).
In other words, the only meaningful pvp is RvR like the old DAOC and upcoming WAR.
heres how you work it into the lore....A rogue general such as british's alter ego kinda like Lord British and Lord Blackthorn. I am just going to pull this outta my ass here....and this could be a million things from finding an artifact and wanting more power, to leaving the AFS to form a 'new order' of humans under his rule, to just about any other cliche bad guy theme. Just write a short story, and boom there are factions. Humans fighting humans fighting bane. Its not hard to come up with a type of conflict for humans to be pissed about. Then you would have an evolving story line.
Ranghar LoD
Lords of Death
PvP is in most PvE games simply beause it is cheap to put in. It's the "sandbox" theory, they simply don't have to supply much content for it, pvp changes according to who is on.
I would be quite pissed if the game I bought as a PVE environment suddenly became a FFA PVP one. I would like to see the PVP come but if there is no choice I would cancel. Roveing gangs of people PKing and griefing would be too much like the early UO.
Maybe something like LOTRO have this PvMP or whatever system they call it when ppl can pick monster to play.
They could let us play as member of bane forces if we want so that we can finally land attacking ship right into the middle of human base
Now its disgrace that so advanced tech army that destroyed earth is in fact just a bunch of stupid bane zombies attacking and smashing their heads into the base shields incapable to think something claver to damage humans.
I think this game will really benefit from pvp (if done correctly)
I have total faith in general british's creation and have no doubt that he will do everything with the game and our best interests in mind.
PvP'ers make up a very small percentage of most MMO game communities, there are WAY more PvE'ers and roleplayers than PvP'ers and when PvP gets involved with a game it oftentimes wrecks what is going for the game with nerf cries and devs attempting to balance things out which usually affects the PvE gameplay. City of Heroes experienced exactly that when the arena was first introduced.
I'm an avid PvP'er in most games, I like both PvE and PvP equally but as for TR, I hope PvP isn't heavily favored, if there's upcoming PvP content, it would be nice to add a new zone for zone only PvP and pick a side when you enter and capture the flag (or checkpoints) would really rock and disable item decay when taking damage from other players. As someone else earlier mentioned, a battleground similar to WoW's Alterac Valley would be great with mixed PvE and PvP content with strongholds to control.
Other than that it's basically going to be a dozon or two spies and guardians in motor assist armor and sprint pump 5 and when they can't kill a medic, they'll complain forgetting that the medic can't kill them either.
i just cant understand why would someone want only PvE in MMO game or in any online game at all. Whats the difference from playing singleplayer game even better if you play singleplayer there is no monthly subscription.
I dont understand you guys... And where did you get this info that more players like PvE than PvP (give me a link or an article, survey or something)?
Win win would be to find balance between this two and of course that no one likes PvP in TR when its completely pointless in the state it is now. Game is unfinished and im not sure how TR will end up in month or two if there want be some major content patch would it be PvE or PvP contend. I dont care any kind of content would be good. I think i did in this game all i can in first month than i payed sub for 1 more month just to see whats gonna happen to find out i loged in probably 3 times in last 30 days. This new patch doesnt bring anything to the game as far as im concerned. I dont care about dyeing my armor, showing my helm or not, changing face texture of my toon etc. Whats the point playing toon once you hit 30. This game isnt worthed 15$ per month to me. Not gonna continue my monologue cos i dont want to spoil fun to the ppl who just started (i had a blast at first to).