Darkfall is global FFA. EVE is technically global as well (the option to attack is always there), but if you kill in hi-sec, yes, it's suicide
Yea, I'm gonna say there's a diffence between I can kill you anywhere any time, and I can kill you anywhere with no consequences, but some places that means it's suicide and I lose gear.
First one is FFA, second one is something less than FFA. Granted it's MORE than RvR, but not much.
Your down playing what Eve is and what it offers people. to say its a step up from Rvr is an insult. Eve offers true freedom. Gives people the option to choose the level of risk. Someone can easily be killed in empire space with the attacker losing very little after you factor in insurance.
You are also forgetting mechanics like Wardecs and FW that make people ffa targets in empire. There are people that play in Empire that have gone years without being free of a wardec. to them empire is as harsh as 0.0 without the bubble camps.
Eve may have rules but its still very much FFApvp.
No, it's not FFA PvP IMO, if SOME places you can kill anyone you want with no consequences, but SOME places you are heavily penalized for it.
IMO, FFA PvP means kill anyone, anywhere, no consequences, except those consequences imposed by other player, like they will be out to get you, etc.
So yea, I'm gonna stick with EVE being slightly more risky that RvR, but not much.
"Choosing your level of risk" is the opposite of FFA PvP IMO.
Darkfall is global FFA. EVE is technically global as well (the option to attack is always there), but if you kill in hi-sec, yes, it's suicide
Yea, I'm gonna say there's a diffence between I can kill you anywhere any time, and I can kill you anywhere with no consequences, but some places that means it's suicide and I lose gear.
First one is FFA, second one is something less than FFA. Granted it's MORE than RvR, but not much.
Your down playing what Eve is and what it offers people. to say its a step up from Rvr is an insult. Eve offers true freedom. Gives people the option to choose the level of risk. Someone can easily be killed in empire space with the attacker losing very little after you factor in insurance.
You are also forgetting mechanics like Wardecs and FW that make people ffa targets in empire. There are people that play in Empire that have gone years without being free of a wardec. to them empire is as harsh as 0.0 without the bubble camps.
Eve may have rules but its still very much FFApvp.
No, it's not FFA PvP IMO, if SOME places you can kill anyone you want with no consequences, but SOME places you are heavily penalized for it.
IMO, FFA PvP means kill anyone, anywhere, no consequences, except those consequences imposed by other player, like they will be out to get you, etc.
So yea, I'm gonna stick with EVE being slightly more risky that RvR, but not much.
"Choosing your level of risk" is the opposite of FFA PvP IMO.
True ffapvp died with trammel. when the devs realized that humans cannot act civil or be trusted to poilice themselves. this was proven again with shadowbane, then again with darkfall.
You cannot leave that kind of shit up to players. true ffapvp asks way too much of its playerbase, You need rules, you need to give everyone options.
Darkfall is global FFA. EVE is technically global as well (the option to attack is always there), but if you kill in hi-sec, yes, it's suicide
Yea, I'm gonna say there's a diffence between I can kill you anywhere any time, and I can kill you anywhere with no consequences, but some places that means it's suicide and I lose gear.
First one is FFA, second one is something less than FFA. Granted it's MORE than RvR, but not much.
Your down playing what Eve is and what it offers people. to say its a step up from Rvr is an insult. Eve offers true freedom. Gives people the option to choose the level of risk. Someone can easily be killed in empire space with the attacker losing very little after you factor in insurance.
You are also forgetting mechanics like Wardecs and FW that make people ffa targets in empire. There are people that play in Empire that have gone years without being free of a wardec. to them empire is as harsh as 0.0 without the bubble camps.
Eve may have rules but its still very much FFApvp.
No, it's not FFA PvP IMO, if SOME places you can kill anyone you want with no consequences, but SOME places you are heavily penalized for it.
IMO, FFA PvP means kill anyone, anywhere, no consequences, except those consequences imposed by other player, like they will be out to get you, etc.
So yea, I'm gonna stick with EVE being slightly more risky that RvR, but not much.
"Choosing your level of risk" is the opposite of FFA PvP IMO.
True ffapvp died with trammel. when the devs realized that humans cannot act civil or be trusted to poilice themselves. this was proven again with shadowbane, then again with darkfall.
You cannot leave that kind of shit up to players. true ffapvp asks way too much of its playerbase, You need rules, you need to give everyone options.
i'm not arguing that FFA PvP is a great game mechanic that will make a game wildly popular, I"m just saying that if there are really serious consequences for killing people in some areas, but not in others, it's not what I'd consider FFA PvP.
I'm on the side of "FFA" meaning that mechanics allow you to attack anyone anytime anywhere. Consequences are a separate thing.
I'd also say that FFA pretty much has to include friendly fire as "anyone" by definition is not the same thing as "anyone not on your side", so "FFA" means that if you turn around and want to kill your groupmate, it's possible.
I don't think any of this is a good idea, but if we're talking "anyone, anywhere" that's what it means.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
I prefer faction or species-based PvP. FFA is pretty much just deathmatch, which is fun, but not in an MMORPG in my opinion. I like having other players on my side even if they are not in my group. Even having the illusion of teamates, such as in a Shooter game is more fun for me the majority of the time. Not saying I don't like a good deathmatch once in awhile though.
While I agree with this sentiment I would like to see some kind of mechanic for a limited or extremely dangerous way to attack people in your faction.
FFA purist will say that is unecessary because of the "community". But people need to face the facts that almost all MMORPGs relegate half of what would be a normal society to NPCs and premade factions. Partly for good reason since the hum drum everyday activities of society are not really that fun but are extremely important.
You can form a gang in Los Angeles but you are still in a place where you are having to deal with LA government, California Government and Federal Government. And there are serious consequences to killing someone from a rival gang. Those consequences include getting that other gang pissed at but they also include having law enforcement involved because you killed a citizen of that "faction".
If we stipulate that gangs are the FFA players and the the various Government organziations are computer controlled pre made NPC factions that players also belong too. Then pure FFA as it has been often implmented really makes little sense.
What I described above resembles EvE to some extent where in 0.3+ space the law will come down on you hard if you attack a citizen. They add in 0.0 space to have more "wild west" type area.
One of the things to realize about EvE and the Wild West of america is that most people did not live there in either case. So if you design a game to focus on the "Wild West" style of social interaction you ar efighting against human nature for a large number of people.
Another thing to realize is that there is a tendency in human nature to make a Wild West into a settled area with laws and such. In MMOs FFA PvP games with a wild west mentality tend to stay as a Wild West and often do not even provide the realtive safety and civility of the large towns. They tend to only reward a gang for getting gang stuff. They completely forget about the very strong urge of a society to settle things into a government of some sort.
Go watch Unforgiven, the whole movie is essentially about this issue. This is the entire motivation of the Sherrif Gene Hackmen plays, he wants to settle the town and is backed by the large NPC faction of the American/territorial government.
I do not think FFA mechanics should be completely taken out the way full faction game do. But at the same time FFA games tend to simply be gang wars. Perpetual gang wars. In reality with a large government style faction. Gangs would war with each and the large NPC factions would constantly be trying to stop them all. Normal citizens of the governemtn factions could kill people but if they did they would be forever hunted and often join the FFA gangs. And the FFA gangs would be killing each other preferentially because they already are hunted men and will get less heat for killing other hunted men.
In EvE they encourage people to become gang members and join a gang in 0.0 and do so by making it more profitable. Well this is a little off. Gangs can be more profitable than say being a janitor. But they are also far far more risky. But being in a gang is not more profitable than being some kind of professional that makes 300k a year.
If you are in a gang or roving fighting band of some sort then wind up founding something nation-like that is a whole other story. But that is also extremely rare. And has become more and more rare as civilization has encompsses more and more things.
And it is this trend that FFA tends to completely fail to capture. Its becomes static never-ending gang war, while pretending to be something more. Generally because the games lack the mechanics to allow them to become something more. The players would follow the trend but they can't.
FFA PvP will always remain exclusive to a niche market at best, because the sad truth about FFA PvP is that it is anything but freedom to the majority of players. By giving players the freedom to kill any other player without any inherent consequence, it is also giving the power for players to significantly restrict the freedom of other players through their actions. The majority of moderate MMO gamers have long since realized this, which is why they would rather play in "carebear land" as the "hardcore" PvPers have dubbed anything that doesn't fit their personally preferred playstyle.
The funny thing is this not some unsettled idea. Just read The Leviathan by Hobbes
These ideas and issues were all part of the discussions that eventually formed the United States. Order vs Freedom and all that. I mean its been around for almost 300 years.
I prefer faction or species-based PvP. FFA is pretty much just deathmatch, which is fun, but not in an MMORPG in my opinion. I like having other players on my side even if they are not in my group. Even having the illusion of teamates, such as in a Shooter game is more fun for me the majority of the time. Not saying I don't like a good deathmatch once in awhile though.
While I agree with this sentiment I would like to see some kind of mechanic for a limited or extremely dangerous way to attack people in your faction.
...
And it is this trend that FFA tends to completely fail to capture. Its becomes static never-ending gang war, while pretending to be something more. Generally because the games lack the mechanics to allow them to become something more. The players would follow the trend but they can't.
I apologize for using an epithet on your post, but I agree with everything you said. I feel like the concept of using "FFA" PvP to create a more realistic virtual world has gone by the wayside and now "FFA" PvP games HAVE turned into simply deathmatch. I would really like to play a game that features FFA PvP BUT also features that strong NPC factions (government) that you mentioned to keep players in line most of the time.
Darkfall is global FFA. EVE is technically global as well (the option to attack is always there), but if you kill in hi-sec, yes, it's suicide
Yea, I'm gonna say there's a diffence between I can kill you anywhere any time, and I can kill you anywhere with no consequences, but some places that means it's suicide and I lose gear.
First one is FFA, second one is something less than FFA. Granted it's MORE than RvR, but not much.
Your down playing what Eve is and what it offers people. to say its a step up from Rvr is an insult. Eve offers true freedom. Gives people the option to choose the level of risk. Someone can easily be killed in empire space with the attacker losing very little after you factor in insurance.
You are also forgetting mechanics like Wardecs and FW that make people ffa targets in empire. There are people that play in Empire that have gone years without being free of a wardec. to them empire is as harsh as 0.0 without the bubble camps.
Eve may have rules but its still very much FFApvp.
No, it's not FFA PvP IMO, if SOME places you can kill anyone you want with no consequences, but SOME places you are heavily penalized for it.
IMO, FFA PvP means kill anyone, anywhere, no consequences, except those consequences imposed by other player, like they will be out to get you, etc.
So yea, I'm gonna stick with EVE being slightly more risky that RvR, but not much.
"Choosing your level of risk" is the opposite of FFA PvP IMO.
Eve is not Pure FFA. 0.0 is FFA. The rest of Eve is not.
FFA = Free For All. That means there are no rules, restrictions or consequences. Parts of EvE have rules, restrictions and consequences.
This is not really up for debate. These are facts. EvE can be termed partial FFA at best.
Here is a definition example Itook from a web page:
"A disorganized situation in which there are no rules or controls and many people or companies are competing together."
Keep in mind that the normal usage of the term almost always characterizes a fight since there is the implication that it is almost always violent and chaotic.
When you say this to FFA advocates they say no the "community" starts to enforce a sort of order. Well that is fine as it is clearly an aspect of human nature. But the fact is they almost never have adequate tools to truly enforce order nor will the developers give it to them.
Darkfall is global FFA. EVE is technically global as well (the option to attack is always there), but if you kill in hi-sec, yes, it's suicide
Yea, I'm gonna say there's a diffence between I can kill you anywhere any time, and I can kill you anywhere with no consequences, but some places that means it's suicide and I lose gear.
First one is FFA, second one is something less than FFA. Granted it's MORE than RvR, but not much.
Your down playing what Eve is and what it offers people. to say its a step up from Rvr is an insult. Eve offers true freedom. Gives people the option to choose the level of risk. Someone can easily be killed in empire space with the attacker losing very little after you factor in insurance.
You are also forgetting mechanics like Wardecs and FW that make people ffa targets in empire. There are people that play in Empire that have gone years without being free of a wardec. to them empire is as harsh as 0.0 without the bubble camps.
Eve may have rules but its still very much FFApvp.
No, it's not FFA PvP IMO, if SOME places you can kill anyone you want with no consequences, but SOME places you are heavily penalized for it.
IMO, FFA PvP means kill anyone, anywhere, no consequences, except those consequences imposed by other player, like they will be out to get you, etc.
So yea, I'm gonna stick with EVE being slightly more risky that RvR, but not much.
"Choosing your level of risk" is the opposite of FFA PvP IMO.
True ffapvp died with trammel. when the devs realized that humans cannot act civil or be trusted to poilice themselves. this was proven again with shadowbane, then again with darkfall.
You cannot leave that kind of shit up to players. true ffapvp asks way too much of its playerbase, You need rules, you need to give everyone options.
i'm not arguing that FFA PvP is a great game mechanic that will make a game wildly popular, I"m just saying that if there are really serious consequences for killing people in some areas, but not in others, it's not what I'd consider FFA PvP.
So a "FFA PvP" game with "safe zones" is not really a FFA PvP game? Interesting. What you want is a large, 24/7 arena brawl.
Gestalt11 above put it nicely. That's what I was trying to get across with how I define FFA: you can attack anyone. The possible repercussions vary by game, whether those consequences are dealt by other players or by the game designers. But the option of attacking anyone is FFA in my book. Like I said, you can attack people in EVE's hi-sec. It just isn't very smart.
Originally posted by gestalt11 Go watch Unforgiven, the whole movie is essentially about this issue. This is the entire motivation of the Sherrif Gene Hackmen plays, he wants to settle the town and is backed by the large NPC faction of the American/territorial government.
. Appaloosa is another good modern western. . 'Well, that gunfight didn't take long' . 'That's cause everyone in it knew how to shoot'
I prefer faction or species-based PvP. FFA is pretty much just deathmatch, which is fun, but not in an MMORPG in my opinion. I like having other players on my side even if they are not in my group. Even having the illusion of teamates, such as in a Shooter game is more fun for me the majority of the time. Not saying I don't like a good deathmatch once in awhile though.
While I agree with this sentiment I would like to see some kind of mechanic for a limited or extremely dangerous way to attack people in your faction.
FFA purist will say that is unecessary because of the "community". But people need to face the facts that almost all MMORPGs relegate half of what would be a normal society to NPCs and premade factions. Partly for good reason since the hum drum everyday activities of society are not really that fun but are extremely important.
You can form a gang in Los Angeles but you are still in a place where you are having to deal with LA government, California Government and Federal Government. And there are serious consequences to killing someone from a rival gang. Those consequences include getting that other gang pissed at but they also include having law enforcement involved because you killed a citizen of that "faction".
If we stipulate that gangs are the FFA players and the the various Government organziations are computer controlled pre made NPC factions that players also belong too. Then pure FFA as it has been often implmented really makes little sense.
What I described above resembles EvE to some extent where in 0.3+ space the law will come down on you hard if you attack a citizen. They add in 0.0 space to have more "wild west" type area.
One of the things to realize about EvE and the Wild West of america is that most people did not live there in either case. So if you design a game to focus on the "Wild West" style of social interaction you ar efighting against human nature for a large number of people.
Another thing to realize is that there is a tendency in human nature to make a Wild West into a settled area with laws and such. In MMOs FFA PvP games with a wild west mentality tend to stay as a Wild West and often do not even provide the realtive safety and civility of the large towns. They tend to only reward a gang for getting gang stuff. They completely forget about the very strong urge of a society to settle things into a government of some sort.
Go watch Unforgiven, the whole movie is essentially about this issue. This is the entire motivation of the Sherrif Gene Hackmen plays, he wants to settle the town and is backed by the large NPC faction of the American/territorial government.
I do not think FFA mechanics should be completely taken out the way full faction game do. But at the same time FFA games tend to simply be gang wars. Perpetual gang wars. In reality with a large government style faction. Gangs would war with each and the large NPC factions would constantly be trying to stop them all. Normal citizens of the governemtn factions could kill people but if they did they would be forever hunted and often join the FFA gangs. And the FFA gangs would be killing each other preferentially because they already are hunted men and will get less heat for killing other hunted men.
In EvE they encourage people to become gang members and join a gang in 0.0 and do so by making it more profitable. Well this is a little off. Gangs can be more profitable than say being a janitor. But they are also far far more risky. But being in a gang is not more profitable than being some kind of professional that makes 300k a year.
If you are in a gang or roving fighting band of some sort then wind up founding something nation-like that is a whole other story. But that is also extremely rare. And has become more and more rare as civilization has encompsses more and more things.
And it is this trend that FFA tends to completely fail to capture. Its becomes static never-ending gang war, while pretending to be something more. Generally because the games lack the mechanics to allow them to become something more. The players would follow the trend but they can't.
I liked how you are trying to use Client Eastwood's movie Unforgiven to up the quality of your idea as if it is as good as Unforgiven. Nice try.
Darkfall is global FFA. EVE is technically global as well (the option to attack is always there), but if you kill in hi-sec, yes, it's suicide
Yea, I'm gonna say there's a diffence between I can kill you anywhere any time, and I can kill you anywhere with no consequences, but some places that means it's suicide and I lose gear.
First one is FFA, second one is something less than FFA. Granted it's MORE than RvR, but not much.
Your down playing what Eve is and what it offers people. to say its a step up from Rvr is an insult. Eve offers true freedom. Gives people the option to choose the level of risk. Someone can easily be killed in empire space with the attacker losing very little after you factor in insurance.
You are also forgetting mechanics like Wardecs and FW that make people ffa targets in empire. There are people that play in Empire that have gone years without being free of a wardec. to them empire is as harsh as 0.0 without the bubble camps.
Eve may have rules but its still very much FFApvp.
No, it's not FFA PvP IMO, if SOME places you can kill anyone you want with no consequences, but SOME places you are heavily penalized for it.
IMO, FFA PvP means kill anyone, anywhere, no consequences, except those consequences imposed by other player, like they will be out to get you, etc.
So yea, I'm gonna stick with EVE being slightly more risky that RvR, but not much.
"Choosing your level of risk" is the opposite of FFA PvP IMO.
Eve is not Pure FFA. 0.0 is FFA. The rest of Eve is not.
FFA = Free For All. That means there are no rules, restrictions or consequences. Parts of EvE have rules, restrictions and consequences.
This is not really up for debate. These are facts. EvE can be termed partial FFA at best.
Here is a definition example Itook from a web page:
"A disorganized situation in which there are no rules or controls and many people or companies are competing together."
Keep in mind that the normal usage of the term almost always characterizes a fight since there is the implication that it is almost always violent and chaotic.
When you say this to FFA advocates they say no the "community" starts to enforce a sort of order. Well that is fine as it is clearly an aspect of human nature. But the fact is they almost never have adequate tools to truly enforce order nor will the developers give it to them.
I'd say these 'facts' you speak of are definitely up for debate; all you've done is look at what definition someone else has given to FFA, manipulated it to fit YOUR view of what FFA is, and spew it all over this thread screaming FACT FACT FACT!
Using the definition you FOUND, we see that rules and controls must be non-existant. However, consequences are not mentioned. There are no rules that say certain people are unattackable in EvE, the only controls are the ones people use to command their ship, and everyone dies in high-sec just as surely as in low/null-sec.
Originally posted by Sad_Panda I'd say these 'facts' you speak of are definitely up for debate; all you've done is look at what definition someone else has given to FFA, manipulated it to fit YOUR view of what FFA is, and spew it all over this thread screaming FACT FACT FACT! Using the definition you FOUND, we see that rules and controls must be non-existant. However, consequences are not mentioned. There are no rules that say certain people are unattackable in EvE, the only controls are the ones people use to command their ship, and everyone dies in high-sec just as surely as in low/null-sec. Debated. (And nobody seems to mention market pvp)
. Is this like an attack on your ePeen? . I think the fact that half of all Eve players never participate in PvP pretty much says that Eve is not FFA.
I liked how you are trying to use Client Eastwood's movie Unforgiven to up the quality of your idea as if it is as good as Unforgiven. Nice try.
Unforgiven is an excellent movie but I am not silly enough to think that most people here will suddenly believe it is some preeminent discussion of complex philosophical issues. It is a movie with themes. It is certainly not a movie that claims to have the "answers". So gimme a break there were no shenanigans.
It is a common them in almost all westerns. Go watch a wyatt earp movie. I used Unforgiven because it so direct not because it is so frigging badass (which it is). A wyatt earp movie will also deal with this issue, however it is not a great example because Wyatt Earp managed to drift back and forth across these line.
However I would also encourage peopel to watch a movie like tombstone or other somewhat accurate OK corral movie that show how FFA matters were done in this environemnt of both law and not law. That Wyatt Earpt purposely created Marshals and use the office of a Marshal for perhaps more personal than orderly reasons.
I used Unforgiven as it is direct, but the subject matter of Wyatt Earp shows the other extreme the grey areas and the way such things such as supposed order (or attemtps at order) can be used for FFA pursuits.
There are multiple examples of people using the Aegis of "The Law" for not so lawful things. It is an aspect that is clearly missing. But the powerful concept of "The Law" is basically missing as well from FFA. But that concept and its value is something that is as much in people minds as it is in some book or some developer implementation.
Darkfall is global FFA. EVE is technically global as well (the option to attack is always there), but if you kill in hi-sec, yes, it's suicide
Yea, I'm gonna say there's a diffence between I can kill you anywhere any time, and I can kill you anywhere with no consequences, but some places that means it's suicide and I lose gear.
First one is FFA, second one is something less than FFA. Granted it's MORE than RvR, but not much.
Your down playing what Eve is and what it offers people. to say its a step up from Rvr is an insult. Eve offers true freedom. Gives people the option to choose the level of risk. Someone can easily be killed in empire space with the attacker losing very little after you factor in insurance.
You are also forgetting mechanics like Wardecs and FW that make people ffa targets in empire. There are people that play in Empire that have gone years without being free of a wardec. to them empire is as harsh as 0.0 without the bubble camps.
Eve may have rules but its still very much FFApvp.
No, it's not FFA PvP IMO, if SOME places you can kill anyone you want with no consequences, but SOME places you are heavily penalized for it.
IMO, FFA PvP means kill anyone, anywhere, no consequences, except those consequences imposed by other player, like they will be out to get you, etc.
So yea, I'm gonna stick with EVE being slightly more risky that RvR, but not much.
"Choosing your level of risk" is the opposite of FFA PvP IMO.
Eve is not Pure FFA. 0.0 is FFA. The rest of Eve is not.
FFA = Free For All. That means there are no rules, restrictions or consequences. Parts of EvE have rules, restrictions and consequences.
This is not really up for debate. These are facts. EvE can be termed partial FFA at best.
Here is a definition example Itook from a web page:
"A disorganized situation in which there are no rules or controls and many people or companies are competing together."
Keep in mind that the normal usage of the term almost always characterizes a fight since there is the implication that it is almost always violent and chaotic.
When you say this to FFA advocates they say no the "community" starts to enforce a sort of order. Well that is fine as it is clearly an aspect of human nature. But the fact is they almost never have adequate tools to truly enforce order nor will the developers give it to them.
I'd say these 'facts' you speak of are definitely up for debate; all you've done is look at what definition someone else has given to FFA, manipulated it to fit YOUR view of what FFA is, and spew it all over this thread screaming FACT FACT FACT!
Using the definition you FOUND, we see that rules and controls must be non-existant. However, consequences are not mentioned. There are no rules that say certain people are unattackable in EvE, the only controls are the ones people use to command their ship, and everyone dies in high-sec just as surely as in low/null-sec.
Debated.
(And nobody seems to mention market pvp)
Cool find me a reasonable and at least fairly well accepted definition of FFA PvP where instant death enforced by the game and the developers (ie. it is a violation of the EULA to escape said death) is delivered to you for attacking someone.
See death in EvE is not "free", there is a cost to attacking someone in Empire space. There is no cost or consequence or control in 0.0. The only cost is if you lose not if you attack. FFA, in all senses of the word, entails no cost to entry. Clearly a fight in empire has a cost to entry if you are the attacker.
If you want to say that lack of targetting controls/nullification based on faction is FFA that is fine. You can make up whatever terms you like. But in general that very specific case is usually called exactly that and has its own specific term.
We can debate the meaning of "free" if you like. Or what he meaning of "is" is. But I would rather not.
Why in the hell are you people arguing over a concept?
Some people think it's just being able to atack anyone anywhere.
Some people think it's just being able to atack anyone anywhere with no consequence.
So you are talking obviusly about different things, it does not make a difference if you call them FFA PvP or not.
I sugest that you give your own definition a diferent name and move along.
We like to argue with each other about semantics and game concepts as well as make large and unsubstantiated claims about things we don't fully understand...
Comments
No, it's not FFA PvP IMO, if SOME places you can kill anyone you want with no consequences, but SOME places you are heavily penalized for it.
IMO, FFA PvP means kill anyone, anywhere, no consequences, except those consequences imposed by other player, like they will be out to get you, etc.
So yea, I'm gonna stick with EVE being slightly more risky that RvR, but not much.
"Choosing your level of risk" is the opposite of FFA PvP IMO.
True ffapvp died with trammel. when the devs realized that humans cannot act civil or be trusted to poilice themselves. this was proven again with shadowbane, then again with darkfall.
You cannot leave that kind of shit up to players. true ffapvp asks way too much of its playerbase, You need rules, you need to give everyone options.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
i'm not arguing that FFA PvP is a great game mechanic that will make a game wildly popular, I"m just saying that if there are really serious consequences for killing people in some areas, but not in others, it's not what I'd consider FFA PvP.
I'm on the side of "FFA" meaning that mechanics allow you to attack anyone anytime anywhere. Consequences are a separate thing.
I'd also say that FFA pretty much has to include friendly fire as "anyone" by definition is not the same thing as "anyone not on your side", so "FFA" means that if you turn around and want to kill your groupmate, it's possible.
I don't think any of this is a good idea, but if we're talking "anyone, anywhere" that's what it means.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
While I agree with this sentiment I would like to see some kind of mechanic for a limited or extremely dangerous way to attack people in your faction.
FFA purist will say that is unecessary because of the "community". But people need to face the facts that almost all MMORPGs relegate half of what would be a normal society to NPCs and premade factions. Partly for good reason since the hum drum everyday activities of society are not really that fun but are extremely important.
You can form a gang in Los Angeles but you are still in a place where you are having to deal with LA government, California Government and Federal Government. And there are serious consequences to killing someone from a rival gang. Those consequences include getting that other gang pissed at but they also include having law enforcement involved because you killed a citizen of that "faction".
If we stipulate that gangs are the FFA players and the the various Government organziations are computer controlled pre made NPC factions that players also belong too. Then pure FFA as it has been often implmented really makes little sense.
What I described above resembles EvE to some extent where in 0.3+ space the law will come down on you hard if you attack a citizen. They add in 0.0 space to have more "wild west" type area.
One of the things to realize about EvE and the Wild West of america is that most people did not live there in either case. So if you design a game to focus on the "Wild West" style of social interaction you ar efighting against human nature for a large number of people.
Another thing to realize is that there is a tendency in human nature to make a Wild West into a settled area with laws and such. In MMOs FFA PvP games with a wild west mentality tend to stay as a Wild West and often do not even provide the realtive safety and civility of the large towns. They tend to only reward a gang for getting gang stuff. They completely forget about the very strong urge of a society to settle things into a government of some sort.
Go watch Unforgiven, the whole movie is essentially about this issue. This is the entire motivation of the Sherrif Gene Hackmen plays, he wants to settle the town and is backed by the large NPC faction of the American/territorial government.
I do not think FFA mechanics should be completely taken out the way full faction game do. But at the same time FFA games tend to simply be gang wars. Perpetual gang wars. In reality with a large government style faction. Gangs would war with each and the large NPC factions would constantly be trying to stop them all. Normal citizens of the governemtn factions could kill people but if they did they would be forever hunted and often join the FFA gangs. And the FFA gangs would be killing each other preferentially because they already are hunted men and will get less heat for killing other hunted men.
In EvE they encourage people to become gang members and join a gang in 0.0 and do so by making it more profitable. Well this is a little off. Gangs can be more profitable than say being a janitor. But they are also far far more risky. But being in a gang is not more profitable than being some kind of professional that makes 300k a year.
If you are in a gang or roving fighting band of some sort then wind up founding something nation-like that is a whole other story. But that is also extremely rare. And has become more and more rare as civilization has encompsses more and more things.
And it is this trend that FFA tends to completely fail to capture. Its becomes static never-ending gang war, while pretending to be something more. Generally because the games lack the mechanics to allow them to become something more. The players would follow the trend but they can't.
The funny thing is this not some unsettled idea. Just read The Leviathan by Hobbes
These ideas and issues were all part of the discussions that eventually formed the United States. Order vs Freedom and all that. I mean its been around for almost 300 years.
I apologize for using an epithet on your post, but I agree with everything you said. I feel like the concept of using "FFA" PvP to create a more realistic virtual world has gone by the wayside and now "FFA" PvP games HAVE turned into simply deathmatch. I would really like to play a game that features FFA PvP BUT also features that strong NPC factions (government) that you mentioned to keep players in line most of the time.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Eve is not Pure FFA. 0.0 is FFA. The rest of Eve is not.
FFA = Free For All. That means there are no rules, restrictions or consequences. Parts of EvE have rules, restrictions and consequences.
This is not really up for debate. These are facts. EvE can be termed partial FFA at best.
Here is a definition example Itook from a web page:
"A disorganized situation in which there are no rules or controls and many people or companies are competing together."
Keep in mind that the normal usage of the term almost always characterizes a fight since there is the implication that it is almost always violent and chaotic.
When you say this to FFA advocates they say no the "community" starts to enforce a sort of order. Well that is fine as it is clearly an aspect of human nature. But the fact is they almost never have adequate tools to truly enforce order nor will the developers give it to them.
So a "FFA PvP" game with "safe zones" is not really a FFA PvP game? Interesting. What you want is a large, 24/7 arena brawl.
Gestalt11 above put it nicely. That's what I was trying to get across with how I define FFA: you can attack anyone. The possible repercussions vary by game, whether those consequences are dealt by other players or by the game designers. But the option of attacking anyone is FFA in my book. Like I said, you can attack people in EVE's hi-sec. It just isn't very smart.
Appaloosa is another good modern western.
.
'Well, that gunfight didn't take long'
.
'That's cause everyone in it knew how to shoot'
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
I liked how you are trying to use Client Eastwood's movie Unforgiven to up the quality of your idea as if it is as good as Unforgiven. Nice try.
I'd say these 'facts' you speak of are definitely up for debate; all you've done is look at what definition someone else has given to FFA, manipulated it to fit YOUR view of what FFA is, and spew it all over this thread screaming FACT FACT FACT!
Using the definition you FOUND, we see that rules and controls must be non-existant. However, consequences are not mentioned. There are no rules that say certain people are unattackable in EvE, the only controls are the ones people use to command their ship, and everyone dies in high-sec just as surely as in low/null-sec.
Debated.
(And nobody seems to mention market pvp)
Is this like an attack on your ePeen?
.
I think the fact that half of all Eve players never participate in PvP pretty much says that Eve is not FFA.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
Unforgiven is an excellent movie but I am not silly enough to think that most people here will suddenly believe it is some preeminent discussion of complex philosophical issues. It is a movie with themes. It is certainly not a movie that claims to have the "answers". So gimme a break there were no shenanigans.
It is a common them in almost all westerns. Go watch a wyatt earp movie. I used Unforgiven because it so direct not because it is so frigging badass (which it is). A wyatt earp movie will also deal with this issue, however it is not a great example because Wyatt Earp managed to drift back and forth across these line.
However I would also encourage peopel to watch a movie like tombstone or other somewhat accurate OK corral movie that show how FFA matters were done in this environemnt of both law and not law. That Wyatt Earpt purposely created Marshals and use the office of a Marshal for perhaps more personal than orderly reasons.
I used Unforgiven as it is direct, but the subject matter of Wyatt Earp shows the other extreme the grey areas and the way such things such as supposed order (or attemtps at order) can be used for FFA pursuits.
There are multiple examples of people using the Aegis of "The Law" for not so lawful things. It is an aspect that is clearly missing. But the powerful concept of "The Law" is basically missing as well from FFA. But that concept and its value is something that is as much in people minds as it is in some book or some developer implementation.
Cool find me a reasonable and at least fairly well accepted definition of FFA PvP where instant death enforced by the game and the developers (ie. it is a violation of the EULA to escape said death) is delivered to you for attacking someone.
See death in EvE is not "free", there is a cost to attacking someone in Empire space. There is no cost or consequence or control in 0.0. The only cost is if you lose not if you attack. FFA, in all senses of the word, entails no cost to entry. Clearly a fight in empire has a cost to entry if you are the attacker.
If you want to say that lack of targetting controls/nullification based on faction is FFA that is fine. You can make up whatever terms you like. But in general that very specific case is usually called exactly that and has its own specific term.
We can debate the meaning of "free" if you like. Or what he meaning of "is" is. But I would rather not.
Why in the hell are you people arguing over a concept?
Some people think it's just being able to atack anyone anywhere.
Some people think it's just being able to atack anyone anywhere with no consequence.
So you are talking obviusly about different things, it does not make a difference if you call them FFA PvP or not.
I sugest that you give your own definition a diferent name and move along.
We like to argue with each other about semantics and game concepts as well as make large and unsubstantiated claims about things we don't fully understand...
Welcome to MMORPG.com.
Ahhhhh. Someone's mad they can't spam multiple threads on the same topic on a daily basis anymore.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.