And I actually liked the "wanted" system someone wrote about above. Make you an outcast that can't trade with merchants and such. Make you wanted for cash rewards. The hunter's hunted.
It had worked in a game where the number of creatable characters is limited to 1 or 2.
But there's a problem with the Wanted system: People will create a "wanted" character they don't really care about just to be Most Wanted. And do the worst things they can just for "fame". It'll make things worse.
You have to control the obvious discrepancy between what the player wants and what the character would do.
It has to be a game where you're limited to one character, or have it so all characters on the account are flagged. Additionally, there needs to be a death penalty that actually makes an impact, otherwise the offender will just have their friend kill them for the bounty, and they split the earnings.
Ninjer, most MMOs have diminishing rewards for attacking the same player multiple times in a given period. The real question though, is what recent games are you seeing that happen in where it isn't a PvP server?
For example,. in Aion, Level 60s will gank level 30s relentlessly, but it's a PVP world and the person knew 30 levels ago he'd be in an active PVP environment once he hit level 30 or so. IMO, that's bad design at its finest and I am not about to offer any excuse for that kind of behaviour, but I do question the people that go into those games and still complain about ithappening or even call it 'grieifng' - what did they really expect to see happen when the developers told them long before they bought the box thatthis would happen?
One solution is to gate the areas by level range, but then there's even level disparity within each range and then there's the old twinking scenario. Another solution is to not allow PVP until people are in the final levels of gameplay. But then aren't the PvPers stuck going through a grind of unreleated gameplay jsut to get to the gameplay they bought the game for?
The answers aren't simple, and it's exacerbated by people playing a game they knew they wouldn't like to begin with but since they want to play the game (who wants to be left out?) they play anyway and act surprised when the inevitable happens.
This is why I like games like UO, Puzzle Pirates and EVE Online. You can control the level of safety you have from almost completely safe to TotalHellDeath Carnage. You can control the level of risk and set the bar of how much you are willing to put on the line. Each of the three games takes a completely different approach, and each is successful in the direction they went.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
EDIT: nm - just noticed Ceridith already said it above.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am not sure if this author is joking or not but if he is not then he has some issues. Ganking makes you feel alive? Yeah maybe, if you are a sadist that likes to pick on people smaller than you.
Ganking is for cowards who does not have what it takes to stand toe to toe with someone in a fair fight but rather needs to be at a significant advantage, either in numbers, levels or gear.
In a match or duel, entering the battle with a significant advantage is cheap/dishonorable. In a war game, such as RISK or Axis &Allies or EVE Online, not entering in such a manner is just plain stupid.
In Risk or Axis & Allies you DON'T enter the game with one player having a significant advantage over the other (or in the case of set piece scenerios where there is a disadvantage, the weaker side usualy has much easier victory conditions)... that's the point.
In War Games you have to manufacture situation through the course of play where you have a significant advantage over your opponent. That does not hold true for the PvP in most MMO's, where the ganker already has a built in advantage of 50+ levels against most of the victems he's picking on.
Furthmore most MMO's are not "War Games"...and most MMO players do not percieve them to be. The newbie out there trying to do his first quest, probably doesn't even know he's playing a "War Game" when the 50 level Ganker shows up.
I like PvP in War Games or Strategy Games..... ganking in MMORPG, is nothing remotely like that. It's more like kids pulling the wings off flies....except in this case the "kid" is usualy a 30 year old that has never grown up and matured out of that phase.
1) That's why I said 'battle', not 'game.'
2) That is your perception, possibly because you are under the impression the battle started the minute one of you pressed the attack button. In conquest games, such as the ones mentioned, the battle started long before that single encounter.
3) I never said all MMOs are war games, rather named three games that were explicitly designed around conquest gameplay or, if you will, World Domination.
4) Is that really conducive to having any civil discussion on this matter? I mean, if you really want to go there we can just write off the discussion and call it a day, but it seems we have an opportunity to actually have a reasonable discussion on the topic here.
2 of the 3 games you mentioned are Strategy War Games not MMORPG's so I'm not understanding the comparison.
Most MMORPG's are NOT conquest games and are not percieved to be conquest games by most of the players playing them. They are typicaly not labeled that by the Developers/Publishers, etc making them. Heck for the most part they aren't even percieved as competitive games.
It's like some-one showing up throwing hip-checks at the other players in golf. If it were hockey it'd be perfectly fine...it's part of the understood intent of the game. In golf doing so makes you a jerk.
It's one thing if it's a game like WWII Online or Planetside.... where it's pretty much understood to be a competitive war game involving conquest. I've no problem seeing a Tiger Tank roll up on a Vickers in that sort of game. Note in those games it's one SIDE vs the other SIDE and both of those sides start out relatively equal.
In the typical gank situation in the MMORPG.... one side is the level 50 ganker and the other side is the level 1 newbie....who usualy doesn't even know he's on a "side" until after he's already dead. Furthermore the 2 players start out with a complete disparity in capability because one started playing way before the other. So even if the newbie was willing to try to compete with the Ganker...he's got no option to do so...right from the start.
It's like 1 player playing Risk getting to roll 50 D20's every time he makes an attack/defence (regardless of the armies he's going in with) and the other playing only getting to roll 1 d4.
First of all, we need to establish that ganking and griefing are two different things. A difference that is usually over looked.
That being said, I'm not a pvp'er. not good at it, don't look for it. But the possibilty that I might be attacked while attempting to do whatever it is I'm doing adds a lot to a game for me. Games without some type of open world pvp in it usually lose my interest after a while without that dynamic.
And nothing in an MMO ever gets me more more excited and happy than escaping a ganker, and engaging in some smacktalk bragging about my skillfull cowardice.
Not all griefing is ganking, but most ganking is griefing.
A player ninja looting, or smack talking, then getting ganked in response, really isn't so much a gank as it is retribution.
In my opinion, a player or group of players that ovewhelm another player or group of players in power, either through levels, gear, or numbers, and whom kill the weaker group without provocation or explicit gain (aka they're mainly just doing it because it's fun to gank), are griefing. That's the majority of ganking.
So any interaction that is not consensual and equal is griefing? That is ridiculous. Griefing is when they are trying to ruin your game by not letting you play. It has to be a sustained repeated effort to rise to the level of griefing. Ganking is a bump in the road and the natural consequence of playing a game with other people.
Any negative, non-consensual, interaction with another player in a server/zone that is not explcitly designed with that in mind, where the offender does not get any gain that they could otherwise get elsewhere, is most definitely griefing. There are just different severities of it.
PvPing in a PvP zone is not griefing, it's part of the zone. PvPing to compete over rare resources is not griefing. Killing a player who insulted you, kill stealed, etc from you, is not griefing.
Otherwise killing a random player who did nothing to you, where you do not truly benefit from doing so, is griefing, especially so when it's a severly unbalanced fight -- aka a gank.
Of course if you roll on a PvP server, expect to be ganked. That's why I don't play on said servers, because I prefer not to have my gameplay interupted by the whims of some loser who can only have a good time by annoying other players.
What do you mean by negative? Negative for you? What if its positive for the other player? Should they ask you first if its ok to attack you, and then go away if its not? Your definition of griefing is so broad it precludes almost any open world, unscheduled pvp that you don't approve of in advance. What about a game with factional warfare, where players of the other faction are the enemy? Your definition of acceptable pvp is so narrow as to make the concept of pvp akin to two old friends having tea.
I'll grant that you don't like getting ganked, and I'm not trying to say you should like getting ganked but that doesn't make it griefing. A higher level char killing you as a target of opportunity is no where near the same as someone who makes a concerted dedicated effort to ruin your gameplay (spawn campers for exmaple).
By your response I can tell that you were obviously in such a hurry to responed to my post, you didn't notice the other three paragraphs where I explain more specifically, and even give examples.
I did, and I stand by what I said. You're equating a type of game action you don't like with griefing, and its just not the case. Granted you don't like being ganked, and I'm not even going to say you should like it, but that diesn't make it griefing. The two are very different.
Your statement that pvp'ing in a pvp zone is meaningless since generally speaking you can only pvp in a pvp zone.
Your second statement is as I said, so broad it essentially turns a game dynamic you don't like into griefing. If you don't judge being ganked as being justifiable by your standards its griefing? Thats ridiculous.
I think of ganking as one player who simply is not interested in PvP in it's entirety. Thus the level discrepancy really isn't the issue, gameplay is. Basically the whole "player killer vs carebear" issue. Should I feel bad about attacking and looting a random miner who was never a threat to me? Is it immoral to kill them for no reason other than the thrill of agitating other random players? And what if I want to start crafting later on, why should I have to constantly be paranoid about it?
Developers have to constantly balance these issues when creating their games.
I am not sure if this author is joking or not but if he is not then he has some issues. Ganking makes you feel alive? Yeah maybe, if you are a sadist that likes to pick on people smaller than you.
Ganking is for cowards who does not have what it takes to stand toe to toe with someone in a fair fight but rather needs to be at a significant advantage, either in numbers, levels or gear.
In a match or duel, entering the battle with a significant advantage is cheap/dishonorable. In a war game, such as RISK or Axis &Allies or EVE Online, not entering in such a manner is just plain stupid.
In Risk or Axis & Allies you DON'T enter the game with one player having a significant advantage over the other (or in the case of set piece scenerios where there is a disadvantage, the weaker side usualy has much easier victory conditions)... that's the point.
In War Games you have to manufacture situation through the course of play where you have a significant advantage over your opponent. That does not hold true for the PvP in most MMO's, where the ganker already has a built in advantage of 50+ levels against most of the victems he's picking on.
Furthmore most MMO's are not "War Games"...and most MMO players do not percieve them to be. The newbie out there trying to do his first quest, probably doesn't even know he's playing a "War Game" when the 50 level Ganker shows up.
I like PvP in War Games or Strategy Games..... ganking in MMORPG, is nothing remotely like that. It's more like kids pulling the wings off flies....except in this case the "kid" is usualy a 30 year old that has never grown up and matured out of that phase.
1) That's why I said 'battle', not 'game.'
2) That is your perception, possibly because you are under the impression the battle started the minute one of you pressed the attack button. In conquest games, such as the ones mentioned, the battle started long before that single encounter.
3) I never said all MMOs are war games, rather named three games that were explicitly designed around conquest gameplay or, if you will, World Domination.
4) Is that really conducive to having any civil discussion on this matter? I mean, if you really want to go there we can just write off the discussion and call it a day, but it seems we have an opportunity to actually have a reasonable discussion on the topic here.
2 of the 3 games you mentioned are Strategy War Games not MMORPG's so I'm not understanding the comparison.
Most MMORPG's are NOT conquest games and are not percieved to be conquest games by most of the players playing them. They are typicaly not labeled that by the Developers/Publishers, etc making them. Heck for the most part they aren't even percieved as competitive games.
It's like some-one showing up throwing hip-checks at the other players in golf. If it were hockey it'd be perfectly fine...it's part of the understood intent of the game. In golf doing so makes you a jerk.
It's one thing if it's a game like WWII Online or Planetside.... where it's pretty much understood to be a competitive war game involving conquest. I've no problem seeing a Tiger Tank roll up on a Vickers in that sort of game. Note in those games it's one SIDE vs the other SIDE and both of those sides start out relatively equal.
In the typical gank situation in the MMORPG.... one side is the level 50 ganker and the other side is the level 1 newbie....who usualy doesn't even know he's on a "side" until after he's already dead. Furthermore the 2 players start out with a complete disparity in capability because one started playing way before the other. So even if the newbie was willing to try to compete with the Ganker...he's got no option to do so...right from the start.
It's like 1 player playing Risk getting to roll 50 D20's every time he makes an attack/defence (regardless of the armies he's going in with) and the other playing only getting to roll 1 d4.
Grumpy, if you read the beginning of this exchange, you will see that we both agree on all of those points
- few MMOs are war games
- unfair advantage in a match or duel is cheap and dishonorable
- the 'typical gank situation in the MMORPG' is not desirable. I re-iterated that sentiment in several of my replies in this thread.
What are you arguing?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
My prefered system would be a combination of RvsR with safe/unsafe zones and a consentual PvP flag.
So in an unsafe zone players of a hostile faction can attack you but your own faction players can't.
In a safe zone you can only be attacked if you've flagged yourself for PvP (ideally you could even specify which individuals or groups you were flagged for). Note that being flagged for PvP would NOT allow you to attack anyone that wasn't flagged...being flagged simply controls whether you can be attacked or not (and whether you can attack some-one else that is flagged). This allows for actual Role-Played conflict (funny that some-one should expect to be able to role-play in a role-playing game) without turning the entire game into a gankfest.
After a pain in the ass day of my wife giving me shit for playing too many mmos i like to decend onto a lowbie quest hub like a fog and just AoE mofos to death... makes me feel better.
I am not sure if this author is joking or not but if he is not then he has some issues. Ganking makes you feel alive? Yeah maybe, if you are a sadist that likes to pick on people smaller than you.
Ganking is for cowards who does not have what it takes to stand toe to toe with someone in a fair fight but rather needs to be at a significant advantage, either in numbers, levels or gear.
In a match or duel, entering the battle with a significant advantage is cheap/dishonorable. In a war game, such as RISK or Axis &Allies or EVE Online, not entering in such a manner is just plain stupid.
In Risk or Axis & Allies you DON'T enter the game with one player having a significant advantage over the other (or in the case of set piece scenerios where there is a disadvantage, the weaker side usualy has much easier victory conditions)... that's the point.
In War Games you have to manufacture situation through the course of play where you have a significant advantage over your opponent. That does not hold true for the PvP in most MMO's, where the ganker already has a built in advantage of 50+ levels against most of the victems he's picking on.
Furthmore most MMO's are not "War Games"...and most MMO players do not percieve them to be. The newbie out there trying to do his first quest, probably doesn't even know he's playing a "War Game" when the 50 level Ganker shows up.
I like PvP in War Games or Strategy Games..... ganking in MMORPG, is nothing remotely like that. It's more like kids pulling the wings off flies....except in this case the "kid" is usualy a 30 year old that has never grown up and matured out of that phase.
1) That's why I said 'battle', not 'game.'
2) That is your perception, possibly because you are under the impression the battle started the minute one of you pressed the attack button. In conquest games, such as the ones mentioned, the battle started long before that single encounter.
3) I never said all MMOs are war games, rather named three games that were explicitly designed around conquest gameplay or, if you will, World Domination.
4) Is that really conducive to having any civil discussion on this matter? I mean, if you really want to go there we can just write off the discussion and call it a day, but it seems we have an opportunity to actually have a reasonable discussion on the topic here.
2 of the 3 games you mentioned are Strategy War Games not MMORPG's so I'm not understanding the comparison.
Most MMORPG's are NOT conquest games and are not percieved to be conquest games by most of the players playing them. They are typicaly not labeled that by the Developers/Publishers, etc making them. Heck for the most part they aren't even percieved as competitive games.
It's like some-one showing up throwing hip-checks at the other players in golf. If it were hockey it'd be perfectly fine...it's part of the understood intent of the game. In golf doing so makes you a jerk.
It's one thing if it's a game like WWII Online or Planetside.... where it's pretty much understood to be a competitive war game involving conquest. I've no problem seeing a Tiger Tank roll up on a Vickers in that sort of game. Note in those games it's one SIDE vs the other SIDE and both of those sides start out relatively equal.
In the typical gank situation in the MMORPG.... one side is the level 50 ganker and the other side is the level 1 newbie....who usualy doesn't even know he's on a "side" until after he's already dead. Furthermore the 2 players start out with a complete disparity in capability because one started playing way before the other. So even if the newbie was willing to try to compete with the Ganker...he's got no option to do so...right from the start.
It's like 1 player playing Risk getting to roll 50 D20's every time he makes an attack/defence (regardless of the armies he's going in with) and the other playing only getting to roll 1 d4.
Grumpy, if you read the beginning of this exchange, you will see that we both agree on all of those points
- few MMOs are war games
- unfair advantage in a match or duel is cheap and dishonorable
- the 'typical gank situation in the MMORPG' is not desirable. I re-iterated that sentiment in several of my replies in this thread.
What are you arguing?
Yamota was talking about ganking in MMORPG's....you brought up the point of War/Conquest games. I was trying to point out that I didn't think War/Conquest games were really relevant to the context of this discussion. I Apologize if I was tilting at windmills, perhaps I was confused as to your actual stance on the matter.
First of all, we need to establish that ganking and griefing are two different things. A difference that is usually over looked.
That being said, I'm not a pvp'er. not good at it, don't look for it. But the possibilty that I might be attacked while attempting to do whatever it is I'm doing adds a lot to a game for me. Games without some type of open world pvp in it usually lose my interest after a while without that dynamic.
And nothing in an MMO ever gets me more more excited and happy than escaping a ganker, and engaging in some smacktalk bragging about my skillfull cowardice.
Not all griefing is ganking, but most ganking is griefing.
A player ninja looting, or smack talking, then getting ganked in response, really isn't so much a gank as it is retribution.
In my opinion, a player or group of players that ovewhelm another player or group of players in power, either through levels, gear, or numbers, and whom kill the weaker group without provocation or explicit gain (aka they're mainly just doing it because it's fun to gank), are griefing. That's the majority of ganking.
So any interaction that is not consensual and equal is griefing? That is ridiculous. Griefing is when they are trying to ruin your game by not letting you play. It has to be a sustained repeated effort to rise to the level of griefing. Ganking is a bump in the road and the natural consequence of playing a game with other people.
I am going to have to say I am with Paradigm on this. In open world pvp games, I will ABSOLUTELY kill enemy players when they are injured because they are fighting pve mobs, for example.
They are in an open pvp zone. They know this. Deciding to fight the npc is their choice, they know there's a risk someone will come along...and if someone does, and wrecks them because they are already weakened, that's a part of the game.
Do I need to wait until they heal then do a hug emote? I don't like being griefed, but "ganking" happens and it is a part of the dynamic of open world pvp.
If you need more structure and preparation, most games already have the "/duel" function.
Have a winner and don't go on a game over! Does your avatar make you powerful in real life? Check out the Mystical Enders gaming community. www.mysticalenders.com
I am not sure if this author is joking or not but if he is not then he has some issues. Ganking makes you feel alive? Yeah maybe, if you are a sadist that likes to pick on people smaller than you.
Ganking is for cowards who does not have what it takes to stand toe to toe with someone in a fair fight but rather needs to be at a significant advantage, either in numbers, levels or gear.
In a match or duel, entering the battle with a significant advantage is cheap/dishonorable. In a war game, such as RISK or Axis &Allies or EVE Online, not entering in such a manner is just plain stupid.
In Risk or Axis & Allies you DON'T enter the game with one player having a significant advantage over the other (or in the case of set piece scenerios where there is a disadvantage, the weaker side usualy has much easier victory conditions)... that's the point.
In War Games you have to manufacture situation through the course of play where you have a significant advantage over your opponent. That does not hold true for the PvP in most MMO's, where the ganker already has a built in advantage of 50+ levels against most of the victems he's picking on.
Furthmore most MMO's are not "War Games"...and most MMO players do not percieve them to be. The newbie out there trying to do his first quest, probably doesn't even know he's playing a "War Game" when the 50 level Ganker shows up.
I like PvP in War Games or Strategy Games..... ganking in MMORPG, is nothing remotely like that. It's more like kids pulling the wings off flies....except in this case the "kid" is usualy a 30 year old that has never grown up and matured out of that phase.
1) That's why I said 'battle', not 'game.'
2) That is your perception, possibly because you are under the impression the battle started the minute one of you pressed the attack button. In conquest games, such as the ones mentioned, the battle started long before that single encounter.
3) I never said all MMOs are war games, rather named three games that were explicitly designed around conquest gameplay or, if you will, World Domination.
4) Is that really conducive to having any civil discussion on this matter? I mean, if you really want to go there we can just write off the discussion and call it a day, but it seems we have an opportunity to actually have a reasonable discussion on the topic here.
2 of the 3 games you mentioned are Strategy War Games not MMORPG's so I'm not understanding the comparison.
Most MMORPG's are NOT conquest games and are not percieved to be conquest games by most of the players playing them. They are typicaly not labeled that by the Developers/Publishers, etc making them. Heck for the most part they aren't even percieved as competitive games.
It's like some-one showing up throwing hip-checks at the other players in golf. If it were hockey it'd be perfectly fine...it's part of the understood intent of the game. In golf doing so makes you a jerk.
It's one thing if it's a game like WWII Online or Planetside.... where it's pretty much understood to be a competitive war game involving conquest. I've no problem seeing a Tiger Tank roll up on a Vickers in that sort of game. Note in those games it's one SIDE vs the other SIDE and both of those sides start out relatively equal.
In the typical gank situation in the MMORPG.... one side is the level 50 ganker and the other side is the level 1 newbie....who usualy doesn't even know he's on a "side" until after he's already dead. Furthermore the 2 players start out with a complete disparity in capability because one started playing way before the other. So even if the newbie was willing to try to compete with the Ganker...he's got no option to do so...right from the start.
It's like 1 player playing Risk getting to roll 50 D20's every time he makes an attack/defence (regardless of the armies he's going in with) and the other playing only getting to roll 1 d4.
Grumpy, if you read the beginning of this exchange, you will see that we both agree on all of those points
- few MMOs are war games
- unfair advantage in a match or duel is cheap and dishonorable
- the 'typical gank situation in the MMORPG' is not desirable. I re-iterated that sentiment in several of my replies in this thread.
What are you arguing?
Yamota was talking about ganking in MMORPG's....you brought up the point of War/Conquest games. I was trying to point out that I didn't think War/Conquest games were really relevant to the context of this discussion. I Apologize if I was tilting at windmills, perhaps I was confused as to your actual stance on the matter.
I think where we disagree is that you don't feel EVE Online is a conquest game. If we agree on that, then I'd say we're on the same page across the board.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
First of all, we need to establish that ganking and griefing are two different things. A difference that is usually over looked.
That being said, I'm not a pvp'er. not good at it, don't look for it. But the possibilty that I might be attacked while attempting to do whatever it is I'm doing adds a lot to a game for me. Games without some type of open world pvp in it usually lose my interest after a while without that dynamic.
And nothing in an MMO ever gets me more more excited and happy than escaping a ganker, and engaging in some smacktalk bragging about my skillfull cowardice.
Not all griefing is ganking, but most ganking is griefing.
A player ninja looting, or smack talking, then getting ganked in response, really isn't so much a gank as it is retribution.
In my opinion, a player or group of players that ovewhelm another player or group of players in power, either through levels, gear, or numbers, and whom kill the weaker group without provocation or explicit gain (aka they're mainly just doing it because it's fun to gank), are griefing. That's the majority of ganking.
So any interaction that is not consensual and equal is griefing? That is ridiculous. Griefing is when they are trying to ruin your game by not letting you play. It has to be a sustained repeated effort to rise to the level of griefing. Ganking is a bump in the road and the natural consequence of playing a game with other people.
I am going to have to say I am with Paradigm on this. In open world pvp games, I will ABSOLUTELY kill enemy players when they are injured because they are fighting pve mobs, for example.
They are in an open pvp zone. They know this. Deciding to fight the npc is their choice, they know there's a risk someone will come along...and if someone does, and wrecks them because they are already weakened, that's a part of the game.
Do I need to wait until they heal then do a hug emote? I don't like being griefed, but "ganking" happens and it is a part of the dynamic of open world pvp.
If you need more structure and preparation, most games already have the "/duel" function.
You missed the context, Ceridith said that.
'PvPing in a PvP zone is not griefing, it's part of the zone. PvPing to compete over rare resources is not griefing. Killing a player who insulted you, kill stealed, etc from you, is not griefing.'
You don't seem to even get the context of their argument. They seemed to agree on the point you nitpicked just fine, it was a matter of accounting for 'griefing' versus 'ganking'.
Honestly, you just agreed with Ceridith as much as you agreed with Paradigm based on your opinion.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
First of all, we need to establish that ganking and griefing are two different things. A difference that is usually over looked.
That being said, I'm not a pvp'er. not good at it, don't look for it. But the possibilty that I might be attacked while attempting to do whatever it is I'm doing adds a lot to a game for me. Games without some type of open world pvp in it usually lose my interest after a while without that dynamic.
And nothing in an MMO ever gets me more more excited and happy than escaping a ganker, and engaging in some smacktalk bragging about my skillfull cowardice.
Not all griefing is ganking, but most ganking is griefing.
A player ninja looting, or smack talking, then getting ganked in response, really isn't so much a gank as it is retribution.
In my opinion, a player or group of players that ovewhelm another player or group of players in power, either through levels, gear, or numbers, and whom kill the weaker group without provocation or explicit gain (aka they're mainly just doing it because it's fun to gank), are griefing. That's the majority of ganking.
So any interaction that is not consensual and equal is griefing? That is ridiculous. Griefing is when they are trying to ruin your game by not letting you play. It has to be a sustained repeated effort to rise to the level of griefing. Ganking is a bump in the road and the natural consequence of playing a game with other people.
I am going to have to say I am with Paradigm on this. In open world pvp games, I will ABSOLUTELY kill enemy players when they are injured because they are fighting pve mobs, for example.
They are in an open pvp zone. They know this. Deciding to fight the npc is their choice, they know there's a risk someone will come along...and if someone does, and wrecks them because they are already weakened, that's a part of the game.
Do I need to wait until they heal then do a hug emote? I don't like being griefed, but "ganking" happens and it is a part of the dynamic of open world pvp.
If you need more structure and preparation, most games already have the "/duel" function.
You missed the context, Ceridith said that.
'PvPing in a PvP zone is not griefing, it's part of the zone. PvPing to compete over rare resources is not griefing. Killing a player who insulted you, kill stealed, etc from you, is not griefing.'
You don't seem to even get the context of their argument. They seemed to agree on the point you nitpicked just fine, it was a matter of accounting for 'griefing' versus 'ganking'.
Honestly, you just agreed with Ceridith as much as you agreed with Paradigm based on your opinion.
Actually I didn't agree. The statement 'pvp'ing in a pvp zone' is meaningless since pvp by definition can only take place in a pvp zone. I mean if you're in a non-pvp zone, how can their be pvp. I'm saying there is a huge difference between getting ganked and getting griefed.
I think gankers are great for incentive. They make me not want to play a game and instead try something new. They show developers how a few people can ruin things for the majority.
Gankers have no real sense of how to PvP, thats why they are gankers. If they could hold their own in a fair fight they'd just be that tough guy from the other side.
I myself enjoy PvP, but I have no interest in open world PvP. Aion and the Aion playerbase ruined that. It started off like a decent working system when everyone was new to the game. There wasn't any twinks, and it was just good all out fun. Some opponents would come through a rift and some players would go fend them off. As time progressed though, the players that have nothing but free time are extremely outgeared compared to the casual player who just can't invest that much time. So then the fights become very one sided and gradually it turns into nothing but a gankfest. So people start complaining that they wish there was a PvE server, and everybody tells them that they should have bought a different game and then the population starts to drop significantly. Now the gankers are killing the same people, again and again because there isn't enough population to spread the ganking out. Now more people are quitting because it's just stupid, or people are hanging out in the non-PvP zones to safely level their characters. Not a great PvPvE game when everybody hides because it's too much of a pain to play in the contested areas meaning that anyone who does play in a contested area is very much alone with the gankers.
PvP is definately a thrill, and I love taking part in any battlegrounds, minigames, W vs W, RvR, duel or structured PvP match. I both commend and thank every teammate and opponent I've had. Goodmatch!
As for the gankers, goodbye and good riddance.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
You've never seen people do things in PvE that directly affected your ability to play the game, by killing you?
And by what you just said Paradigm, you actually are doing exactly what I said you were doing. You agree with the context in which the actions take place, but you don't agree with the words being used interchangeably within the given context.
Hence me saying ' it was a matter of accounting for 'griefing' versus 'ganking''.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
While I found For the Horde and For the Alliance runs incredibly fun when I played WoW, I didn't find ganking lowbies even remotely enjoyable. I did give it a good half hour try one day, since I had quite a bit of anger built up over getting ganked repeatedly in STV by various lvl 80s when I was questing as a wee little lowbie. But 'getting revenge' didn't make me feel even slightly better. By the end of that half hour I felt like a puppy-kicking bully. So I always left their lowbies in peace unless lowbies from my faction needed my help.
I see random gankers as nothing more than wretchedly bored losers with gimp characters and nothing better to do with their time, since no one would want them in their dungeon group, raid, battleground, or arena anyway.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Well forced PVP is why most of my guild bailed on aion. We were all for pvp but when we reached 35+ we were constantly getting ganked by higher levels in heron. I got ganked 7 times repeatedly by a level 50 sorc and sin. I had no chance as a cleric, no other players were around or would help so no choice but to log out that toon. Happened just about everyday I got to level 39 then the really bad xp curved and ganking making kill time longer and unproductive, I had to go liek teh rest of my guild. Forced PVP is ganking and its usually 1 sided. Folks try to make others interested in teh fight buy if they dont want it you just see them leave. I wonder how long aion will be online?
GRIND DOES NOT EQUAL MAKING A GAME CHALLENGING!! YES I AM YELLING LOL
It seems most of the players who practice this are very young either in age or emotion or both. It is why I stopped playing internet games where this is possible. Part of the problem is the F2P model. I played Bounty bay Online for two years when it was a subscription model. There was only one anal orifice who had a much better ship than mine and harassed me at sea. I lured him into an online fight, killed him eight times, won his favorite weapon and tossed it into the sea., then spent 24 hours real time in Jail. He stopped bothering me. Other than that on person the game was a lot of fun until they changed to a F2P model and the Kiddie Klown Klub arrived. They had no financial investment in the game, or seemingly no interest in meeting its objectives. All they wanted to do is make life miserable for the adults. I put up with them for almost a year before quitting. I play for fun and enjoyment and when that stopped I quit.
Look, Ganking is sometimes fun, sometimes only, i am not a Ganker, but usually when i am really really bored, and when a low level chracter pass by me, i would use a frost Skill on them and they die, well after that i would just leave them alone
I love PvP, but mostly a competitive one, like in Battleground, or the Arena, but yeah, Ganking is not my thing, out of 5 years of playing WoW, i could count how many i gank before, but i have been also ganked countless of times, that i cannot count how many
so conclusion is, Ganking is just for the fun side killing only 1 or 2, not to farm them ( at least for me )
There was a lot about Darkfall that I once liked despite the grind and lack of content, but my most recent foray into the game changed my opinion. I played for a few hours a couple days a week, and on the second day, I encountered a red close to the starter town, but I ran back to the city before he could attack me. The next day I ran around the same area and was killed then teabagged. About 20 minutes later, I was killed yet again. The next day I logged in and traveled to the same area. Within minutes, I was ganked yet again, and this time, the player stole my meager allowance of 300g, my chain armor, and all my non-banked melee weapons. Today, I logged in and got some leather armor out of my bank and proceeded to kill some more goblins. Within minutes of arriving at my location, I was ganked yet again.
Didn't make me feel like I was free in the least. Made me feel like I was playing Modern Warfare 2.
Actually I didn't agree. The statement 'pvp'ing in a pvp zone' is meaningless since pvp by definition can only take place in a pvp zone. I mean if you're in a non-pvp zone, how can their be pvp. I'm saying there is a huge difference between getting ganked and getting griefed.
When I mention a PvP zone, I mean a zone in which the main purpose of players being in the zone is to compete over some form of objective or resource.
This does not necessarily encompass all areas in which PvP can occur between players.
A game or server with a FFA ruleset is not necessarily an explicit server wide "PvP zone" for lack of better terms. A FFA ruleset is meant to allow players the opportunity to attack other players, and is not necessarily an encouragement to do so indiscriminately. That is the major misconception a lot of the 'ganker' PvPer make, that just because they can do something, that they are fully entitled and by no means in the wrong for perpetrating such actions.
Take Ultima Online for example. It was a FFA ruleset in part as a social experiment to see if players would 'play nicely' together. Needless to say, a number of players failed, enough to prompt the developers to introduce a PvE ruleset to all servers. It was hardly shocking that after this happened, 90+% of players quickly flocked out of the old FFA PvP land and into the new PvE land. Simply put, players were sick of being 'content' for the minority of abusive players. It's not necessarily that they had a problem with PvP or the FFA ruleset itself, but rather they had issue with the fringe minority of players who made playing the game miserable for everyone else from their, here's the magical term, indescriminate ganking.
So yes, ganking is actually an extremely negative contribution to any MMO. Sure, your fringe gaming population may like to gank, or have the possibility of being ganked or fighting back, but it's obvious that the majority of MMO gamers simply decry it. Why else do you think that MMOs that have explicit FFA rulesets throughout the game, end up being nothing more than footnote MMOs with niche player bases?
I play Aion on spatalos EU and i hav been LVL ganked, Group ganked, invisible ranger ganked, ganked on the ground, ganked in the air , ganked in the abyss, and zerged hundreds of times. I hav been ganked going through rifts by campers. Ganked by groups of monster twinks rifting in packs.
what did i do. Did i scream and run away from it like a little girl? A few times, yes! Did i cry and sub on a fluffy wow pve server just so that i can kill my silly boars and go about making my westfall stew. NO. Never pve again as long as i live. I hate PVE. PVE is just a way to get to PVP.
So what did i do ? I made a new class ; Got PVP gear, and kicked the PVE fluff out of anyone that dared attack me. Its the best experience i have ever had.
PVE is unrealistic. PVP is the feeling you get when you and about 200 of your fellow asmodians lift off from hellfire artifact and fly down into the divine tower to slay the ellies hundreds at a time like sauron did in the opening scene of the LOTR I.
Comments
It has to be a game where you're limited to one character, or have it so all characters on the account are flagged. Additionally, there needs to be a death penalty that actually makes an impact, otherwise the offender will just have their friend kill them for the bounty, and they split the earnings.
Ninjer, most MMOs have diminishing rewards for attacking the same player multiple times in a given period. The real question though, is what recent games are you seeing that happen in where it isn't a PvP server?
For example,. in Aion, Level 60s will gank level 30s relentlessly, but it's a PVP world and the person knew 30 levels ago he'd be in an active PVP environment once he hit level 30 or so. IMO, that's bad design at its finest and I am not about to offer any excuse for that kind of behaviour, but I do question the people that go into those games and still complain about ithappening or even call it 'grieifng' - what did they really expect to see happen when the developers told them long before they bought the box thatthis would happen?
One solution is to gate the areas by level range, but then there's even level disparity within each range and then there's the old twinking scenario. Another solution is to not allow PVP until people are in the final levels of gameplay. But then aren't the PvPers stuck going through a grind of unreleated gameplay jsut to get to the gameplay they bought the game for?
The answers aren't simple, and it's exacerbated by people playing a game they knew they wouldn't like to begin with but since they want to play the game (who wants to be left out?) they play anyway and act surprised when the inevitable happens.
This is why I like games like UO, Puzzle Pirates and EVE Online. You can control the level of safety you have from almost completely safe to TotalHellDeath Carnage. You can control the level of risk and set the bar of how much you are willing to put on the line. Each of the three games takes a completely different approach, and each is successful in the direction they went.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
EDIT: nm - just noticed Ceridith already said it above.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
2 of the 3 games you mentioned are Strategy War Games not MMORPG's so I'm not understanding the comparison.
Most MMORPG's are NOT conquest games and are not percieved to be conquest games by most of the players playing them. They are typicaly not labeled that by the Developers/Publishers, etc making them. Heck for the most part they aren't even percieved as competitive games.
It's like some-one showing up throwing hip-checks at the other players in golf. If it were hockey it'd be perfectly fine...it's part of the understood intent of the game. In golf doing so makes you a jerk.
It's one thing if it's a game like WWII Online or Planetside.... where it's pretty much understood to be a competitive war game involving conquest. I've no problem seeing a Tiger Tank roll up on a Vickers in that sort of game. Note in those games it's one SIDE vs the other SIDE and both of those sides start out relatively equal.
In the typical gank situation in the MMORPG.... one side is the level 50 ganker and the other side is the level 1 newbie....who usualy doesn't even know he's on a "side" until after he's already dead. Furthermore the 2 players start out with a complete disparity in capability because one started playing way before the other. So even if the newbie was willing to try to compete with the Ganker...he's got no option to do so...right from the start.
It's like 1 player playing Risk getting to roll 50 D20's every time he makes an attack/defence (regardless of the armies he's going in with) and the other playing only getting to roll 1 d4.
I did, and I stand by what I said. You're equating a type of game action you don't like with griefing, and its just not the case. Granted you don't like being ganked, and I'm not even going to say you should like it, but that diesn't make it griefing. The two are very different.
Your statement that pvp'ing in a pvp zone is meaningless since generally speaking you can only pvp in a pvp zone.
Your second statement is as I said, so broad it essentially turns a game dynamic you don't like into griefing. If you don't judge being ganked as being justifiable by your standards its griefing? Thats ridiculous.
I think of ganking as one player who simply is not interested in PvP in it's entirety. Thus the level discrepancy really isn't the issue, gameplay is. Basically the whole "player killer vs carebear" issue. Should I feel bad about attacking and looting a random miner who was never a threat to me? Is it immoral to kill them for no reason other than the thrill of agitating other random players? And what if I want to start crafting later on, why should I have to constantly be paranoid about it?
Developers have to constantly balance these issues when creating their games.
Grumpy, if you read the beginning of this exchange, you will see that we both agree on all of those points
- few MMOs are war games
- unfair advantage in a match or duel is cheap and dishonorable
- the 'typical gank situation in the MMORPG' is not desirable. I re-iterated that sentiment in several of my replies in this thread.
What are you arguing?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
My prefered system would be a combination of RvsR with safe/unsafe zones and a consentual PvP flag.
So in an unsafe zone players of a hostile faction can attack you but your own faction players can't.
In a safe zone you can only be attacked if you've flagged yourself for PvP (ideally you could even specify which individuals or groups you were flagged for). Note that being flagged for PvP would NOT allow you to attack anyone that wasn't flagged...being flagged simply controls whether you can be attacked or not (and whether you can attack some-one else that is flagged). This allows for actual Role-Played conflict (funny that some-one should expect to be able to role-play in a role-playing game) without turning the entire game into a gankfest.
After a pain in the ass day of my wife giving me shit for playing too many mmos i like to decend onto a lowbie quest hub like a fog and just AoE mofos to death... makes me feel better.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Yamota was talking about ganking in MMORPG's....you brought up the point of War/Conquest games. I was trying to point out that I didn't think War/Conquest games were really relevant to the context of this discussion. I Apologize if I was tilting at windmills, perhaps I was confused as to your actual stance on the matter.
I am going to have to say I am with Paradigm on this. In open world pvp games, I will ABSOLUTELY kill enemy players when they are injured because they are fighting pve mobs, for example.
They are in an open pvp zone. They know this. Deciding to fight the npc is their choice, they know there's a risk someone will come along...and if someone does, and wrecks them because they are already weakened, that's a part of the game.
Do I need to wait until they heal then do a hug emote? I don't like being griefed, but "ganking" happens and it is a part of the dynamic of open world pvp.
If you need more structure and preparation, most games already have the "/duel" function.
Have a winner and don't go on a game over! Does your avatar make you powerful in real life? Check out the Mystical Enders gaming community. www.mysticalenders.com
I think where we disagree is that you don't feel EVE Online is a conquest game. If we agree on that, then I'd say we're on the same page across the board.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You missed the context, Ceridith said that.
'PvPing in a PvP zone is not griefing, it's part of the zone. PvPing to compete over rare resources is not griefing. Killing a player who insulted you, kill stealed, etc from you, is not griefing.'
You don't seem to even get the context of their argument. They seemed to agree on the point you nitpicked just fine, it was a matter of accounting for 'griefing' versus 'ganking'.
Honestly, you just agreed with Ceridith as much as you agreed with Paradigm based on your opinion.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Actually I didn't agree. The statement 'pvp'ing in a pvp zone' is meaningless since pvp by definition can only take place in a pvp zone. I mean if you're in a non-pvp zone, how can their be pvp. I'm saying there is a huge difference between getting ganked and getting griefed.
I think gankers are great for incentive. They make me not want to play a game and instead try something new. They show developers how a few people can ruin things for the majority.
Gankers have no real sense of how to PvP, thats why they are gankers. If they could hold their own in a fair fight they'd just be that tough guy from the other side.
I myself enjoy PvP, but I have no interest in open world PvP. Aion and the Aion playerbase ruined that. It started off like a decent working system when everyone was new to the game. There wasn't any twinks, and it was just good all out fun. Some opponents would come through a rift and some players would go fend them off. As time progressed though, the players that have nothing but free time are extremely outgeared compared to the casual player who just can't invest that much time. So then the fights become very one sided and gradually it turns into nothing but a gankfest. So people start complaining that they wish there was a PvE server, and everybody tells them that they should have bought a different game and then the population starts to drop significantly. Now the gankers are killing the same people, again and again because there isn't enough population to spread the ganking out. Now more people are quitting because it's just stupid, or people are hanging out in the non-PvP zones to safely level their characters. Not a great PvPvE game when everybody hides because it's too much of a pain to play in the contested areas meaning that anyone who does play in a contested area is very much alone with the gankers.
PvP is definately a thrill, and I love taking part in any battlegrounds, minigames, W vs W, RvR, duel or structured PvP match. I both commend and thank every teammate and opponent I've had. Goodmatch!
As for the gankers, goodbye and good riddance.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
Suicide bombing in high-sec space?
Training mobs to kill other players?
You've never seen people do things in PvE that directly affected your ability to play the game, by killing you?
And by what you just said Paradigm, you actually are doing exactly what I said you were doing. You agree with the context in which the actions take place, but you don't agree with the words being used interchangeably within the given context.
Hence me saying ' it was a matter of accounting for 'griefing' versus 'ganking''.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
While I found For the Horde and For the Alliance runs incredibly fun when I played WoW, I didn't find ganking lowbies even remotely enjoyable. I did give it a good half hour try one day, since I had quite a bit of anger built up over getting ganked repeatedly in STV by various lvl 80s when I was questing as a wee little lowbie. But 'getting revenge' didn't make me feel even slightly better. By the end of that half hour I felt like a puppy-kicking bully. So I always left their lowbies in peace unless lowbies from my faction needed my help.
I see random gankers as nothing more than wretchedly bored losers with gimp characters and nothing better to do with their time, since no one would want them in their dungeon group, raid, battleground, or arena anyway.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Oh come on...
It was fun killing little low level things.
When i was a young lad I used to dream of beating up midgets.
Seriously.
And when i joined WoW and played on the Horde side that dream became a reality.
Those god damn gnomes die so funny I could not help but just kill one after the other all day long.
Midget slaying at its finest.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Well forced PVP is why most of my guild bailed on aion. We were all for pvp but when we reached 35+ we were constantly getting ganked by higher levels in heron. I got ganked 7 times repeatedly by a level 50 sorc and sin. I had no chance as a cleric, no other players were around or would help so no choice but to log out that toon. Happened just about everyday I got to level 39 then the really bad xp curved and ganking making kill time longer and unproductive, I had to go liek teh rest of my guild. Forced PVP is ganking and its usually 1 sided. Folks try to make others interested in teh fight buy if they dont want it you just see them leave. I wonder how long aion will be online?
GRIND DOES NOT EQUAL MAKING A GAME CHALLENGING!! YES I AM YELLING LOL
It seems most of the players who practice this are very young either in age or emotion or both. It is why I stopped playing internet games where this is possible. Part of the problem is the F2P model. I played Bounty bay Online for two years when it was a subscription model. There was only one anal orifice who had a much better ship than mine and harassed me at sea. I lured him into an online fight, killed him eight times, won his favorite weapon and tossed it into the sea., then spent 24 hours real time in Jail. He stopped bothering me. Other than that on person the game was a lot of fun until they changed to a F2P model and the Kiddie Klown Klub arrived. They had no financial investment in the game, or seemingly no interest in meeting its objectives. All they wanted to do is make life miserable for the adults. I put up with them for almost a year before quitting. I play for fun and enjoyment and when that stopped I quit.
Look, Ganking is sometimes fun, sometimes only, i am not a Ganker, but usually when i am really really bored, and when a low level chracter pass by me, i would use a frost Skill on them and they die, well after that i would just leave them alone
I love PvP, but mostly a competitive one, like in Battleground, or the Arena, but yeah, Ganking is not my thing, out of 5 years of playing WoW, i could count how many i gank before, but i have been also ganked countless of times, that i cannot count how many
so conclusion is, Ganking is just for the fun side killing only 1 or 2, not to farm them ( at least for me )
So What Now?
There was a lot about Darkfall that I once liked despite the grind and lack of content, but my most recent foray into the game changed my opinion. I played for a few hours a couple days a week, and on the second day, I encountered a red close to the starter town, but I ran back to the city before he could attack me. The next day I ran around the same area and was killed then teabagged. About 20 minutes later, I was killed yet again. The next day I logged in and traveled to the same area. Within minutes, I was ganked yet again, and this time, the player stole my meager allowance of 300g, my chain armor, and all my non-banked melee weapons. Today, I logged in and got some leather armor out of my bank and proceeded to kill some more goblins. Within minutes of arriving at my location, I was ganked yet again.
Didn't make me feel like I was free in the least. Made me feel like I was playing Modern Warfare 2.
When I mention a PvP zone, I mean a zone in which the main purpose of players being in the zone is to compete over some form of objective or resource.
This does not necessarily encompass all areas in which PvP can occur between players.
A game or server with a FFA ruleset is not necessarily an explicit server wide "PvP zone" for lack of better terms. A FFA ruleset is meant to allow players the opportunity to attack other players, and is not necessarily an encouragement to do so indiscriminately. That is the major misconception a lot of the 'ganker' PvPer make, that just because they can do something, that they are fully entitled and by no means in the wrong for perpetrating such actions.
Take Ultima Online for example. It was a FFA ruleset in part as a social experiment to see if players would 'play nicely' together. Needless to say, a number of players failed, enough to prompt the developers to introduce a PvE ruleset to all servers. It was hardly shocking that after this happened, 90+% of players quickly flocked out of the old FFA PvP land and into the new PvE land. Simply put, players were sick of being 'content' for the minority of abusive players. It's not necessarily that they had a problem with PvP or the FFA ruleset itself, but rather they had issue with the fringe minority of players who made playing the game miserable for everyone else from their, here's the magical term, indescriminate ganking.
So yes, ganking is actually an extremely negative contribution to any MMO. Sure, your fringe gaming population may like to gank, or have the possibility of being ganked or fighting back, but it's obvious that the majority of MMO gamers simply decry it. Why else do you think that MMOs that have explicit FFA rulesets throughout the game, end up being nothing more than footnote MMOs with niche player bases?
Ganking is horrible. I don't play MMO to be the playdoll of angsty teenagers who want to work out their anger on the first person they see.
PVE all the way.
For crying in a bucket.... PVE babies ........
I play Aion on spatalos EU and i hav been LVL ganked, Group ganked, invisible ranger ganked, ganked on the ground, ganked in the air , ganked in the abyss, and zerged hundreds of times. I hav been ganked going through rifts by campers. Ganked by groups of monster twinks rifting in packs.
what did i do. Did i scream and run away from it like a little girl? A few times, yes! Did i cry and sub on a fluffy wow pve server just so that i can kill my silly boars and go about making my westfall stew. NO. Never pve again as long as i live. I hate PVE. PVE is just a way to get to PVP.
So what did i do ? I made a new class ; Got PVP gear, and kicked the PVE fluff out of anyone that dared attack me. Its the best experience i have ever had.
PVE is unrealistic. PVP is the feeling you get when you and about 200 of your fellow asmodians lift off from hellfire artifact and fly down into the divine tower to slay the ellies hundreds at a time like sauron did in the opening scene of the LOTR I.
Its almost as sweet as cutting cheese.