Problem with that is that it adds no realism. Current MMO players need a little taste of realism. If you're going to go wandering off into the woods and can't hold your own - or bring a squad, you better be ready to pay in some way for your indecision.
I also hope the game stays true to it's vision, there is truckloads more than enough PVE games out there at the moment and many more on the way. This one seems to be for the PVPrs, and we should get a game every once in a while to be slanted in our playstyle.
PVE servers means that we go through the same tired travels of people racing to endgame and then crying for content repeatedly which takes away of course from PVP content in what seems to be a PVP based game. People in this thread are saying that they are cutting off customer base which is true to a degree but if you look at what is coming out by 2012 I think to go heavily PVE would be counter to their bottom line. The sheer amount of PVE games and content out by the end of 2011 is staggering.
I got tired of reading through the whole thread way earlier, but page one irritated me enough to post.
{mod edit} Read the guiness book of records for first online game with the most players on at once, mmkay? Oh and to specify even furthermore i beleive it was said they had less than 300k subscribed accounts, not individual players..... I had 3 accounts at one time myself, so it had way past that many.
Secondly the addition of trammel did give a safe haven for pvmers, but EVERYTHING you do in trammel has up to half the reward for your work. Less recources from all crafts and half the loot of Feluccia. And WTF is this "Carebears won't play sandbox pvp games". In uo there was penalties for being a pk. And the sytem there made Trammies wanna go kick the crap out of Red's (pkers) and Pvmers would take the time to try and learn pvp.
{mod edit} pvpers just gank easy targets bs. In Wow maybe......... because its faction based on the whole map, and you do less damage and have almost 0 chance to hit a higher level player. In Sandbox games this tends to be less than accurate, shadowbane for instence(we miss this game dearly btw) its not only possible for a level 20 to take out a 75(wich is level cap), but ive seen it plenty. In sandbox games without restrictions, pvp "Hotspots" end up being the main areas for pvp, wich will actually make for less pk's in the barren low traffic areas. Oh and btw the ones who attack easy targets, you can probably kill if youll turn around and fight back
Now I Do however realise this game will have to utilise some of the key factors here but Open world pvp can easily work and pay off for Pvmers, we just need game developers to get it right. 3d UO maybe? Stop copying WoW? The truth is this game has the capabilities to do so and I hope they succeed, you just have to see that it is possible for a pkers dream, and a pvmers dream to be in the same game, and still have excitement and a hint of realism. Heres a UO perk for you to think on, Item insurance maybe?
seeing as it's 'vision'is to offer alternate rule set servers, so do I.
there is truckloads more than enough PVE games out there at the moment and many more on the way.
Really? Trucloads of supported developed AAA open world optional PvP games (which is different then just PvE btw) that offer the features and visuals of Archeage?
Problem with that is that some people feel it adds no realism. I feel current MMO players need a little taste of realism. My opinion is if you're going to go wandering off into the woods and can't hold your own - or bring a squad, you better be ready to pay in some way for your indecision.
If you feel this way you would obviously play on the PvP server.
What you typed actually has nothing to do with offering optional PvP servers, or why not doing so will reduce sales in the west into the niche bracket.
seeing as it's 'vision'is to offer alternate rule set servers, so do I.
there is truckloads more than enough PVE games out there at the moment and many more on the way.
Really? Trucloads of supported developed AAA open world optional PvP games (which is different then just PvE btw) that offer the features and visuals of Archeage?
Could you link me these 'truckloads'?
I get it I get it I really do, you saw the vids went ohhh pretty be a nice PVE game and now are arguing with everyone in this entire thread. Same thing happened with AION and don't worry you will probably get what you want, I would recommend you go to/wait for official forums then you can unleash your QQgazm. You have made your opinion clear no need to argue with everyone in the thread, I for one simply disagree with you plain and simple.
They don't have to give both servers the same abilities or what not...
it is entirely possible to have a pve server tank have one set of abilities unique to that server and a pvp server tank to have a different set.
I've never tried a fully pvp game.. only thing that turns me away is the obvious gankers.. idc if im close in level to somebody say 5 or even 10 levels...
but if a lvl 90 person is farming lvl 20 people it seems to defeat the purpose of pvp to me.. its so far out of balance that its not even a challenge and drives people away too
Maybe if they could limit pvp to a certain level difference unless the lower level player engaged first or entered an area they obviously shouldn't be like enemy controlled areas / cities.
If they don't want that money, they can go ahead and cater to the crowd that whines when there are players in the game they can't gank.
Is this the real fear? That the gankers won't have socialisers/ crafters/ PvEers/ optional PvPers to gankfest and might actually have to fight each other?
It's also about what potential players should know to do by now. For those who don't like the forms of pvp proposed, there is only one option, and that is to not play until a server is provided with a form of pvp they do like.
Indeed.
I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
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.
Let me sum it up in as little of words as possible.
UO Version - Griefers that would often target crafters and fisherman, sometimes people simply going to their houses, to loot their spoils, in which case those Griefers had no real reprocusions (And dont tell me the timed stat regain was a punishment, that didnt stop most reds who would Macro afk in their houses while the timer expired). As far as population goes in the previous arguements, who cares. Fact is, I was playing UO since Alpha, then Beta, then Trammel, etc. And truth be told, when Trammel did come out, Felluca was deserted, even by most those supposed Reds (Who mostly dropped their subscriptions). My Keep was in Death Valley, Fellucca (Before you start aruing about it), and for those that dont know Death Valley, Fellucca (SouthEast of Minoc, West of Vesper, its a valley between two mountain ridges).
AOC - Started out FFA PVP, however no loot loss and all that jazz, it was fun the first 30 minutes, then I found myself inventing ways to torment players in the least griefiest manner possible. (Usually after they killed something, Id let them heal up before attacking them). And dont get be started at all the Spawn Camping that happened (Note: I left before Bounty System came out).
Eve - After my exploits with UO, I really didnt see the point in a spreadsheet based Open World PVP, loot loss game. I have heard they have come along way, and I am glad they are on the market for those spacers that like it.
DAOC - Organized World PVP - This by far, Pre Trials of Atlantis was a great way to do things in my opinion, it had its shortcomings, but you had the choice.
Which finally brings me to my conclusion of my statements and opinions.
If PVE titles can offer PVPers, a PVP server, or PVP lite, or Water Down PVP or whatever other name you want to call it.
Then there is no REASON why we cant support PVEers who want their own server in any title coming out. And XL Games is probably not blind to this. But until any of us hear that its even coming out in the West, all these are mere words.
Note in Close: If given the option to turn on/off loot loss, I promise you, most people would leave it turned "Off", including those greedy Reds (PKers) that always want to shove their agendas down our throats for their enjoyment.
seeing as it's 'vision'is to offer alternate rule set servers, so do I.
there is truckloads more than enough PVE games out there at the moment and many more on the way.
Really? Trucloads of supported developed AAA open world optional PvP games (which is different then just PvE btw) that offer the features and visuals of Archeage?
Could you link me these 'truckloads'?
I get it I get it I really do, you saw the vids went ohhh pretty be a nice PVE game and now are arguing with everyone in this entire thread.
All except those that can understand what the OP is actually about.
And even going with your obvious misunderstanding of it all, there are plenty of folks in this that agree with and support alternate server rules sets, but nice try attempting to make it seem like it's me vs the world
And I have to say, tbh, if you consider this 'arguing' you have led a very sheltered life.
Same thing happened with AION and don't worry you will probably get what you want
This is another thing you don't get.
If Aion had launched with alternate optional PvP servers (only allowed in the Abyss) IMO it would have players numbering in the millions in the West now, and the PvPers in that game would still have their open world ez mode 24/7 gankfests on their own servers. This is the point at the core of OP.
Clever supporters of the open world PvP game should be arguing FOR alternate servers, because that is the model that preserves the type of game they are looking for for them, but clever is a rarer quality then you would credit apparently.
I would recommend you go to/wait for official forums then you can unleash your QQgazm
Nice to end with a pointless insult. And don't worry, I am sure we will be having the conversation there as well.
and, btw...
is that a no with regards to those examples of the 'truckloads' you are talking about then?
If they don't want that money, they can go ahead and cater to the crowd that whines when there are players in the game they can't gank.
Is this the real fear? That the gankers won't have socialisers/ crafters/ PvEers/ optional PvPers to gankfest and might actually have to fight each other?
It's also about what potential players should know to do by now. For those who don't like the forms of pvp proposed, there is only one option, and that is to not play until a server is provided with a form of pvp they do like.
Indeed.
I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
There must be some reason for the fear that we have seen here of the PvEers and optional PvPers going on to another server.
There is no reason not to offer a more PvE friendly server type. None.
Aion would have been much more popular if NCSoft West had listened to testers and offered a server type where you were only automatically flagged for pvP in the Abyss (Aion's primary PvP area).
The OP's request is completely reasonable, as are his assumptions that the game would do much better financially if they offered the alternative server type.
It would have zero negative impact on more PvP oriented folks who would play on the PvP servers. In fact, it's better for them, because when these games stick to only one server type, they almost always start to make compromises to the way PvP works, in order to try to broaden appeal. (Once again, see Aion).
Much better to have PvP servers uninfluenced by "carebear" concerns and PvE servers where "care bears" can enjoy all the rest the game has to offer, with out concerns of PvP ganking and griefing.
How about we all quit trying to change games and play what the Developers release?
If they release diffrent rulesets ... so be it. If its all the same ruleset with pvp, so be it. If there are safe zones ... you get the idea.
If the game doesn't cater to what YOU want in it, it might just not be the game for YOU.
Amazing how simple it is.
How about you let people talk about games on a... gaming forum?
because thats all that is happening here.
I have no idea why that offends you so, it all seems pretty normal to me.
Look, maybe go back an reread the OP, because it is just an obvious starter to a conversation about how being 100% open world gank PvP will reduce AA's sales in the West. Nothing more, nothing less.
How about we all quit trying to change games and play what the Developers release?
If they release diffrent rulesets ... so be it. If its all the same ruleset with pvp, so be it. If there are safe zones ... you get the idea.
If the game doesn't cater to what YOU want in it, it might just not be the game for YOU.
Amazing how simple it is.
How about you let people talk about games on a... gaming forum?
because thats all that is happening here.
I have no idea why that offends you so, it all seems pretty normal to me.
Look, maybe go back an reread the OP, because it is just an obvious starter to a conversation about how being 100% open world gank PvP will reduce AA's sales in the West. Nothing more, nothing less.
Did I get under your skin this lovely Saturday morning?
That certainly wasn't my intention , nor does conversation on a game offend me. I stand by my post ... gamers need to stop attempting to make every game suit their needs, take a game for what it is. The conversation is expressly geared towards shifting a games assumed direction to support the Ops(which is you) tastes.
Again ... if a game doesn't cater to what YOU want , its probably not the game for you and conversation, polls, petitions, and ranting to shift it towards your tastes is a mistake.
Talking about a game is required and necessary. What the developers needs isn't that this game sucks if it doesn't have "A" or it will fail because of "B"
they need ideas, there are millions of gamers, if each one of us gives them an outside of the box idea instead of insults and telling them that its gonna fail without reason or ideas to change it to back up our claims. Thats when its just QQing without any benefits.
Giving ideas that sound fun, but might not work is good because, with all the minds of gamers, that first idea might not work, but eventually after all the changes made by other gamers, your idea might become an reality that an developer picked up and say Oh, why didn't i think of that. Thats when you have finally succeeded and now all you have to do is wait for that new game to come out so you can play it.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Talking about a game is required and necessary. What the developers needs isn't that this game sucks if it doesn't have "A" or it will fail because of "B"
they need ideas, there are millions of gamers, if each one of us gives them an outside of the box idea instead of insults and telling them that its gonna fail without reason or ideas to change it to back up our claims. Thats when its just QQing without any benefits.
Giving ideas that sound fun, but might not work is good because, with all the minds of gamers, that first idea might not work, but eventually after all the changes made by other gamers, your idea might become an reality that an developer picked up and say Oh, why didn't i think of that. Thats when you have finally succeeded and now all you have to do is wait for that new game to come out so you can play it.
Giving a developer ideas is how its supposed to be done, likewise giving feedback on things is also a benificial tool. There is a very fine line between adding to a game , and taking away from it. When your idea conflicts with a core design direction of a game .. its chiefly not worth pushing for. At that point I back away ... if I have an issue with a peice of the core design, perhaps that game is not for me. Perhaps its designed for people who enjoy that design principle... and my efforts to change that design would negatively impact their enjoyment of the title. It's taken a handful of Mmo gaming years to figure out that changing a game to suit my own tastes is detrimental to the overall game for those enjoying it.
How about we all quit trying to change games and play what the Developers release?
If they release diffrent rulesets ... so be it. If its all the same ruleset with pvp, so be it. If there are safe zones ... you get the idea.
If the game doesn't cater to what YOU want in it, it might just not be the game for YOU.
Amazing how simple it is.
How about you let people talk about games on a... gaming forum?
because thats all that is happening here.
I have no idea why that offends you so, it all seems pretty normal to me.
Look, maybe go back an reread the OP, because it is just an obvious starter to a conversation about how being 100% open world gank PvP will reduce AA's sales in the West. Nothing more, nothing less.
Did I get under your skin this lovely Saturday morning?
lol no... why think that? I havent written in anger or ranted. I will take this as just another intention to flame me and derail the thread and throw it away if thats ok.
gamers need to stop attempting to make every game suit their needs, take a game for what it is. The conversation is expressly geared towards shifting a games assumed direction to support the Ops tastes.
You seem to hate people talking about games in a gaming forum.
Look, if its ok I will just stick you on ignore now.
You add nothing except flames, and tbh thats not what I am here for.
How about we all quit trying to change games and play what the Developers release?
If they release diffrent rulesets ... so be it. If its all the same ruleset with pvp, so be it. If there are safe zones ... you get the idea.
If the game doesn't cater to what YOU want in it, it might just not be the game for YOU.
Amazing how simple it is.
How about you let people talk about games on a... gaming forum?
because thats all that is happening here.
I have no idea why that offends you so, it all seems pretty normal to me.
Look, maybe go back an reread the OP, because it is just an obvious starter to a conversation about how being 100% open world gank PvP will reduce AA's sales in the West. Nothing more, nothing less.
Did I get under your skin this lovely Saturday morning?
lol no... why think that? I havent written in anger or ranted. I will take this as just another intention to flame me and derail the thread and throw it away if thats ok.
gamers need to stop attempting to make every game suit their needs, take a game for what it is. The conversation is expressly geared towards shifting a games assumed direction to support the Ops tastes.
You seem to hate people talking about games in a gaming forum.
Look, if its ok I will just stick you on ignore now.
You add nothing except flames, and tbh thats not what I am here for.
I haven't flamed or derailed you in the least.
Its your choice to place me on ignore, its a shame me not agreeing with your intentions to shift the design principles of the game upsets you though. There was room for discussion on why you felt the game should cater to your tastes.
I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk.
The reason PvPer's may not want alternate servers is because it's messes with how the developers designed the game.
Separate the servers and you may very well have 2 diferent games, twice as much complaining, and half as much content for both sides.
It's obvious the game was designed around player inteactions, such as trade, crafting, PvP and PvE. Cutting out a part of their game is foolish and could lead the game into an unintended direction. How would ship battles work on a PvE server? Ship duels? Lol..
If a dev team is determined to release the game that fits their vision, even if it costs them some profit, I fully suport that. As long as the dev team is up front about their vision for their game. CCP is a great example of being up front. You know that almost all forms of griefing and skulduggery are allowed, if you've done even the slightest bit of research before you started the free trial. If you didn't know, you'll find out soon enough just by reading in game channels. Better yet, browse the forum.
Xsyon's main dev has communicated constantly with the player base, and he listens to the community too, but he never intended for Prelude (the game's current phase) to have no safe areas, and despite the pressure from some beta pvpers, the game did not launch without safe zones. On the other hand, room was made for solo players early on in the beta (before I bought the game), and that was not at first part of the devs' vision. As a solo player, I wouldn't be subbed if that change hadn't happened, and that would be fine, too, again, as long as it's clear to players after a minimal amount of research that this is the case. Changes were even made right before launch to ensure that solo players would have a place in the game world despite a larger-than-expected starting playerbase.
ArcheAge needs to be brutally honest about it's pvp rulesets, otherwise, it will seem as though they are luring in both the pvp and the pve crowd for launch and maybe for the early levels, with every intention of mostly catering to the forced pvp crowd for the vast majority of the game.
If there won't be pve servers, people need to know what they're getting into from the start, and that information needs to be readily available. Prominently linked from page one of their website and written in a way that will warn off the pve crowd before they buy. That would be the professional way to do it. And the smart way. Angry customers tend to hold grudges, especially MMO customers!
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.
I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk.
The reason PvPer's may not want alternate servers is because it's messes with how the developers designed the game.
Separate the servers and you may very well have 2 diferent games, twice as much complaining, and half as much content for both sides.
It's obvious the game was designed around player inteactions, such as trade, crafting, PvP and PvE. Cutting out a part of their game is foolish and could lead the game into an unintended direction. How would ship battles work on a PvE server? Ship duels? Lol..
Well, heres a radical idea... they could just make certain distance around the controlled continents shores as safe water, and have the rest as 'international' waters where ship PvP is fully enabled. Even almost like RL in fact, if you think about it.
But see? It's easy to solve issues. What others do you forsee in simply turning off PvP on the controlled continents? lets see if we can solve them as well.
I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk.
The reason PvPer's may not want alternate servers is because it's messes with how the developers designed the game.
Those two sentances are fun. So for the second one, does ruleset mess it up for the pvpers because they can't attack the players who don't want to pvp with them? If not, then it doesn't matter. If so, then doesn't that kind of make the first sentance true? pvpers don't need sheep to kill now do they?
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk.
The reason PvPer's may not want alternate servers is because it's messes with how the developers designed the game.
Those two sentances are fun. So for the second one, does ruleset mess it up for the pvpers because they can't attack the players who don't want to pvp with them? If not, then it doesn't matter. If so, then doesn't that kind of make the first sentance true? pvpers don't need sheep to kill now do they?
Fun stuff eh?
You are also labelling PvPer's as griefers, when the majority are not. PvPer's usually fight with other PvPer's.
The next two sentences also helped explain myself as well, but you cut them out.
I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk.
The reason PvPer's may not want alternate servers is because it's messes with how the developers designed the game.
Separate the servers and you may very well have 2 diferent games, twice as much complaining, and half as much content for both sides.
It's obvious the game was designed around player inteactions, such as trade, crafting, PvP and PvE. Cutting out a part of their game is foolish and could lead the game into an unintended direction. How would ship battles work on a PvE server? Ship duels? Lol..
Well, heres a radical idea... they could just make certain distance around the controlled continents shores as safe water, and have the rest as 'international' waters where ship PvP is fully enabled. Even almost like RL in fact, if you think about it.
But see? Easy to solve issues. What others do you forsee in simply turning off PvP on the controlled continents? lets see if we can solve them as well.
"they could just", yep JUST make changes to their game and cater to you your magical wonderland of a server. I'm sure they could buddy, I'm sure they could. Do you really think it is just that easy?
Comments
Hahaha. You are funny.
I also hope the game stays true to it's vision, there is truckloads more than enough PVE games out there at the moment and many more on the way. This one seems to be for the PVPrs, and we should get a game every once in a while to be slanted in our playstyle.
PVE servers means that we go through the same tired travels of people racing to endgame and then crying for content repeatedly which takes away of course from PVP content in what seems to be a PVP based game. People in this thread are saying that they are cutting off customer base which is true to a degree but if you look at what is coming out by 2012 I think to go heavily PVE would be counter to their bottom line. The sheer amount of PVE games and content out by the end of 2011 is staggering.
I got tired of reading through the whole thread way earlier, but page one irritated me enough to post.
{mod edit} Read the guiness book of records for first online game with the most players on at once, mmkay? Oh and to specify even furthermore i beleive it was said they had less than 300k subscribed accounts, not individual players..... I had 3 accounts at one time myself, so it had way past that many.
Secondly the addition of trammel did give a safe haven for pvmers, but EVERYTHING you do in trammel has up to half the reward for your work. Less recources from all crafts and half the loot of Feluccia. And WTF is this "Carebears won't play sandbox pvp games". In uo there was penalties for being a pk. And the sytem there made Trammies wanna go kick the crap out of Red's (pkers) and Pvmers would take the time to try and learn pvp.
{mod edit} pvpers just gank easy targets bs. In Wow maybe......... because its faction based on the whole map, and you do less damage and have almost 0 chance to hit a higher level player. In Sandbox games this tends to be less than accurate, shadowbane for instence(we miss this game dearly btw) its not only possible for a level 20 to take out a 75(wich is level cap), but ive seen it plenty. In sandbox games without restrictions, pvp "Hotspots" end up being the main areas for pvp, wich will actually make for less pk's in the barren low traffic areas. Oh and btw the ones who attack easy targets, you can probably kill if youll turn around and fight back
Now I Do however realise this game will have to utilise some of the key factors here but Open world pvp can easily work and pay off for Pvmers, we just need game developers to get it right. 3d UO maybe? Stop copying WoW? The truth is this game has the capabilities to do so and I hope they succeed, you just have to see that it is possible for a pkers dream, and a pvmers dream to be in the same game, and still have excitement and a hint of realism. Heres a UO perk for you to think on, Item insurance maybe?
If you feel this way you would obviously play on the PvP server.
What you typed actually has nothing to do with offering optional PvP servers, or why not doing so will reduce sales in the west into the niche bracket.
Also, fixed your post.
I get it I get it I really do, you saw the vids went ohhh pretty be a nice PVE game and now are arguing with everyone in this entire thread. Same thing happened with AION and don't worry you will probably get what you want, I would recommend you go to/wait for official forums then you can unleash your QQgazm. You have made your opinion clear no need to argue with everyone in the thread, I for one simply disagree with you plain and simple.
I don't see the problem with two servers
They don't have to give both servers the same abilities or what not...
it is entirely possible to have a pve server tank have one set of abilities unique to that server and a pvp server tank to have a different set.
I've never tried a fully pvp game.. only thing that turns me away is the obvious gankers.. idc if im close in level to somebody say 5 or even 10 levels...
but if a lvl 90 person is farming lvl 20 people it seems to defeat the purpose of pvp to me.. its so far out of balance that its not even a challenge and drives people away too
Maybe if they could limit pvp to a certain level difference unless the lower level player engaged first or entered an area they obviously shouldn't be like enemy controlled areas / cities.
I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
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
FFA Open World PVP.
Let me sum it up in as little of words as possible.
UO Version - Griefers that would often target crafters and fisherman, sometimes people simply going to their houses, to loot their spoils, in which case those Griefers had no real reprocusions (And dont tell me the timed stat regain was a punishment, that didnt stop most reds who would Macro afk in their houses while the timer expired). As far as population goes in the previous arguements, who cares. Fact is, I was playing UO since Alpha, then Beta, then Trammel, etc. And truth be told, when Trammel did come out, Felluca was deserted, even by most those supposed Reds (Who mostly dropped their subscriptions). My Keep was in Death Valley, Fellucca (Before you start aruing about it), and for those that dont know Death Valley, Fellucca (SouthEast of Minoc, West of Vesper, its a valley between two mountain ridges).
AOC - Started out FFA PVP, however no loot loss and all that jazz, it was fun the first 30 minutes, then I found myself inventing ways to torment players in the least griefiest manner possible. (Usually after they killed something, Id let them heal up before attacking them). And dont get be started at all the Spawn Camping that happened (Note: I left before Bounty System came out).
Eve - After my exploits with UO, I really didnt see the point in a spreadsheet based Open World PVP, loot loss game. I have heard they have come along way, and I am glad they are on the market for those spacers that like it.
DAOC - Organized World PVP - This by far, Pre Trials of Atlantis was a great way to do things in my opinion, it had its shortcomings, but you had the choice.
Which finally brings me to my conclusion of my statements and opinions.
If PVE titles can offer PVPers, a PVP server, or PVP lite, or Water Down PVP or whatever other name you want to call it.
Then there is no REASON why we cant support PVEers who want their own server in any title coming out. And XL Games is probably not blind to this. But until any of us hear that its even coming out in the West, all these are mere words.
Note in Close: If given the option to turn on/off loot loss, I promise you, most people would leave it turned "Off", including those greedy Reds (PKers) that always want to shove their agendas down our throats for their enjoyment.
and, btw...
is that a no with regards to those examples of the 'truckloads' you are talking about then?
There must be some reason for the fear that we have seen here of the PvEers and optional PvPers going on to another server.
It'sa mentality i don't understand personally.
How about we all quit trying to change games and play what the Developers release?
If they release diffrent rulesets ... so be it. If its all the same ruleset with pvp, so be it. If there are safe zones ... you get the idea.
If the game doesn't cater to what YOU want in it, it might just not be the game for YOU.
Amazing how simple it is.
There is no reason not to offer a more PvE friendly server type. None.
Aion would have been much more popular if NCSoft West had listened to testers and offered a server type where you were only automatically flagged for pvP in the Abyss (Aion's primary PvP area).
The OP's request is completely reasonable, as are his assumptions that the game would do much better financially if they offered the alternative server type.
It would have zero negative impact on more PvP oriented folks who would play on the PvP servers. In fact, it's better for them, because when these games stick to only one server type, they almost always start to make compromises to the way PvP works, in order to try to broaden appeal. (Once again, see Aion).
Much better to have PvP servers uninfluenced by "carebear" concerns and PvE servers where "care bears" can enjoy all the rest the game has to offer, with out concerns of PvP ganking and griefing.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
How about you let people talk about games on a... gaming forum?
because thats all that is happening here.
I have no idea why that offends you so, it all seems pretty normal to me.
Look, maybe go back an reread the OP, because it is just an obvious starter to a conversation about how being 100% open world gank PvP will reduce AA's sales in the West. Nothing more, nothing less.
Did I get under your skin this lovely Saturday morning?
That certainly wasn't my intention , nor does conversation on a game offend me. I stand by my post ... gamers need to stop attempting to make every game suit their needs, take a game for what it is. The conversation is expressly geared towards shifting a games assumed direction to support the Ops(which is you) tastes.
Again ... if a game doesn't cater to what YOU want , its probably not the game for you and conversation, polls, petitions, and ranting to shift it towards your tastes is a mistake.
Talking about a game is required and necessary. What the developers needs isn't that this game sucks if it doesn't have "A" or it will fail because of "B"
they need ideas, there are millions of gamers, if each one of us gives them an outside of the box idea instead of insults and telling them that its gonna fail without reason or ideas to change it to back up our claims. Thats when its just QQing without any benefits.
Giving ideas that sound fun, but might not work is good because, with all the minds of gamers, that first idea might not work, but eventually after all the changes made by other gamers, your idea might become an reality that an developer picked up and say Oh, why didn't i think of that. Thats when you have finally succeeded and now all you have to do is wait for that new game to come out so you can play it.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Giving a developer ideas is how its supposed to be done, likewise giving feedback on things is also a benificial tool. There is a very fine line between adding to a game , and taking away from it. When your idea conflicts with a core design direction of a game .. its chiefly not worth pushing for. At that point I back away ... if I have an issue with a peice of the core design, perhaps that game is not for me. Perhaps its designed for people who enjoy that design principle... and my efforts to change that design would negatively impact their enjoyment of the title. It's taken a handful of Mmo gaming years to figure out that changing a game to suit my own tastes is detrimental to the overall game for those enjoying it.
Look, if its ok I will just stick you on ignore now.
You add nothing except flames, and tbh thats not what I am here for.
I haven't flamed or derailed you in the least.
Its your choice to place me on ignore, its a shame me not agreeing with your intentions to shift the design principles of the game upsets you though. There was room for discussion on why you felt the game should cater to your tastes.
A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk.
The reason PvPer's may not want alternate servers is because it's messes with how the developers designed the game.
Separate the servers and you may very well have 2 diferent games, twice as much complaining, and half as much content for both sides.
It's obvious the game was designed around player inteactions, such as trade, crafting, PvP and PvE. Cutting out a part of their game is foolish and could lead the game into an unintended direction. How would ship battles work on a PvE server? Ship duels? Lol..
If a dev team is determined to release the game that fits their vision, even if it costs them some profit, I fully suport that. As long as the dev team is up front about their vision for their game. CCP is a great example of being up front. You know that almost all forms of griefing and skulduggery are allowed, if you've done even the slightest bit of research before you started the free trial. If you didn't know, you'll find out soon enough just by reading in game channels. Better yet, browse the forum.
Xsyon's main dev has communicated constantly with the player base, and he listens to the community too, but he never intended for Prelude (the game's current phase) to have no safe areas, and despite the pressure from some beta pvpers, the game did not launch without safe zones. On the other hand, room was made for solo players early on in the beta (before I bought the game), and that was not at first part of the devs' vision. As a solo player, I wouldn't be subbed if that change hadn't happened, and that would be fine, too, again, as long as it's clear to players after a minimal amount of research that this is the case. Changes were even made right before launch to ensure that solo players would have a place in the game world despite a larger-than-expected starting playerbase.
ArcheAge needs to be brutally honest about it's pvp rulesets, otherwise, it will seem as though they are luring in both the pvp and the pve crowd for launch and maybe for the early levels, with every intention of mostly catering to the forced pvp crowd for the vast majority of the game.
If there won't be pve servers, people need to know what they're getting into from the start, and that information needs to be readily available. Prominently linked from page one of their website and written in a way that will warn off the pve crowd before they buy. That would be the professional way to do it. And the smart way. Angry customers tend to hold grudges, especially MMO customers!
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
Well, heres a radical idea... they could just make certain distance around the controlled continents shores as safe water, and have the rest as 'international' waters where ship PvP is fully enabled. Even almost like RL in fact, if you think about it.
But see? It's easy to solve issues. What others do you forsee in simply turning off PvP on the controlled continents? lets see if we can solve them as well.
Those two sentances are fun. So for the second one, does ruleset mess it up for the pvpers because they can't attack the players who don't want to pvp with them? If not, then it doesn't matter. If so, then doesn't that kind of make the first sentance true? pvpers don't need sheep to kill now do they?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Fun stuff eh?
You are also labelling PvPer's as griefers, when the majority are not. PvPer's usually fight with other PvPer's.
The next two sentences also helped explain myself as well, but you cut them out.
"they could just", yep JUST make changes to their game and cater to you your magical wonderland of a server. I'm sure they could buddy, I'm sure they could. Do you really think it is just that easy?