Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
But that's a moot point as "only players who want open world ffa pvp should be playing open world ffa pvp games".
There isn't any ruining of anyone's game play when everyone who logs in should be on board. The issue is that players who have no business playing on these types of servers or in these types of games are logging in and expecting special treatment.
However, the part that rings more true is the "tiny playerbase" part.
I don't believe that most of these ffa pvp games would garner a huge population. That should be ok but if developers are thinking they are going to get millions of players wanting to play such a game then they have another "think" coming.
When addressing the "Why restrict players options?" question, you only end up with one of two situations:
Restricted: Players are prevented from ruining each other's fun, and therefore your potential audience is large.
Unrestricted: Players aren't prevented from ruining each other's fun, and therefore the audience is quite small.
The amount of people who mistakenly stumble into the wrong genre is itself moot, because either way you're in Situation #2 if you have unrestricted PVP, which means you have a tiny playerbase.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But that's a moot point as "only players who want open world ffa pvp should be playing open world ffa pvp games".
There isn't any ruining of anyone's game play when everyone who logs in should be on board. The issue is that players who have no business playing on these types of servers or in these types of games are logging in and expecting special treatment.
However, the part that rings more true is the "tiny playerbase" part.
I don't believe that most of these ffa pvp games would garner a huge population. That should be ok but if developers are thinking they are going to get millions of players wanting to play such a game then they have another "think" coming.
When addressing the "Why restrict players options?" question, you only end up with one of two situations:
Restricted: Players are prevented from ruining each other's fun, and therefore your potential audience is large.
Unrestricted: Players aren't prevented from ruining each other's fun, and therefore the audience is quite small.
The amount of people who mistakenly stumble into the wrong genre is itself moot, because either way you're in Situation #2 if you have unrestricted PVP, which means you have a tiny playerbase.
The only reasn why that would be bad is if the "tiny playerbase" couldn't support the game.
But where that line is drawn is uncertain. EVE brings in a die hard playerbase and the game continues. Heck, even DAoC still has a following.
The one thing that I'm sure of is that most games have a following. It's the balancing of that following to how much money the game needs to bring in that is the trick.
It should be ok for a game or any type of media, to have a small following provided that the creators were realistic when making the game in conjuntion with the audience they were expecting.
Most of the things that I tend to like are NOT mainstream. Because of this they have small audiences but they can survive. Of course, I can turn to a mainstream bit of entertainment but I know enough not to criticize expecting something great because the more people that need to be entertained the more whitewashed the final prodcut is going to be.
There's some great stuff out there but it's not mainsteam and does have a small audience. That's just the way of it. It's reality and it has been going on a lot longer than video games.
If we are to say that everythign needs to be made to gather as large an audience as possible then we cut off a lot of experimentation, a lot of things that are different.
I'd rather have the experimentation, the different. So again, as long as game developers can build and develop a game that works and has an audience then "good".
Of course, in some ways we are talking in the abstract. What are the most successful ffa pvp games? I suppose EVE is right up there and possibly L2. Not juggernauts as far as population but they both have found ways to continue.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
But that's a moot point as "only players who want open world ffa pvp should be playing open world ffa pvp games".
There isn't any ruining of anyone's game play when everyone who logs in should be on board. The issue is that players who have no business playing on these types of servers or in these types of games are logging in and expecting special treatment.
However, the part that rings more true is the "tiny playerbase" part.
I don't believe that most of these ffa pvp games would garner a huge population. That should be ok but if developers are thinking they are going to get millions of players wanting to play such a game then they have another "think" coming.
When addressing the "Why restrict players options?" question, you only end up with one of two situations:
Restricted: Players are prevented from ruining each other's fun, and therefore your potential audience is large.
Unrestricted: Players aren't prevented from ruining each other's fun, and therefore the audience is quite small.
The amount of people who mistakenly stumble into the wrong genre is itself moot, because either way you're in Situation #2 if you have unrestricted PVP, which means you have a tiny playerbase.
What if
3. self governed: players have the tools to determine what type of pvp they want to have. PVE (lambs) players by sheer numbers alone would hold the player killing and ganking to a minimum better than any coded rules other than removal. They would do so out of pure gaming bliss. It would also give opportuniy for dynamic content.
Ive only seen it happen once in a game that i used to play. It was like crack to the casuals.
The only reasn why that would be bad is if the "tiny playerbase" couldn't support the game.
But where that line is drawn is uncertain. EVE brings in a die hard playerbase and the game continues. Heck, even DAoC still has a following.
The one thing that I'm sure of is that most games have a following. It's the balancing of that following to how much money the game needs to bring in that is the trick.
It should be ok for a game or any type of media, to have a small following provided that the creators were realistic when making the game in conjuntion with the audience they were expecting.
Most of the things that I tend to like are NOT mainstream. Because of this they have small audiences but they can survive. Of course, I can turn to a mainstream bit of entertainment but I know enough not to criticize expecting something great because the more people that need to be entertained the more whitewashed the final prodcut is going to be.
There's some great stuff out there but it's not mainsteam and does have a small audience. That's just the way of it. It's reality and it has been going on a lot longer than video games.
If we are to say that everythign needs to be made to gather as large an audience as possible then we cut off a lot of experimentation, a lot of things that are different.
I'd rather have the experimentation, the different. So again, as long as game developers can build and develop a game that works and has an audience then "good".
Of course, in some ways we are talking in the abstract. What are the most successful ffa pvp games? I suppose EVE is right up there and possibly L2. Not juggernauts as far as population but they both have found ways to continue.
Sure, and if we're talking about non-MMORPGs or indie-budget MMORPGs or MMORPGs on life support (DAOC) then that's totally correct.
There's only an issue when that niche audience objects to an appropriately-budgeted game being made for them, like Darkfall, implying that they deserve more. Which I guess isn't really a surprise, because I shouldn't expect many people to understand how niche their own tastes are.
To make matters even more complicated, I think that a non-FFA PVP sandbox which focuses on great crafting gameplay actually has a chance in the current market. In fact exactly like Salem, minus the PVP*
(* ...and having looked at recent screenshots, minus 3D too. More and more I'm wishing they'd have stuck with H&H's 2D view, but completely rebuilt the engine and hired a solid artist to lead the visuals. 2D would've also meant that new content was that much easier to implement.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
3. self governed: players have the tools to determine what type of pvp they want to have. PVE (lambs) players by sheer numbers alone would hold the player killing and ganking to a minimum better than any coded rules other than removal. They would do so out of pure gaming bliss. It would also give opportuniy for dynamic content.
Ive only seen it happen once in a game that i used to play. It was like crack to the casuals.
Impossible?
Of course it's possible. PVE vs. PVP Server Rulesets you see on virtually every MMORPG are basically that.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that a server could democratically settle on a better set of rules, for those not interested in bad MMORPG PVP. "You never have to engage in bad PVP ever, unless you want to," is pretty much verbatim what would get my vote.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is actually a great idea, and it would pretty much get rid of ganking sure the higher level may have more skills to use but then it becomes a kill of player skill and not level. It still wouldn't solve the player sitting back and waiting till you are 1/4 life and jumping you but would make things a lot more interesting. Being one of the older gamers that actually played the one of the first MMO's Ultima Online I remember the good old days of PK'ers and losing all your gear you worked for that day.
Originally posted by Sovrath It's the balancing of that following to how much money the game needs to bring in that is the trick.
ATITD, Puzzle Pirates, DAoC, Vendetta Online, EVE Online... pre-WOW devs had a handle on that.
After WOW, it seems that devs forgot that part of the math.
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
The best PVP I've ever had was in SWG. I just don't understand why any developer has never tried to make anything similar to that. It was real great IMO.
EVE also has a great PVP system that could be used as basis for other games.
Instanced PVP, arena, etc, for me sucks badly. Fun sometimes yes but it's very limited.
3. self governed: players have the tools to determine what type of pvp they want to have. PVE (lambs) players by sheer numbers alone would hold the player killing and ganking to a minimum better than any coded rules other than removal. They would do so out of pure gaming bliss. It would also give opportuniy for dynamic content.
Ive only seen it happen once in a game that i used to play. It was like crack to the casuals.
Impossible?
Of course it's possible. PVE vs. PVP Server Rulesets you see on virtually every MMORPG are basically that.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that a server could democratically settle on a better set of rules, for those not interested in bad MMORPG PVP. "You never have to engage in bad PVP ever, unless you want to," is pretty much verbatim what would get my vote.
See: UO.
Your PVP choices are
Faction
FFA
GvG
None at all
All on the same server. The dual-facet servers were a band-aid fix at the time, but they offer a design that I'm really surprised few have tried even travelling down that road as a feature save for AC's PKLite and RIFT's character/guild transfer system.
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
3. self governed: players have the tools to determine what type of pvp they want to have. PVE (lambs) players by sheer numbers alone would hold the player killing and ganking to a minimum better than any coded rules other than removal. They would do so out of pure gaming bliss. It would also give opportuniy for dynamic content.
Ive only seen it happen once in a game that i used to play. It was like crack to the casuals.
Impossible?
Of course it's possible. PVE vs. PVP Server Rulesets you see on virtually every MMORPG are basically that.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that a server could democratically settle on a better set of rules, for those not interested in bad MMORPG PVP. "You never have to engage in bad PVP ever, unless you want to," is pretty much verbatim what would get my vote.
I was thinking enforcement of the rules would be in game by the barrel of a gun as well. With the right tools once the pve players get that first taste of blood and see how massive their numbers are, any Pk or unwanted pvp seen would become hunted by 10's or 100's of players.
The hatred runs so deep,and the desire to hold onto this new found high, and power, and resposibiily,people who had never pvp'd before dropped whatever they were doing to come gank that sob. They started planning attacks and leading assaults. I've never seen anything like it. 150 v 5 blood baths. Pure gaming bliss.
When games let a minority of their playerbase ruin the fun of the majority, they end up with super tiny playerbases.
But that's a moot point as "only players who want open world ffa pvp should be playing open world ffa pvp games".
There isn't any ruining of anyone's game play when everyone who logs in should be on board. The issue is that players who have no business playing on these types of servers or in these types of games are logging in and expecting special treatment.
Here's a thought, not all games that force pvp on players actually have separate servers, it would be fine if that were the case but it's not sadly and the ones that force pvp do not in any way have enough security forces to create an adequate defense or consequence system.
Also, there's the majority factor, the majority by volume pays the most and shouldn't have to deal with snot nosed virgin basement dwellers revenge complex. It's just not sound business.
Moving on to the next logical fallacy.
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by Disdena
Originally posted by Kyleran
The answer should be obvious:
When games let a minority of their playerbase ruin the fun of the majority, they end up with super tiny playerbases.
It's like EVE doesn't exist.
There's a problem with your post, namely the mechanics of having other players huge guilds that have large economic forces back players up when they play so they basically take on a paid job with benefits, so EVE is not typical.
There's a problem with your post, namely the mechanics of having other players huge guilds that have large economic forces back players up when they play so they basically take on a paid job with benefits, so EVE is not typical.
So it has to be the typical case does it? I can see your reasoning but, well WoW is not typical, especially in regards to subscriber numbers within the genre. Given the retention rate of the rest of the themepark mmorpgs has tended to rubbish, that means themepark, non OWPvP mmorpgs are also all niche, non in demand.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Well EVE does a pretty good job of making it quite possible to avoid this situation in most cases if you learn to fly smart.
Taking your Hulk into Jita is not smart.
A player can avoid getting ganked in DF as noob for the vast, vast majority of the time and certainly reduce the impact on any gank if they play "smart".
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
A player can avoid getting ganked in DF as noob for the vast, vast majority of the time and certainly reduce the impact on any gank if they play "smart".
Replace smart with lucky and I would eventually agree. Very lucky. If someone really wants to camp a noob, the noob will be almost completely stopped of playing the game unless he wants to repeatedly die. That's very bad game design, something EvE did much better.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Well EVE does a pretty good job of making it quite possible to avoid this situation in most cases if you learn to fly smart.
Taking your Hulk into Jita is not smart.
A player can avoid getting ganked in DF as noob for the vast, vast majority of the time and certainly reduce the impact on any gank if they play "smart".
This is true for any FFA pvp game, play smart and live with the rule sets. But sadly most gamers are carebears and dont understand what makes games like "Day Z" so enjoyable.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
A player can avoid getting ganked in DF as noob for the vast, vast majority of the time and certainly reduce the impact on any gank if they play "smart".
Replace smart with lucky and I would eventually agree. Very lucky. If someone really wants to camp a noob, the noob will be almost completely stopped of playing the game unless he wants to repeatedly die. That's very bad game design, something EvE did much better.
If someone wants to camp a noob..
Well they would have to find the noob first. They would then in order to camp him find him at his bind spot, or the noob would have to repeatedly keep going back to the same area for that period of time. It has little to do with luck. Getting caught the odd time out is unlucky, even then you can do things to minimise this happening by utilizing the terrain to give you the vantage point to spot people, whilst remaining in cover etc.
If you are skirting around goblin spawns near noob towns in human lands then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are mooching around selentine chests near noob town without paying attention then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are not going off and exploring (nothing to lose as noob) to find nice little spots out of the way then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are sticking to running along road ways between towns then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are not using the terrain to take advantage of vantage points then you are going to get yourself killed.
If you are mindlessly minding iron ore nodes just out of proxmity of town towers then you are more likely to get yourself killed.
If you are carrying an hours worth of loot on you, you are making trouble for yourself if you get killed.
The problem is some people cba, so they find it a better idea to just moan about being killed in the first place. Or (which happens alot on these boards), we have people who have spent a month or less in FFA OWPvP games who bang on about them from an uninformed position and hypothesise about endless ganking.
EVE offers more protection than DF, but then in order to get repeatedly ganked to such an extent that it is having an impact on your longer term play then you are either exceptionally unlucky (as in don't go outside you are going to get run over son unlucky), or exceptionally bad.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
A player can avoid getting ganked in DF as noob for the vast, vast majority of the time and certainly reduce the impact on any gank if they play "smart".
Replace smart with lucky and I would eventually agree. Very lucky. If someone really wants to camp a noob, the noob will be almost completely stopped of playing the game unless he wants to repeatedly die. That's very bad game design, something EvE did much better.
If someone wants to camp a noob..
Well they would have to find the noob first. They would then in order to camp him find him at his bind spot, or the noob would have to repeatedly keep going back to the same area for that period of time. It has little to do with luck. Getting caught the odd time out is unlucky, even then you can do things to minimise this happening by utilizing the terrain to give you the vantage point to spot people, whilst remaining in cover etc.
If you are skirting around goblin spawns near noob towns in human lands then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are mooching around selentine chests near noob town without paying attention then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are not going off and exploring (nothing to lose as noob) to find nice little spots out of the way then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are sticking to running along road ways between towns then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are not using the terrain to take advantage of vantage points then you are going to get yourself killed.
If you are mindlessly minding iron ore nodes just out of proxmity of town towers then you are more likely to get yourself killed.
If you are carrying an hours worth of loot on you, you are making trouble for yourself if you get killed.
The problem is some people cba, so they find it a better idea to just moan about being killed in the first place. Or (which happens alot on these boards), we have people who have spent a month or less in FFA OWPvP games who bang on about them from an uninformed position and hypothesise about endless ganking.
EVE offers more protection than DF, but then in order to get repeatedly ganked to such an extent that it is having an impact on your longer term play then you are either exceptionally unlucky (as in don't go outside you are going to get run over son unlucky), or exceptionally bad.
Did you play DF at launch? Some people had maxed skills in 2 weeks or less. Then a fix added 2 months. Then another added 2 more. The power gap was so huge and everyone was killing everyone else that a new player would get killed constanly. Yes constantly.
Im not sure how it was their fault. Or what you're trying to say. But DF at launch was a PK fest. And they PK'd non stop.
It settled down after a while, but the elf (myridian or whatever) got hit every 5 - 10 minutes.
It wasnt unlucky. It was for real. The alternative became the blood wall afk for 15 hours a day for a month. And people LOL'd and bailed.
thats why we quit, which was a shame because we were hooked. But to blame the poor nubs for the pk fest that was DF's first weeks as if they could have done anything about it. c'mon . Should they join a city and bitch about seiges non stop instead? Oh the devs helped blah blah blah. Everyone was bitching lol.
Thats why no one plays now. This was the EU server at launch.
Edit:
I Dont know if you were talking about the launch or something else so ignore this if it doesnt apply. to get repeatedly ganked in DF though was easy right after launch.
Did you play DF at launch? Some people had maxed skills in 2 weeks or less. Then a fix added 2 months. Then another added 2 more. The power gap was so huge and everyone was killing everyone else that a new player would get killed constanly. Yes constantly.
Im not sure how it was their fault. Or what you're trying to say. But DF at launch was a PK fest. And they PK'd non stop.
It settled down after a while, but the elf (myridian or whatever) got hit every 5 - 10 minutes.
It wasnt unlucky. It was for real. The alternative became the blood wall afk for 15 hours a day for a month. And people LOL'd and bailed.
thats why we quit, which was a shame because we were hooked. But to blame the poor nubs for the pk fest that was DF's first weeks as if they could have done anything about it. c'mon . Should they join a city and bitch about seiges non stop instead? Oh the devs helped blah blah blah. Everyone was bitching lol.
Thats why no one plays now. This was the EU server at launch.
It was a pk fest right at the beginning because groups were exploiting/unattended afking up their skills before many had even thought about venturing away from the starter towns. That was a grind issue, not a ffa issue, nor was it is a safe zone issue.
Bloodwalling and afking everything to death was done in order to close power disparities, not to avoid getting found/smashed in the first place. You can have skills maxed out of the ying yang and yet if that noob is moving around the massive world, it is unlikely that you are going to spend much time ganking the crap out of him.
The lack of skill cap and the endless and boring grind did for the game for many, not the fact they got beat on and lost 5 gold. It is the fact that they had to face endless months of tedious grinding in order to catch up that put most off and quite rightly so. But again that has nothing to do with FFA pvp and everything to do with an insanely stupid grind.
It is strange to be speaking about "the first few weeks" of a title launch in isolation. Even if you considered the scenario that the first week or two (or more) where a nightmare, that doesn't really account for all the time that followed now does it. The simple fact of the matter is that yes, new players CAN do plenty to avoid making being ganked the "norm" for the vast majority of their play time. Will they still get ganked.. yep, can it be annyoing, yep. But as often as it is made out? No not by a long shot.
EDIT: Noticed your edit, no I am talking about the full life cycle of the game (and other games), not just the launch. Often at launch their can be issues and you are right to point that out.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Did you play DF at launch? Some people had maxed skills in 2 weeks or less. Then a fix added 2 months. Then another added 2 more. The power gap was so huge and everyone was killing everyone else that a new player would get killed constanly. Yes constantly.
Im not sure how it was their fault. Or what you're trying to say. But DF at launch was a PK fest. And they PK'd non stop.
It settled down after a while, but the elf (myridian or whatever) got hit every 5 - 10 minutes.
It wasnt unlucky. It was for real. The alternative became the blood wall afk for 15 hours a day for a month. And people LOL'd and bailed.
thats why we quit, which was a shame because we were hooked. But to blame the poor nubs for the pk fest that was DF's first weeks as if they could have done anything about it. c'mon . Should they join a city and bitch about seiges non stop instead? Oh the devs helped blah blah blah. Everyone was bitching lol.
Thats why no one plays now. This was the EU server at launch.
It was a pk fest right at the beginning because groups were exploiting/unattended afking up their skills before many had even thought about venturing away from the starter towns. That was a grind issue, not a ffa issue, nor was it is a safe zone issue.
Bloodwalling and afking everything to death was done in order to close power disparities, not to avoid getting found/smashed in the first place. You can have skills maxed out of the ying yang and yet if that noob is moving around the massive world, it is unlikely that you are going to spend much time ganking the crap out of him.
The lack of skill cap and the endless and boring grind did for the game for many, not the fact they got beat on and lost 5 gold. It is the fact that they had to face endless months of tedious grinding in order to catch up that put most off and quite rightly so. But again that has nothing to do with FFA pvp and everything to do with an insanely stupid grind.
It is strange to be speaking about "the first few weeks" of a title launch in isolation. Even if you considered the scenario that the first week or two (or more) where a nightmare, that doesn't really account for all the time that followed now does it. The simple fact of the matter is that yes, new players CAN do plenty to avoid making being ganked the "norm" for the vast majority of their play time. Will they still get ganked.. yep, can it be annyoing, yep. But as often as it is made out? No not by a long shot.
You're right. The FFA pvp was great after most people quit.
What did it for us was changing Arrows and magic to hit a mob instead of just shooting into the air. We had plans and goals that were just wiped out again. Plus the extra time it would take now to do what we wanted. that completely changes how you play the game.
We just didnt have time in the day in order for us to have fun and level. Looked the the blood wall. then canceled.
Went from Immersed into a game to canceling in 5 minutes.
No in terms of consistent subscription numbers and growth over the years in comparison to it's mmorpg peers. I see you ignore that reality.
Again, if you think EVE and all the similarly harsh open PVP MMOs make up a large portion of the total player interest and subscriptions of MMORPGs, you are delusional.
Focusing on the solitary success story amongst a vast sea of players hopping from themepark to themepark (due to PVE's inherent consumability) only makes you sound more delusional.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No in terms of consistent subscription numbers and growth over the years in comparison to it's mmorpg peers. I see you ignore that reality.
Again, if you think EVE and all the similarly harsh open PVP MMOs make up a large portion of the total player interest and subscriptions of MMORPGs, you are delusional.
Focusing on the solitary success story amongst a vast sea of players hopping from themepark to themepark (due to PVE's inherent consumability) only makes you sound more delusional.
Where did I say they make up a large portion again? I merely pointed out your "super tiny playerbase" comment was off the mark when you consider EVE's success. A game with the consistent figures EVE has within this genre (particularly the western market) is not "tiny" by any stretch of the imagination. Simply trying to write it off because it doesn't fit your case, not too great really.
You should spend a bit more time focusing on what is actually being said and a bit less time trying to attack the poster or twist weak arguments. You might have a touch more success that way.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Comments
Well EVE does a pretty good job of making it quite possible to avoid this situation in most cases if you learn to fly smart.
Taking your Hulk into Jita is not smart.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
For some reason this calls to mind the Meet the Pyro video.
In reality EVE is a terrible tiny niche product but in your reality it's this magical wonderland of success.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When addressing the "Why restrict players options?" question, you only end up with one of two situations:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only reasn why that would be bad is if the "tiny playerbase" couldn't support the game.
But where that line is drawn is uncertain. EVE brings in a die hard playerbase and the game continues. Heck, even DAoC still has a following.
The one thing that I'm sure of is that most games have a following. It's the balancing of that following to how much money the game needs to bring in that is the trick.
It should be ok for a game or any type of media, to have a small following provided that the creators were realistic when making the game in conjuntion with the audience they were expecting.
Most of the things that I tend to like are NOT mainstream. Because of this they have small audiences but they can survive. Of course, I can turn to a mainstream bit of entertainment but I know enough not to criticize expecting something great because the more people that need to be entertained the more whitewashed the final prodcut is going to be.
There's some great stuff out there but it's not mainsteam and does have a small audience. That's just the way of it. It's reality and it has been going on a lot longer than video games.
If we are to say that everythign needs to be made to gather as large an audience as possible then we cut off a lot of experimentation, a lot of things that are different.
I'd rather have the experimentation, the different. So again, as long as game developers can build and develop a game that works and has an audience then "good".
Of course, in some ways we are talking in the abstract. What are the most successful ffa pvp games? I suppose EVE is right up there and possibly L2. Not juggernauts as far as population but they both have found ways to continue.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
What if
3. self governed: players have the tools to determine what type of pvp they want to have. PVE (lambs) players by sheer numbers alone would hold the player killing and ganking to a minimum better than any coded rules other than removal. They would do so out of pure gaming bliss. It would also give opportuniy for dynamic content.
Ive only seen it happen once in a game that i used to play. It was like crack to the casuals.
Impossible?
Sure, and if we're talking about non-MMORPGs or indie-budget MMORPGs or MMORPGs on life support (DAOC) then that's totally correct.
There's only an issue when that niche audience objects to an appropriately-budgeted game being made for them, like Darkfall, implying that they deserve more. Which I guess isn't really a surprise, because I shouldn't expect many people to understand how niche their own tastes are.
To make matters even more complicated, I think that a non-FFA PVP sandbox which focuses on great crafting gameplay actually has a chance in the current market. In fact exactly like Salem, minus the PVP*
(* ...and having looked at recent screenshots, minus 3D too. More and more I'm wishing they'd have stuck with H&H's 2D view, but completely rebuilt the engine and hired a solid artist to lead the visuals. 2D would've also meant that new content was that much easier to implement.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Of course it's possible. PVE vs. PVP Server Rulesets you see on virtually every MMORPG are basically that.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that a server could democratically settle on a better set of rules, for those not interested in bad MMORPG PVP. "You never have to engage in bad PVP ever, unless you want to," is pretty much verbatim what would get my vote.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is actually a great idea, and it would pretty much get rid of ganking sure the higher level may have more skills to use but then it becomes a kill of player skill and not level. It still wouldn't solve the player sitting back and waiting till you are 1/4 life and jumping you but would make things a lot more interesting. Being one of the older gamers that actually played the one of the first MMO's Ultima Online I remember the good old days of PK'ers and losing all your gear you worked for that day.
ATITD, Puzzle Pirates, DAoC, Vendetta Online, EVE Online... pre-WOW devs had a handle on that.
After WOW, it seems that devs forgot that part of the math.
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
The best PVP I've ever had was in SWG. I just don't understand why any developer has never tried to make anything similar to that. It was real great IMO.
EVE also has a great PVP system that could be used as basis for other games.
Instanced PVP, arena, etc, for me sucks badly. Fun sometimes yes but it's very limited.
See: UO.
Your PVP choices are
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 was thinking enforcement of the rules would be in game by the barrel of a gun as well. With the right tools once the pve players get that first taste of blood and see how massive their numbers are, any Pk or unwanted pvp seen would become hunted by 10's or 100's of players.
The hatred runs so deep,and the desire to hold onto this new found high, and power, and resposibiily,people who had never pvp'd before dropped whatever they were doing to come gank that sob. They started planning attacks and leading assaults. I've never seen anything like it. 150 v 5 blood baths. Pure gaming bliss.
Do you think it's possible to recreate that?
There's a problem with your post, namely the mechanics of having other players huge guilds that have large economic forces back players up when they play so they basically take on a paid job with benefits, so EVE is not typical.
No in terms of consistent subscription numbers and growth over the years in comparison to it's mmorpg peers. I see you ignore that reality.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
So it has to be the typical case does it? I can see your reasoning but, well WoW is not typical, especially in regards to subscriber numbers within the genre. Given the retention rate of the rest of the themepark mmorpgs has tended to rubbish, that means themepark, non OWPvP mmorpgs are also all niche, non in demand.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
A player can avoid getting ganked in DF as noob for the vast, vast majority of the time and certainly reduce the impact on any gank if they play "smart".
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Replace smart with lucky and I would eventually agree. Very lucky. If someone really wants to camp a noob, the noob will be almost completely stopped of playing the game unless he wants to repeatedly die. That's very bad game design, something EvE did much better.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
This is true for any FFA pvp game, play smart and live with the rule sets. But sadly most gamers are carebears and dont understand what makes games like "Day Z" so enjoyable.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
If someone wants to camp a noob..
Well they would have to find the noob first. They would then in order to camp him find him at his bind spot, or the noob would have to repeatedly keep going back to the same area for that period of time. It has little to do with luck. Getting caught the odd time out is unlucky, even then you can do things to minimise this happening by utilizing the terrain to give you the vantage point to spot people, whilst remaining in cover etc.
If you are skirting around goblin spawns near noob towns in human lands then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are mooching around selentine chests near noob town without paying attention then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are not going off and exploring (nothing to lose as noob) to find nice little spots out of the way then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are sticking to running along road ways between towns then you are increasing your chances of getting killed.
If you are not using the terrain to take advantage of vantage points then you are going to get yourself killed.
If you are mindlessly minding iron ore nodes just out of proxmity of town towers then you are more likely to get yourself killed.
If you are carrying an hours worth of loot on you, you are making trouble for yourself if you get killed.
The problem is some people cba, so they find it a better idea to just moan about being killed in the first place. Or (which happens alot on these boards), we have people who have spent a month or less in FFA OWPvP games who bang on about them from an uninformed position and hypothesise about endless ganking.
EVE offers more protection than DF, but then in order to get repeatedly ganked to such an extent that it is having an impact on your longer term play then you are either exceptionally unlucky (as in don't go outside you are going to get run over son unlucky), or exceptionally bad.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
its possible, but not from the game mechanics perspective.
i mean its up to the player to choose the safest routers from one place to another.
do you really want to go to this fabulous place.... which is infested by gankers?
you dont. you avoid that place and make it impossible for yourself to get ganked. genius isnt it?
thats the price you have to pay for playing an open pvp game.
another way is obviously the point of mmorpgs - grouping with players.
Did you play DF at launch? Some people had maxed skills in 2 weeks or less. Then a fix added 2 months. Then another added 2 more. The power gap was so huge and everyone was killing everyone else that a new player would get killed constanly. Yes constantly.
Im not sure how it was their fault. Or what you're trying to say. But DF at launch was a PK fest. And they PK'd non stop.
It settled down after a while, but the elf (myridian or whatever) got hit every 5 - 10 minutes.
It wasnt unlucky. It was for real. The alternative became the blood wall afk for 15 hours a day for a month. And people LOL'd and bailed.
thats why we quit, which was a shame because we were hooked. But to blame the poor nubs for the pk fest that was DF's first weeks as if they could have done anything about it. c'mon . Should they join a city and bitch about seiges non stop instead? Oh the devs helped blah blah blah. Everyone was bitching lol.
Thats why no one plays now. This was the EU server at launch.
Edit:
I Dont know if you were talking about the launch or something else so ignore this if it doesnt apply. to get repeatedly ganked in DF though was easy right after launch.
It was a pk fest right at the beginning because groups were exploiting/unattended afking up their skills before many had even thought about venturing away from the starter towns. That was a grind issue, not a ffa issue, nor was it is a safe zone issue.
Bloodwalling and afking everything to death was done in order to close power disparities, not to avoid getting found/smashed in the first place. You can have skills maxed out of the ying yang and yet if that noob is moving around the massive world, it is unlikely that you are going to spend much time ganking the crap out of him.
The lack of skill cap and the endless and boring grind did for the game for many, not the fact they got beat on and lost 5 gold. It is the fact that they had to face endless months of tedious grinding in order to catch up that put most off and quite rightly so. But again that has nothing to do with FFA pvp and everything to do with an insanely stupid grind.
It is strange to be speaking about "the first few weeks" of a title launch in isolation. Even if you considered the scenario that the first week or two (or more) where a nightmare, that doesn't really account for all the time that followed now does it. The simple fact of the matter is that yes, new players CAN do plenty to avoid making being ganked the "norm" for the vast majority of their play time. Will they still get ganked.. yep, can it be annyoing, yep. But as often as it is made out? No not by a long shot.
EDIT: Noticed your edit, no I am talking about the full life cycle of the game (and other games), not just the launch. Often at launch their can be issues and you are right to point that out.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
You're right. The FFA pvp was great after most people quit.
What did it for us was changing Arrows and magic to hit a mob instead of just shooting into the air. We had plans and goals that were just wiped out again. Plus the extra time it would take now to do what we wanted. that completely changes how you play the game.
We just didnt have time in the day in order for us to have fun and level. Looked the the blood wall. then canceled.
Went from Immersed into a game to canceling in 5 minutes.
Again, if you think EVE and all the similarly harsh open PVP MMOs make up a large portion of the total player interest and subscriptions of MMORPGs, you are delusional.
Focusing on the solitary success story amongst a vast sea of players hopping from themepark to themepark (due to PVE's inherent consumability) only makes you sound more delusional.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Where did I say they make up a large portion again? I merely pointed out your "super tiny playerbase" comment was off the mark when you consider EVE's success. A game with the consistent figures EVE has within this genre (particularly the western market) is not "tiny" by any stretch of the imagination. Simply trying to write it off because it doesn't fit your case, not too great really.
You should spend a bit more time focusing on what is actually being said and a bit less time trying to attack the poster or twist weak arguments. You might have a touch more success that way.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."