I'm not against PvP as long as that something you want to fight over doesn't unfairly balance the game in favor of individuals who are combat types or want to participate in PvP. Keep the rewards based off what you can get off the people you are fighting, and not an advantage, be it economic/non-economic, over the non-combat player base.
As long as the something to fight over is maybe that "pair of shoes" that the other person is wearing, you guys go to town. The idea that PvP should be rewarded above and beyond what the non-PvP characters and non-combat classes have access to, is just completely unbalanced. Keep the rewards to whatever you can loot off their bodies. Otherwise you have the game dominated economically/geographically/etc.. by a small group of hardcore combat-oriented types. Then you are basically forcing people to play on someone elses' terms.
Look back a few pages at some of the comments on PvP oriented games. That is if you need a refresher on why PvP is the hardest system to implement effectively, and fairly. And I am not talking about one class being better than another type, kind of fairness. I could care less whether one class is more effectiove at killing things/people/players than another. As long as you are not unfairly rewarding the PvP kings above what the rest of the player base has access to. Making equivalent content available to both PvPers and Non-PvPers is the best way to discover a medium that all of the player base can live with. And, this is not purely from a non-combat orientation. Fallen Earth's life depends on how it manages its PvP system. Otherwise, it will have a short life. Period.
I would like to see FE be very successful, and attract a multitude of the gamers from other MMPORG's. PvP alone will not attract and retain a large player base. Plain and simple.
As long as you acheive a middle ground that neither pleases or displeases either of the camps, PvP - Middleground - Non-PvP, you will succeed in appeasing them as well as those in between. If you think of your player base in an MMPORG as something like a bell curve, you will appreciate the need for compromise much more so than if you just argue for one or the other. That is why the middle ground is where the compromise must be made. Otherwise, you are doomed to a ganking, corpse-camping time that is agreeably not enjoyed by PvPers and Non-PvPers alike. Then you can watch as your subscription base flees your MMPORG like rats leaving a drowning ship.
Then you are doomed to being a smallish, never quite successful title(at the best) that almost had it right.
I understand what you are saying, but here is why you are some what wrong. Those wishing to NOT PvP DO benifit from those that PvP is they are in the crafting type of business. PvPers (as long as there is decay, which is why SWG sucks now) always need weapons, armor, food/drugs, vehicles/ships etc made. The way SWG had the economy set up in the begining was unreal.
Me liking to murder and cause chaos need items to do such types of activies. Those making me armor, WANT me to PvP so my armor turns to crap and I need more. Those making weapons WANT me to use them because my wepaons either degrade, or maybe in FE case I need ammo..etc. I need to be able to heal myself and or juice myself up above and beyound the norm (if FE allows that) so food or drug crafters are needed. I will want to upgrade, outfit or do something with my car if allowed. As a fighter class, I wont have the skills to do it at all, or even effectively.
So, just from those few examples, non PvP classes do benifit and gain from a PvP type of game. It is just a matter of making the community NEED itself rather than looted items.
(I havent read all the posts on this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating stuff:P)
First of all, to all open PVP fans out there: most mmo players dont enjoy participating in meaningless pvp activities when they dont want to, especially when it isnt fair (its an rpg after all : players with more experience/levels and better items/weapons do and should have an advantage over lower lvl players).
Thankfully Icarus isnt planning on having open pvp as seen in their faq: "Will I get killed right away while I’m learning the game?
No. FALLEN EARTH doesn’t allow Player vs Player combat outside of certain missions or areas. Accessing those special missions or areas will be your decision -- getting killed is your option, killing players who haven’t agreed to the special conditions isn’t."
Pvp is only fun when you want to pvp. In my opinion it should be implemented in a way where you can only pvp when you expect to pvp and have agreed to it.
For example in quests: you must attack the enemy faction's outpost xxx and retrieve/destroy a special item. You can only do that between the next 30 to 60 mins (the time that the item will be at the outpost). At the same time a quest is available for the next 30 mins at your enemy's faction -defend the outpost xxx for the time the special item is there. If noone gets the defend quest, there will be npcs that are defening the item. If someone gets it it will be a nice pvp battle both sides will enjoy. Maybe it will be a 5vs5 battle instead of 1vs1 where up to 5 player characters can take the quest for each side (npcs will fill empty places). When the attackers arive at the outpost they will be able to attack only the defenders, who have accepted the quest and vice versa.
Or special areas: the abandoned warehouse is a huge facility full of forgotten technologies. It is very hard to get at and is completely isolated. The only law that applies here is the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, every man for himself. If you choose to enter it in search for rare items you should be prepared not only to fight whatever npcs/creatures you might find but also other players wanting the same items as you.
It's all about choise. You want to pvp? Then take that quest, go in the warhouse, or even in a pvp arena where you fight for money and glory. You want to relax and do some exploring/kill some creatures for their loots? Noone should be able to jump in and kill you making you angry.
As for pvp rewards, if pvp is controlled and meaningfull rewards are there too: the completion/rewards of the quest, the items of the warehouse, money and glory from the pvp arena.
Finally for those who DO enjoy running around killing unsuspecting players there could be special outlaw quests for the players of the travelers faction where you would have to kill another player who matches some criteria (faction/level etc). Only people matching these criteria are attackable and after the first attack/death the quest is completed: you cant attack more. The downside would be that afterwards a quest would apear in the nearby town for all to get ( or just enfoncers) to hunt you down and kill you (once only). They could also have additional information like the general area you are in etc - you are a wanted person afterall- . But that would only lead to more pvp, only this time you are the victim : you can only attack players that attack you (those who have taken the bounty quest). Once you are dead the quest is completed for those who killed you - they get rewards- and is failed for the rest.
To keep this from growing into discomfort and griefing for the victims the outlaw quests should only be available to you once a day , and there should be limited outlaw quests available each day with different criteria. In addition an unsuspecting player can only be a victim once a day. After an outlaw kills him, he cant be targeted by onother outlaw during the same day (where day is a defined time space). After all if you like just to pvp, you better be good at it and prepared. If you are good you will have a good day pvping: finding your target, killing him, and then repelling off the bounty hunters coming for you.
Well, this ended larger than I expected but I think that if pvp is somewhere in this direction it will be enjoyable by all.
Of course this will add to the complexity of the game. Icarus will have to make the pvp quests (or have them random generated), make the warehouse, make the arena , the outlaw quests etc. If they choose to just have a pvp on/off flag it will be easier. But I really think that it is worth the trouble. They will not just be addressing pvp issues, they will be addind greatly to the game and its fun. Most players DO love to pvp. Its way better to fight someone with real intelligence over some ai. But they want to be able to choose when to pvp and they want pvp to be fair ,rewarding and fun.
Well that's what I had to say, I hope I wasnt tiresome
Fallen earth has the potential of being the best mmo ever. I hope they wont ruin it (at least for me) by adding open pvp, full pvp loot and many other similar ideas that are "realistic" but not fun. After all it is a game. It wont ever be completely real. It is supposed to be fun. If I want realism I close the pc .
Originally posted by Hardware-DC I understand what you are saying, but here is why you are some what wrong. Those wishing to NOT PvP DO benifit from those that PvP is they are in the crafting type of business. PvPers (as long as there is decay, which is why SWG sucks now) always need weapons, armor, food/drugs, vehicles/ships etc made. The way SWG had the economy set up in the begining was unreal. Me liking to murder and cause chaos need items to do such types of activies. Those making me armor, WANT me to PvP so my armor turns to crap and I need more. Those making weapons WANT me to use them because my wepaons either degrade, or maybe in FE case I need ammo..etc. I need to be able to heal myself and or juice myself up above and beyound the norm (if FE allows that) so food or drug crafters are needed. I will want to upgrade, outfit or do something with my car if allowed. As a fighter class, I wont have the skills to do it at all, or even effectively. So, just from those few examples, non PvP classes do benifit and gain from a PvP type of game. It is just a matter of making the community NEED itself rather than looted items.
Non-PvP types and non-combat types all fall into the same category. I should have used non-PvP types. Read Inglemo's response. That is a fairly good idea, though I hesitate at anything that provides PvPers an advantage over non-PvPers. I think we can all agree that all-out PvP is not effective, in any way, in recruiting and retaining a player base.
To answer your post briefly, you are making non-PvPers(which I stated above include non-combat types) the services-engine for PvPers. Heh. I don't know how else to answer that. I'll answer it in more detail after work.
To PvP realists I say this: I live in the real world, so why on Earth do you think I want to play in it too?
I think that is the aim of developers, and not to make the game world as realistic as possible. After all, I know I am not paying someone 15$ a month to have a second job!
And for your information, I am not a crafter all the time.
Ok here is my opinion on the subject which right now is a bit divided...
One thing i hate that tends to take away from the game IMO is people who want to kill just to kill. Ive played games where those who have worked their way up a bit just walk around and slaughter newbies just to power trip. there has to be some way to protect people from pvp when they really DONT want to or CANT...
on the other hand.. from an post-holocaust point of view.. there is chaos and no order.. therefore you should be subject to raiding parties etc. at any time. the very nature of the game should reflect that these are troubled and dangerous times and venturing out alone carries risks with it.
I do not agree with a complete alliance of one type. what made SWG great was that it reflected true society and structure and economy. nearly ever item in the game had to be MADE by someone, and that required obtaining resources to MAKE them.. creating the need for miners/farmers etc. You cant hope to have an entire class of military minded people, and allow them to simply kill and destroy all the scentists factions because they have no way of defending themselves. it would throw an imbalance into the game and cause a breakdown in the very structure... leading to everyone wanting to be a fighter just so they can have a chance of surviving. SWG used a "good vs evil" system which allowed people to be good, bad, or neutral. throwing multiple factions into the game where one must be a part of that particular belief will cause polarizations with more weak points than strong.
The idea of the game is to rebuild a new world. individuals cant accomplish that. the game must be teamwork based with incentives for grouping and clanning. subtleties must be encorporated that force people to either work together, or take extreme risks. that is the very point of an MMORPG!!! if you want to run around on your own and do your own thing.. go play fallout. MMORPGs are for massive amounts of people who derive their pleasure of the game from teamwork and working with other live players to accomplish something. there must be something to accomplish and each group should have the freedom to establish what is important to them, and be able to defend that.
SWG showed a good way to allow PvP all over the game without forcing anyone to do anything. Looking at Fallout, Mad Max or any other post apoc game/movie, there is a good and bad side. Those that want to rebuild the world and make it what it once was, and those that like the lawlessness and enjoy inflicting pain and misery to those around.
It is not hard to see FE allowing "factions", and having people fight for the good or bad side so to speak. This allows you to turn your status on or off if you want, and still be able to enjoy the entire game as whatever you wnt to be.
What was neat about UO, was the established cities were safe zones. Like I posted before, cities under :martial law" will have guards, and military command to enforce order. These woudl be noob cities as well as major economy cities around the world. But lesser cities (player cities?) or outposts along the way, should be open to PvP. Arena's are really lame and in a time period as this, unrealistic. Yes, I also posted about the sacrifices of realism vs an enjoyable game. But think about it...did Mad Max only fight in the Thunderdome? Or did he fight in the wastelands wherever "evil" might have been found.
I think that PvP is great, but than again I love to RolePlay aswell and mixing the two can be sometimes a great pleasure and other times a horrid mess. The best way to mix the two if you are looking for that kind of thing would be to have 'guild wars' so certain guilds could declare war on other guilds and if you are a member of guild X and see a member of guild Y they are attackable anywhere Even in starting cities because new people really shouldnt join guilds until ready to fight or ready to have a bodyguard.. more of a RP feel to the game that way.
Also if you are having the factions fight do what SWG did and make it so you have to go OVERT to fight anyone else, but I think you should add in that you can help someone else in your faction if he is fighting another. Say you are covert and you see a member of Faction X (your faction) Attacking a member of Faction Y. He needs help so you join in on the fight.. And vise versa so you could get a whole battle starting up in a city because 2 guys started fighting.. this would be a lot more fun than having to run to a certain guy and running back to join in on the battle.
And of course you need to add a /duel command because RP is no fun without this. If you cant fight than really you cant Roleplay correctly. However you could make the PvP 100% of the time, but than you have griefers that ruin RP for the sake of killing people, but this would not be so bad if you had a Penelty system. So really I would need more information on PvP to help better the system. But above is how I would like the game to run PvP wise.
P.S. I love the clothing Ideas Great for RP keep up the GREAT work!
_______________________________ Current Game: None (Waiting on Fallen Earth)
Games Tried: Star Wars Galaxies (Pre-NGE): 9/10 Planetside: 7/10 Horizons: 4/10 Eve Online: 8/10 Asherons call: 3/10
Originally posted by Hardware-DC SWG showed a good way to allow PvP all over the game without forcing anyone to do anything. Looking at Fallout, Mad Max or any other post apoc game/movie, there is a good and bad side. Those that want to rebuild the world and make it what it once was, and those that like the lawlessness and enjoy inflicting pain and misery to those around. It is not hard to see FE allowing "factions", and having people fight for the good or bad side so to speak. This allows you to turn your status on or off if you want, and still be able to enjoy the entire game as whatever you wnt to be. What was neat about UO, was the established cities were safe zones. Like I posted before, cities under :martial law" will have guards, and military command to enforce order. These woudl be noob cities as well as major economy cities around the world. But lesser cities (player cities?) or outposts along the way, should be open to PvP. Arena's are really lame and in a time period as this, unrealistic. Yes, I also posted about the sacrifices of realism vs an enjoyable game. But think about it...did Mad Max only fight in the Thunderdome? Or did he fight in the wastelands wherever "evil" might have been found.
All out PVP in any way, other than a faction based system as implemented in SWG or a system like it, would just lead eventually to the majority of players leaving the game entirely. Anything based on player choice is a very reasonable PvP system. SWG makes a very good example of how it should work. Not to say it was perfect, but it was very liveable.
As far as Mad Max goes, he never had to fight griefers and corpse campers either hehe
How realistic is griefing and corpse camping? If it is possible to eliminate the necessity for corpses, and being griefed, I suppose that PvP could make it feel more like an RPG. But, with PvP comes all of the above, including nerfs, since most changes are made because PvP classes are not balanced well enough to satisfy player X(who is a PvPer of a certain class) and player Y who is completely dominating him/her at the same skill and level(and is a PvPer of another class). Not to say that PvP is the reason we have nerfs, but it certainly contributes its fair share.
All in all, I am just repeating the same things over and over, just in more brief, segments. So, here is to hoping that FE will find that middleground. I think that your implied Good - Neutral - Evil type PvP system is a good idea. That is if I understood you correctly. That is about as close to SWG PvP as you can get.
I dunno, Star Wars used a faction system because there were two distinct factions. I don't think a post-apoc world is clear cut enough for factions. I say don't code them into the game... they will eventually form by themselves. I think the key for next generation titles is more player control.
Originally posted by sinoth I dunno, Star Wars used a faction system because there were two distinct factions. I don't think a post-apoc world is clear cut enough for factions. I say don't code them into the game... they will eventually form by themselves. I think the key for next generation titles is more player control.
Which is what Good - Neutral - Evil can address, if you like. Personally, I am in the camp that believes that PvP is not utilized in an appropraite manner to be a premeir game system, or a reasonable method for addressing a constant, factional PvP system. That kind of framework will not please PvPers or Non-PvPers. As PvPers have stated that they even like taking a break from PvP, which means they like to relax in the Non-PvP settings of the Non-PvP areas. But, there would be no such thing with factional based PvP, since at any time someone from an opposing faction may come along and *murder* you, regardless of where you were. By allowing factions to ally themselves with a Good - Neutral - Evil structure, it is much easier to tell who your enemies and allies are.
Allowing Player factions to determine who they are fighting will only lead to chaos. It is only human nature that drives the desire for chaos. That is why we have a legal system and penalties. In an MMPORG, there is no effective way to monitor and control PvP without providing limitations. These limitations provide the "artificial" legal system with severe penalties, yet they might accomplish it through using "flags", "factions that are identifiable ie. good neutral evil .. could be 5 or 6, as long as there is a neutral ground", "PvP zones" etc..
At any rate, we as players are not disciplined enough to make these decisions for the developers. If PvP was anything like what you all are striving for in FE (all out kill everyone that is above level 10, let's say), then Icarus may as well dump their cash in the garbage bin. After all, it is their investment, of their own funds. And, personally, you are not going to take risks on PvP with your own money.
When EQ is still the biggest subscription based MMPORG around, based almost entirely on PvE, it makes you say,"Hrmm, if I do almost the same thing, in a different setting, I can make a ton of cash". The Fantasy-RPG genre which is EQ has had its hay day, at least for now. EQ2 was just more fo the same that EQ had, just prettier. So, naturally no one is going to continue subscribing to it, excepet for maybe die-hard EQ fans. There were about 400,000 subscribers at the pinnacle of the EQ subscription base (at 10 - 15$ per: that is about 4 - 6 million a month, not considering taxes). And in addition they have the Station Access as well, which sports somewhere around 50,000 users at 21$. I don't want FE to be another EQ or EQII, which it isn't from the looks of it.
PvP can make or breaks a game, peroid. You implement it the wrong way, and *blammo* you lose all of the people that can't stand PvP based gameplay all of the time. That is about all of your subscription base right there.
Originally posted by drycat Which is what Good - Neutral - Evil can address, if you like. Personally, I am in the camp that believes that PvP is not utilized in an appropraite manner to be a premeir game system, or a reasonable method for addressing a constant, factional PvP system. That kind of framework will not please PvPers or Non-PvPers. As PvPers have stated that they even like taking a break from PvP, which means they like to relax in the Non-PvP settings of the Non-PvP areas. But, there would be no such thing with factional based PvP, since at any time someone from an opposing faction may come along and *murder* you, regardless of where you were. By allowing factions to ally themselves with a Good - Neutral - Evil structure, it is much easier to tell who your enemies and allies are. Allowing Player factions to determine who they are fighting will only lead to chaos. It is only human nature that drives the desire for chaos. That is why we have a legal system and penalties. In an MMPORG, there is no effective way to monitor and control PvP without providing limitations. These limitations provide the "artificial" legal system with severe penalties, yet they might accomplish it through using "flags", "factions that are identifiable ie. good neutral evil .. could be 5 or 6, as long as there is a neutral ground", "PvP zones" etc.
First off on you "Good - Neutral - Evil" system, who gets to choose what is good, neutral, and evil? Like real life, Players will be ending up in a grey area these Iconic choices do not cover and will have to confine themselves to them because the game says so. From the start players in Galaxies (most noteably RPers) wanted a criminal faction to be added, because there is a grey area that isn't covered in the good vs. evil fight. Secondly, "Good" groups fight with other "Good" groups all the time in fiction and real life, as do so called "Evil" groups. To not allow them to struggle against each other creates an artificial good vs. bad scenario, when the developers are focusing more on survival and conflict as seen in their movies and info about the game.
Originally posted by drycat At any rate, we as players are not disciplined enough to make these decisions for the developers. If PvP was anything like what you all are striving for in FE (all out kill everyone that is above level 10, let's say), then Icarus may as well dump their cash in the garbage bin. After all, it is their investment, of their own funds. And, personally, you are not going to take risks on PvP with your own money. ... PvP can make or breaks a game, peroid. You implement it the wrong way, and *blammo* you lose all of the people that can't stand PvP based gameplay all of the time. That is about all of your subscription base right there.
You've obviously never played Lineage 2. It is the largest MMO in the world (over 3 million subscribers), and has full, open PvP outside of NPC towns. It also has guild controlled Castles, and guild raids. Open PvP works, but like has been said again and again, you will have griefers. Its one of the first and most lasting thing you will see. The next and most lasting thing you will see is what I like to call "defenders." Let me explain.
There is a game I play called Nationstates. It is a free game where you control a nation and get to rule on its domestic affairs. There are regions for different groups to come and go as they please, or set up their own if they wish. They can vote in people who control their region, and run basic things like discription and votes in the UN. What happened was people started invading other regions, taking them over and putting their own person in charge, then kicking out the others. What soon happened was that, rather than try and get the developers involved and have them deal with this unforseen problem which would take forever to deal with, defender groups started forming. Some were defensive pacts, saying they would help stop such invasions, others were groups of nations that wandered around and counter-actted invasions. In the end, invasions still go on (though no more kicking nations out of regions) but the community polices itself.
Another story I want to empart on you, is from my personal expiriance on Galaxies. What happened was that a guild called HARM came to my server from Bloodfin, a major PvP server. They joined the Rebels who were (and still are) getting their asses beaten. And they started winning, which is good. But the problem arose when they started "raping" the corpses of their defeated enemies. They would lay down on the bodies and emote "so-and-so rapes the corpse of opponent" and other disgusting things. There are many who play Galaxies who are still minors, and so the server called to anyone at SOE to stop them. SOE did nothing. So the server banded toghether, and policed HARM itself. Other Rebels limited or completely stopped their PvP until HARM was defeated, many even switched sides just to fight them. Merchants banned them from shops and vendors, as did many entertainers. Many PC towns banned them from using their facilities. We policed ourselves, and as we fought them we eventually defeated them time and again and drove them from the server.
And now I want to go to another reason why I love the idea of open PvP: EVE Online. In the latest issue of PC Gamer they tell the story of something that happened in EVE Online that is impossible on almost every other MMO out there now. Over the course of a year, this organization infiltrated a corperation, built themselves up inside, even go on the board of directors and became the CEO's bodyguard, and then in one fell swoop killed the CEO, plundered the corp of over 30 billion IDK (in game money, equal it $16,500 in real life), and got paid the 1 Billion for the bounty. These members of the organization attacked and crippled it from the inside. I find this so amaizing and awe inspiring. I wish we could do things like that in FE.
Waiting For: something good Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Thank you, Cthulhuvong, for expertly conveying everything I wanted to say.
I just wanted to reinforce the fact that in a post-apoc world, everyone is in a gray area and not bound to Good - Neutral - Evil. For example, the Enforcers seem like they would fall under the Good category. But what if a small group inside the Enforcers was selling weapons to some Chota for a little extra profit? Under a strict faction system, you wouldn't be able to administer punishment to these characters.
We really need less restrictions. Less restriction means more player control, which in every MMO I've played so far is a good thing. Yes, there are possibilities for people to act immature, but it all evens out in time. It also in some ways takes a little strain off the developer to make content, as players inevitably make content for themselves (like Cthulhuvong's EVE Online story).
Agreed, Sinoth. Enforcers could run the spectrum of nurturing protectors to iron fisted dictators. Lightbringers could be travelling monks, helping the world that they travel or they could be psychotic cultists, spreading their 'light' to the masses
Originally posted by drycat Which is what Good - Neutral - Evil can address, if you like. Personally, I am in the camp that believes that PvP is not utilized in an appropraite manner to be a premeir game system, or a reasonable method for addressing a constant, factional PvP system. That kind of framework will not please PvPers or Non-PvPers. As PvPers have stated that they even like taking a break from PvP, which means they like to relax in the Non-PvP settings of the Non-PvP areas. But, there would be no such thing with factional based PvP, since at any time someone from an opposing faction may come along and *murder* you, regardless of where you were. By allowing factions to ally themselves with a Good - Neutral - Evil structure, it is much easier to tell who your enemies and allies are. Allowing Player factions to determine who they are fighting will only lead to chaos. It is only human nature that drives the desire for chaos. That is why we have a legal system and penalties. In an MMPORG, there is no effective way to monitor and control PvP without providing limitations. These limitations provide the "artificial" legal system with severe penalties, yet they might accomplish it through using "flags", "factions that are identifiable ie. good neutral evil .. could be 5 or 6, as long as there is a neutral ground", "PvP zones" etc.
First off on you "Good - Neutral - Evil" system, who gets to choose what is good, neutral, and evil? Like real life, Players will be ending up in a grey area these Iconic choices do not cover and will have to confine themselves to them because the game says so. From the start players in Galaxies (most noteably RPers) wanted a criminal faction to be added, because there is a grey area that isn't covered in the good vs. evil fight. Secondly, "Good" groups fight with other "Good" groups all the time in fiction and real life, as do so called "Evil" groups. To not allow them to struggle against each other creates an artificial good vs. bad scenario, when the developers are focusing more on survival and conflict as seen in their movies and info about the game.
Originally posted by drycat At any rate, we as players are not disciplined enough to make these decisions for the developers. If PvP was anything like what you all are striving for in FE (all out kill everyone that is above level 10, let's say), then Icarus may as well dump their cash in the garbage bin. After all, it is their investment, of their own funds. And, personally, you are not going to take risks on PvP with your own money. ... PvP can make or breaks a game, peroid. You implement it the wrong way, and *blammo* you lose all of the people that can't stand PvP based gameplay all of the time. That is about all of your subscription base right there.
You've obviously never played Lineage 2. It is the largest MMO in the world (over 3 million subscribers), and has full, open PvP outside of NPC towns. It also has guild controlled Castles, and guild raids. Open PvP works, but like has been said again and again, you will have griefers. Its one of the first and most lasting thing you will see. The next and most lasting thing you will see is what I like to call "defenders." Let me explain.
There is a game I play called Nationstates. It is a free game where you control a nation and get to rule on its domestic affairs. There are regions for different groups to come and go as they please, or set up their own if they wish. They can vote in people who control their region, and run basic things like discription and votes in the UN. What happened was people started invading other regions, taking them over and putting their own person in charge, then kicking out the others. What soon happened was that, rather than try and get the developers involved and have them deal with this unforseen problem which would take forever to deal with, defender groups started forming. Some were defensive pacts, saying they would help stop such invasions, others were groups of nations that wandered around and counter-actted invasions. In the end, invasions still go on (though no more kicking nations out of regions) but the community polices itself.
Another story I want to empart on you, is from my personal expiriance on Galaxies. What happened was that a guild called HARM came to my server from Bloodfin, a major PvP server. They joined the Rebels who were (and still are) getting their asses beaten. And they started winning, which is good. But the problem arose when they started "raping" the corpses of their defeated enemies. They would lay down on the bodies and emote "so-and-so rapes the corpse of opponent" and other disgusting things. There are many who play Galaxies who are still minors, and so the server called to anyone at SOE to stop them. SOE did nothing. So the server banded toghether, and policed HARM itself. Other Rebels limited or completely stopped their PvP until HARM was defeated, many even switched sides just to fight them. Merchants banned them from shops and vendors, as did many entertainers. Many PC towns banned them from using their facilities. We policed ourselves, and as we fought them we eventually defeated them time and again and drove them from the server.
And now I want to go to another reason why I love the idea of open PvP: EVE Online. In the latest issue of PC Gamer they tell the story of something that happened in EVE Online that is impossible on almost every other MMO out there now. Over the course of a year, this organization infiltrated a corperation, built themselves up inside, even go on the board of directors and became the CEO's bodyguard, and then in one fell swoop killed the CEO, plundered the corp of over 30 billion IDK (in game money, equal it $16,500 in real life), and got paid the 1 Billion for the bounty. These members of the organization attacked and crippled it from the inside. I find this so amaizing and awe inspiring. I wish we could do things like that in FE.
It depends on how you want to interprete the success of Lineage as an MMPORG. If you are referring to a subscriber base, you are most likely checking MMOG chart.com. If this is the case, you will notice that there is not a clear number of identified subscriptions since it is played mostly through internet cafes in the Far EAstern part of the world where it was "born". It's measure of success in the US, as of the latest info on MMOG chart March 2005, is 7,623 subscribers. And this is referring to Lineage, which is estimated at 2.1 million subscribers worldwide(concentrated in South Korea), under varying subscription plans, as of March 2005. Lineage II, as of March 2005 has 65,644 subscribers in the US out of a worldwide number of 2.1 million. Probably alot of these are Lineage subscribers. The point is that Lineage is one of the most successful MMPORG's in the Far East: introduced in South Korea, spread to China, Japan, Taiwan and the US, with less success in these areas than in South Korea.
While Lineage and Lineage II are quite successful, the success is regional. I admit, the numbers look nice. I have played Lineage II, but it was too much of a cookie cutter from characters, clothing, armor, and the entire game, basically. Not to mention, I don't like the open PvP. So, who knows? But, this is all my personal preference, but it must be shared by others in the US, seeing the number of subscriptions it garners here. So, basically, the US seems to be the least in touch with actively playing MMPORG's in the numbers that we might see in other areas, where Lineage and Lineage II, for instance, enjoy the bulk of their fan base. But, itis more likely that the US players are split among a throng of MMPORG's and not really rooted in a single one. But, this is merely specualation, and the fact I enjoy nothing more than typing all day. Basically, because I have to do it all day anyway
So, I tried to sum that up as best as possible. I tried to be succinct and precise, and not leave anything up to the imagination this time (though I probably still managed to do this, just as we all do). The exception being my speculation at the end. Which, maybe most US video game players just play single player, or LAN based internet games because there isn't really a single MMPORG out there that appeals to them. I don't know. Maybe MMOG.com has some more specific information on this, or another site. But, a day of coding, school, and work is enough to drive me away from pursuing this.
I'll briefly address the Good-Neutral-Evil, if you like. I did not elaborate on it enough it seems, nor did I intend to. I suppose one sentence is not quite enough and leaves too much up to the imagination, which was the intent of the statement in the first place. My intent was to leave that statement purely up to, "filling in the blanks", and not intended to represent an ideal solution or system. I was more or less responding to the idea represented by a previous poster as an option(and it was the previous poster in the forum thread I am looking at). Definitely not intended to be taken in the way it was addressed in your post. As an aside, I liked the SWG faction system where neutrality was an option. I think I say that in every post I make. But, I haven't reread my posts yet, so who knows hehe
My preferred scheme would be to make PvP an option, and not force anyone to align themselves anywhere. And, that is really my concern.. making it fair, equal, and leaving choices up to the players on how they want to interact in the game. If that means I will never be the target of PvP, I should be able to choose that option without limiting my exposure to the game world and its content because of that decision. Likewise, those who choose to engage in PvP enjoy the same things. Equality in the way we choose to interact with the game. After all, this is supposed to represent our "vision" of Eutopia, and not a second reality. We already have one of those. I don't want a second one that is going to make me labor at someone elses' pace. Too much like a second job for my tastes and a majority/minority like me. Which can be said to hold true for both sides of this discussion, reversing the intent if you will..
As far as your experiences in SWG, I'm glad you guys did defend the population against them. Their conduct is something that SOE is famed for not acting upon. But, I still stand by the opinion that, players will, for the most part, not police themselves. Namely, because SWG happens to be one of the Faction based PvP systems I post about it being reasonable. Mainly because they have a neutral ground that will allow me to avoid PvP all together. That doesn't make what those indivduals did any less of an atrocity, but it is the players choice of whether they want to be exposed to that kind of conduct. With PvP comes that conduct.
I don't deny the fact that your server did not experience this, but your server probably lost alot of potential subscribers, or current subscribers, that may or may not have returned. Or maybe they didn't. Definitely, the conduct exhibited by that band of folks was just perverse, and that is the kind of thing that I am concerned about. I am really surprised that SOE didn't catch any kind of serious attention over that. But, Ithink it is definitely what I would consider any companies responsibility to ensure that players are not exposed to this kind of element in a game that specifically spells out that no such actions like this willl be tolerated. Go figure, it is SOE after all. They value dollars over people, as is evidenced by their customer service and the kind of things that you evidenced in your post, "slipping" under their "watchful" eye (much sarcasm intended here. I have no love for SOE).
The flip side to this is: Without the obvious atrocities they committed, would the remainder of the server really have policed them? I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you.
I actually have an EVE account as well. Mostly because I can train and do research and don't even have to log on or pay attention to it. But, then again, I am not concerned about subscription prices. I admit, I like most of the concepts in EVE. On a more personal side, I wish there was more of an avatar than just a spaceship to identify with...Well, you can see the picture of your character on your character screen, or in the chat channels. Although, that is really not the same.
The biggest thing I don't like about it, is that the best of the game is only found in unsecure space, or anything below .5. That is really the biggest disappointment I have with EVE. Otherwise, I enjoy it in the limited areas that secure space affords me When I finally get to the point where I can acquire and fly a Freighter, I'll have fun for a while making millions on single trade runs. But, it is not a long term MMPORG for me, mainly because I would have to travel in deep space to actually enjoy it to the fullest.. and that just means PvP. .
I haven't played, nor have I heard of Nationstate. But, since you provided a link, I'll go check it out and see what it feels like.
Basically, if you haven't figured it out yet.. I am not a fan of PvP in any way, shape or form. My perception is that it leads to "too many bads" and "too few goods". It can make or break a game. That doesn't mean that all PVP will make or break a game. Don't read too much into what I am saying. PvP, implemented in the wrong fashion/way/method, will either make or break a game. Since I couldn't enjoy Lineage II for its obvious flaws(in my opinion, expressed above), I didn't play it for too long. Maybe a few weeks. Maybe it was only a week, I can't recall now. I did play it long enough, however, to watch a player that was afk get killed by someone while 30 some odd people just ran by(including me) and never stopped to help the poor fellow out. Actually I stayed long enough to see that quite a few times. As well as watching higher level characters camping the newbie hunting grounds to get their pleasant romp if you will. As well as watching players get ambushed by other players while they are in a close battle with an npc creature. That is just the kind of stuff that detracts from the enjoyability of exploring an MMPORG, in my opinion. I mean if I have to look over my shoulder every minute,why and how is that supposed to be fun? The game creates the immersion for me, and how well the systems are developed and implemented. The possibility of being killed by another player doesn't create immersion for me.
Heck of a police force we made.
So, anyway, I tried to address each of your comments about my post as best I could. But, I am definitely up for discussing things more, because I am a little worn out at this point. Actually, at this point I am not even sure I addressed everything, or that it makes much sense.. but I think it will have to wait until someone posts again... I need to get my Silent Storm Sentinels fix out of the way first.
And, none of this, was in any way intended to offend. Only to continue this discussion and exploration of PvP and Non-PvP and how it affects us. We are just not a true representation of the majority of people, wherever we are(except maybe for the Far East: South Korea specifically). And then again, there could be other factors that are affecting the type of games they play, and how much exposure they get to other MMPORG markets.
Those of us here are just die-hard fans. We have die-hard beleifs in what makes or breaks a game in our eyes. I'll continue to defend my beliefs, just as I am sure you all will do the same for yours as well.
This is my first post and while I've read through most of this, please forgive me if the idea has been mentioned already.
I'm a 38 year old professional that plays MMORPGs about 5 hours a week. I've played just about every out there and I also like a harsh death penalty and PvP. For me, this makes the game fun. I personaly don't PvP. Here is my idea. In real life, you can usually easily spot someone who goes around beating people up or killing, in part how they look, how they act, and by reputation. In addition to a bounty (which I like alot), what about a good/bad rating for each player? Players would have a sliding scale with one end being good, the other being bad. You get "bad" by doing bad things, stealing, killing etc. So, depending who you kill, this would affect the rating. If you PvP a bad person, it has small impact on your rating but if you PvP a good person, your rating slides significantly towards bad. If you do this often, you'd become so bad that anyone could kill you on sight "anywhere" no negative impact to there own rating. You would become an outcast forced to live in the wastelands away from the towns and the good people. Also, you are only as good (or bad) as the company you keep so if you are good and manage to team up with someone who is bad, your good rating will slowly deteriorate.
This would incourage PvP between players that like to PvP Discourage PvP against players who don't PvP Encourage players with similar play styles to stick together
Perma-ratings of players I think is a bad idea. I say this only because I remember being a "murderer" on the UO game and I was NEVER allowed to enter ANY city unless it was Buck's Den without being killed by guards. I like the idea of being a noted murder or felon of some kind, but the problem comes into play WHERE does it end?
Perhapse if that idea was to be implemented, cities or "regions" would have wanted posters up of those individuals that kill in that AREA. So, if I kill and murder in Las Vegas, I can go to Chicago and might not be known. Or, I might be a known Murder but not wanted in that jurisdiction.
OR
Like I previously posted, depending on what faction or side is winning in an area, that area is contoled by guards that will take care of their own. If the bad guys and crime syndicates own Las Vegas, then a murder can walk freely and not be attacked by guard / police NPCs. Might be a good idea that way?
Agreed and I love your suggestion of being branded a murder only in the territory where the crime was commited. This would make bounty hunting challenging and a real adventure because the "murder" has probably gone far away.
Also, this also penalizes dishonorable PvP by forcing someone out of town or territory, they also by default forfit the possibility of the quests in that area as they would unlikely be able to complet quest with all the locals hunting them down. You would less likely have low level players that are just mucking around making everyones lives miserable as they would unlikely survive the journey to a new territory.
Basically, there are serious concequences to killing someone that does not participate in PvP while those who do will can PvP each other to there heart's content.
Drycat, for the most part I agree with you on many of your points (especially on L2). The basic idea I've come to is you have to declare to become PvP, at which point you have to wait a certain amount of time before you become PvP. Once PvP you can attack anyone else who is PvP. If you want to leave, you have to undeclare PvP, and then wait a certain amount of time for it to wind down. Say talking to town guards to declare/undeclare.
Hardware-DC and userx, I like the ideas about the bounties and moving to different areas that don't know of your bounty. The more you do, whether in one area or moving around, the more the bounty should spread and the bigger it should get. Also, if you kill important NPCs, it should also add to your bounty, though not as much as killing players.
One problem that comes up now is "why PvP?" If certain areas were only open PvP like in EVE Online then there would be a reason. But if they go with a declare system, why would anyone declare? The only reason I can think of is for holding territory. City/Base raids.
Basically my idea use a tweaked version of the basic L2/SWG/CoV raids: The people in charge of the town/base/outpost/whatever choose a time when this can be raided. Then someone chooses to raid the town, and so the town is notified. 30 minutes before the raid is to happen, everyone within 1 mile of the city is notified that raiders have been sighted and are coming with a (30 minutes) next to the message. Then the message goes off ever 5 minutes, with the last one saying something like "The raiders are almost here, anyone who doesn't want to get caught in the fight should leave now (5 minutes)". Then what happens is this: everyone within 1/2 mile of the center of the target gets the options to be a "Defender" or "Civilian". The defender is PvP open, and defending the town. The civilian is non-pvp, and is just a bystandard. Everyone withing the next 1/2mile out gets the option to be a "Raider" or "Civilian," meaning PvP attacking the town or non-pvp. Anyone who leaves the 1 mile radius gets a message asking them if they want to leave the raid, and if they say yes they are out. The raid is over after a set time (either 30 minutes or 1 hour), or one side wipes the other out, or one side forfiets by all leaving the 1 mile radius (with a "you sure?" message before leaving), or a certain objective is finished.
Waiting For: something good Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Too much structure.. what if the defenders or raiders want reinforcements halfway into the raid? Why force a wait on raiding... I think thats the last thing people will want to do is sit around for 30 minutes. Also, the announcement completely negates any form of stealth. Enforcing a 30 min - 1 hour time on the raid seems strange.. wouldn't it just be over when one side wipes out the other? What if the attackers were using a sieging strategy, that would take far longer than an hour?
I'm sorry about sounding so negative, but I'm not sure adding structure to PvP will make it any more tolerable or enjoyable.
I have been PvPing on-line since 1993 starting at the good old days of MUDs through UO and SWG to now, and I can tell you the main reason most people like to PvP........the challange. Those of you that have played SWG will remember the bugs where a Krayte Dragon could be "hung up" on a rock, or harvestor and stay in 1 spot to be picked off by 1 player. WOW...that is so exciting my teeth hurt. I am by no means an engine expert, but I find it hard to make an AI for an on-line game that is not flawed or bugged at some time.
Now, take another human, with a passion to fight, the cash to spend and the pride to fight for his name in the game. And you will see titans in the game fight each other over and over, all day long. Do I feel PvP should be the entire game? No. I think SWG did it best allowing the less fighting types out there to have a sims on-line lifestyle dancing, or playing music to enjoy a social aspect of the game. But, there is a large call for PvP just based on the challange to fight someone that is always thinking, you can't look or read an /examine card and see what they have, use or are classed as. Whatever move you do to an AI, they have a normal chain of events they follow. You do something to a player, or change fighting styles on them, they are forced to adpt and fight or die.
Besides the challange with PvP, you are allowing people to organise and fight in larger scaled battles. I have been involved in some of the largest PvP battles (at least on Flurry) during my time there. And always, people are impressed and excited when we would go out to attack bases. It is an incredible feeling to see on your screen 100 of your friends (or faction friends) running into a city and engaging the enemy. At the ame time, it is exciting being the defender watching your radar fill up with countless red dots and wondering if your about to be a prison inmate, or if you will defeat them.
There will be a lot of people to say otherwise, I am speaking personally from my experiances. To me, PvP is the best thing a game can do, however it is always something that is abused and some of the worst people do it to cause harm or grief. Can't say I am totally innocent myself. but, that is what having faction turn-on/off such a good method. If your red, you made yourself red. so....I will now kill you. You don't wanna be red, then don't engage.
Another post or thread talked about allowing allies to assist in combat situations. This would not be so bad if it wasn't for the countless sleepers you will always have when going into an encounter. I have brought a small team of lets say 6 guys into Theed to gank and run down the single standing rebels after getting intel of only 2-4 overts. Back when you could flag yourself by healing or assisting in some way, you would come across a much LARGER sized group than antisipated. Is that a good 'technique" for fighting? Hell yes it is. however, the problem comes in when that is all people do is hide COVERT in status until an engagement and then run up and gank people and run away. Hard for me to say I hate that idea, it served its purpose for and against me. But, it was always a cheap shot a lot of people did not like.
the game can easily have factions. either you are for the restoration of civilization or you are for anarchy and chaos over law and order. Or, you can be one of the guys in the middle that doesn't wanna be involved. Chose a side and fight for them and MAKE THE GAME yours. These DEVS I have worked under, with and against for over 10yrs now in games. They can not code everything. It is not possible. It is up to the players to MAKE CONTENT and make the game what they want. When you take that option away, then you take away just how dynamic a game could be and make it mundain and soft IMHO.
DISCLAIMER: My typing is horrible, so I hope you get the point. It is 4am here Also, these are my opinions and by no means am I trying to force them on anyone. I am mearly stating how long I have played, I have seen both sides of the coin and what I prefer and how I think it could be better. This game has potential.....but so did SWG.
One thing I want to say is we've gone from (as one poster put it):
Yes to non consensual PvP Yes to full loot drops Yes to non-uber items (i.e. rare items that are rare for a reason, most kit is standard for a reason too) No to item insurance
To an Evercraft clone. Let me show you.
Originally posted by Radzik: I'm hoping in this game its more like. "Check that guy out, he's got the new xxriffle and the xxbody armor...if we ambush him..."
Originally posted by Radzik: One of the main rules I think all games should live by is RISK vs. REWARD. Too many games took this rule out to take care of the crybabies. Put something worthwhile in a PvP zone, and all the non-pvpers cry about not being fair and balanced. Its all Risk vs. Reward. You dont want to risk going into pvp lands, then you get no reward. Too many games are taking away from the risk, and adding to the reward.
The PvP zones should have much more powerful items to be found in compaired to the non pvp zones. Again, the golden rule, Risk vs. Reward.
Originally posted by Thrak: I both disagree and agree here. The problem is that this is not a balance of risk and reward, it is a complete polarisation. To have an area you can generate items or resources in without risk (i.e. a PvE only area) means that those people not willing to go out and risk pvp will simply PvE for the cash to buy those items they cannot get themselves. As long as there is a situation where money can be generated with zero risk, inflation and economic realism go out of the window (see every rpg except until recently EVE Online). And if one thing does not fit with a post apocalyptic setting it is the glut of resources zero-risk PvE causes.
Its more or less my opinion that the the only non-PvP zones present should be those in and directly (very directly) around the starting npc run towns. And that literally you can gain nothing or very close to nothing from them. The best way to make these non-PvP zone is to have the players hand in all weapons (automated, for a 'ticket') to npcs before entering the town, and of course have the town choc-a-bloc full of heavily armed npc guards that dissuade PvP for line of sight from the town - and maybe a few NPC guard outposts at critical junctions nearby.
Anyways, I totally agree with the risk vs reward mentality.
Yes to non consensual PvP
Yes to full loot drops
Yes to non-uber items (i.e. rare items that are rare for a reason, most kit is standard for a reason too)
No to item insurance
I should also add, that I am against arena and CTF combat, it totally ruins the immersion for me.
Basically I feel that in a post apocalyptic world, ppl should have to watch thier backs and tread carefully.
Originally posted by Cthulhuvong: I was talking with my friend last night about FE and he said that one thing he wanted to see in a game like this was working police. He wanted some kind of force in towns that could stop fights if they occured.
Lets say Player A sees a noob just starting and wants to gank him. He takes a shot and wings the noob, and this alert nearby police (any within sight/hearing range). They run at him yelling stop with weapons drawn, and if he fires again, they take him dow hard. Maybe they could do subdual damage and just knock him out of he hasn't threatened a cop, or maybe they just kill him. If hes dead, his body is now free to loot.
And by full loot drops I'm assuming that you all mean everyone is able to loot from anyone's kill.
Originally posted by Thrak: If you make it single server, only non-consentual, the carebears don't have a choice but to play or not to. And I think in this universe they will play. Let me put it this way: I am hoping against all odds that this is not going to be a Post Apocalyptic flavoured Everquest clone. And without non-consensual pvp, a mmorpg in this setting can pretty much only aspire to be that. Any player towns, zoneless maps etc is just trimming on the same game dynamic.
We have gone from people talking of having to be careful and watch out to not having to worry about anything. We've gone from Risk vs. Reward to "it will scare people away." We have gone from realistic feeling Post-Apocalypse to Post-Apocalypse flavored WoW. Before, I was against the spliting of servers, as I believed having 1 universe so that content is constantly flowing and changing is better than the industry standard of a stagnant world (see EQ, WoW, SWG, basically all of them except for EVE). Now I say there has to be atleast 2 servers to satisfy everyone. A Hardcore server with open PvP and a constantly changing landscape, and another one (don't want to call it the Carebear server, maybe Easy would be best) which is no/limited PvP and due to the fact that not much can happen to change the landscape.
Go back, read the 20 pages. We've gone over bounties, law enforcement, PvP (zoneless or not), looting. Its all there.
Waiting For: something good Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
You're absolutely right. I never responded to the comment about "carebears" before, but I'm glad you mentioned that as one of the innapropriate labels. I'd like the person who posted, or any person that takes that same stance (can't remember right now who it was), to explain what that is in their eyes so I can understand how to stratify the people in this forum. ( myself included! hehe )
At any rate, since there are PvPers that want a choice of when they are affected by PvP or can relax in the safety of a non-PvP setting, does that make them "carebears" too? Some people just enjoy PvP for the challenge, but they do not want to be challenged by having to PvP whenever someone else decides its time. They want to PvP when they want to. (That doesn't mean that they want to go into town and sit down and just craft either as an alternative to taking a break from PvP). Does that make them "carebears" too?
I don't know how FE will turn out on this. But I hope it is more geared towards something in the middle-ground. None of us knows which half, or which middle position, or any of our positions will best suit the game and support a long term player base. We are all across the extremes when it comes to our opinion on what would best suit the game, as Cthul posted. Will any of these concepts alone be able to support and nurture a long term player base? ( Meaning, something between 6 months and a year to get a good feel of the player base you will support and sustain )
I think your idea about 2 different servers is an excellent idea Cthul. It is much easier then for the developers/owners of FE see how the active, populations vary over the two servers, while still providing all players what they want. Maybe then they will be able to make a more informed decision, if necessary.
Originally posted by drycat I think your idea about 2 different servers is an excellent idea Cthul. It is much easier then for the developers/owners of FE see how the active, populations vary over the two servers, while still providing all players what they want. Maybe then they will be able to make a more informed decision, if necessary. excellent post Cthul
If by 2 different servers you/Cthul mean 1 server with PvP and one without, I'm not sure about that. I don't think that the game is big enough for that, and players probably won't want to make that choice.
Think about this from the perspective of the "average" player (someone who might download the beta for free, looking to have some fun).
He/she probably wants some action. He/she probably wants the game to be fairly realistic. Still, he/she probably does NOT want to be killed by some "1337" player (this is exactly what you will get, especially if the game is twitchy) who has a ridiculously high bounty but still manages to gank at random.
My stance on PvP in MMO's has always been relatively consistent. Give players a place to start out in that's free of PvP (with the exception of consentual PvP of some sort if they're too anxious to prepare themselves for playing regulars), let them build their skills up in typical MMO fashion, and then give them the option of entering the fray in the "badlands", where anything goes. I have yet to see any sound reasoning as to why new players should be subjected to PvP that they are not prepared for.
----------------------------------- Go you must. No guest shall stay in one place for ever. Love will be lost if you sit too long at a friend's fire.
Originally posted by drycat I think your idea about 2 different servers is an excellent idea Cthul. It is much easier then for the developers/owners of FE see how the active, populations vary over the two servers, while still providing all players what they want. Maybe then they will be able to make a more informed decision, if necessary. excellent post Cthul
If by 2 different servers you/Cthul mean 1 server with PvP and one without, I'm not sure about that. I don't think that the game is big enough for that, and players probably won't want to make that choice.
Think about this from the perspective of the "average" player (someone who might download the beta for free, looking to have some fun).
He/she probably wants some action. He/she probably wants the game to be fairly realistic. Still, he/she probably does NOT want to be killed by some "1337" player (this is exactly what you will get, especially if the game is twitchy) who has a ridiculously high bounty but still manages to gank at random.
My stance on PvP in MMO's has always been relatively consistent. Give players a place to start out in that's free of PvP, let them build their skills up in typical MMO fashion, and then give them the option of entering the fray in the "badlands", where anything goes. I have yet to see any sound reasoning as to why new players should be subjected to PvP that they are not prepared for.
Not completely Non-PvP and PvP. Just consensual PvP of some sort. By that I mean having a similiar system like SWG, or some other format that gives the player a choice whether they want to be PvP enabled. As for the second server, it could be open PvP if that is the choice. The progression you talk about could be implemented on the PvP server for instance, while the Non-PvP server (if we want to call it that) features a system that allows the player a decision on whether they will enable themselves for PvP. Much how PvP was implemented in SWG. I liked that system, as it allowed the neutral players to explore the same game content, minus the faction specific items, that the PvP players(Imperial and Rebel) had access to. So, certain game world/content/loot/resources was not limited to people who were PvP enabled(Imperials and Rebels).
It could be one server for all that matters, as long as it gives the choice to the player whether they are going to be PvP enabled or not.
Since the FE homepage seems to give the impression that PvP will be area-oriented, I would say that the best related system would be one of appropriate risk vs reward. This means a few things;
1) To acquire truly exceptional items and see the most amazing sights, you would have to brave the uncontrolled PvP areas.
2) As a result, people who don't like PvP can stay in the non-PvP areas, and just play the game out that way.
3) If a non-PvPer decides they want the exceptional items, but dont want the risk, they can hire another player to brave the PvP area and get it for them. (as an extension to this, if you want to safely see the risky sights, hire another player to get high level movement enhancing equipment, or a vehicle for you, and just outrun PvPers.)
Comments
I'm not against PvP as long as that something you want to fight over doesn't unfairly balance the game in favor of individuals who are combat types or want to participate in PvP. Keep the rewards based off what you can get off the people you are fighting, and not an advantage, be it economic/non-economic, over the non-combat player base.
As long as the something to fight over is maybe that "pair of shoes" that the other person is wearing, you guys go to town. The idea that PvP should be rewarded above and beyond what the non-PvP characters and non-combat classes have access to, is just completely unbalanced. Keep the rewards to whatever you can loot off their bodies. Otherwise you have the game dominated economically/geographically/etc.. by a small group of hardcore combat-oriented types. Then you are basically forcing people to play on someone elses' terms.
Look back a few pages at some of the comments on PvP oriented games. That is if you need a refresher on why PvP is the hardest system to implement effectively, and fairly. And I am not talking about one class being better than another type, kind of fairness. I could care less whether one class is more effectiove at killing things/people/players than another. As long as you are not unfairly rewarding the PvP kings above what the rest of the player base has access to. Making equivalent content available to both PvPers and Non-PvPers is the best way to discover a medium that all of the player base can live with. And, this is not purely from a non-combat orientation. Fallen Earth's life depends on how it manages its PvP system. Otherwise, it will have a short life. Period.
I would like to see FE be very successful, and attract a multitude of the gamers from other MMPORG's. PvP alone will not attract and retain a large player base. Plain and simple.
As long as you acheive a middle ground that neither pleases or displeases either of the camps, PvP - Middleground - Non-PvP, you will succeed in appeasing them as well as those in between. If you think of your player base in an MMPORG as something like a bell curve, you will appreciate the need for compromise much more so than if you just argue for one or the other. That is why the middle ground is where the compromise must be made. Otherwise, you are doomed to a ganking, corpse-camping time that is agreeably not enjoyed by PvPers and Non-PvPers alike. Then you can watch as your subscription base flees your MMPORG like rats leaving a drowning ship.
Then you are doomed to being a smallish, never quite successful title(at the best) that almost had it right.
I understand what you are saying, but here is why you are some what wrong. Those wishing to NOT PvP DO benifit from those that PvP is they are in the crafting type of business. PvPers (as long as there is decay, which is why SWG sucks now) always need weapons, armor, food/drugs, vehicles/ships etc made. The way SWG had the economy set up in the begining was unreal.
Me liking to murder and cause chaos need items to do such types of activies. Those making me armor, WANT me to PvP so my armor turns to crap and I need more. Those making weapons WANT me to use them because my wepaons either degrade, or maybe in FE case I need ammo..etc. I need to be able to heal myself and or juice myself up above and beyound the norm (if FE allows that) so food or drug crafters are needed. I will want to upgrade, outfit or do something with my car if allowed. As a fighter class, I wont have the skills to do it at all, or even effectively.
So, just from those few examples, non PvP classes do benifit and gain from a PvP type of game. It is just a matter of making the community NEED itself rather than looted items.
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com DC Main Page
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/apocalypse Sci-Fi / Apoc Theme Forums
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/citadel DnD Style Theme forums (coming soon)
(I havent read all the posts on this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating stuff:P)
First of all, to all open PVP fans out there: most mmo players dont enjoy participating in meaningless pvp activities when they dont want to, especially when it isnt fair (its an rpg after all : players with more experience/levels and better items/weapons do and should have an advantage over lower lvl players).
Thankfully Icarus isnt planning on having open pvp as seen in their faq:
"Will I get killed right away while I’m learning the game?
No. FALLEN EARTH doesn’t allow Player vs Player combat outside of certain missions or areas. Accessing those special missions or areas will be your decision -- getting killed is your option, killing players who haven’t agreed to the special conditions isn’t."
Pvp is only fun when you want to pvp. In my opinion it should be implemented in a way where you can only pvp when you expect to pvp and have agreed to it.
For example in quests: you must attack the enemy faction's outpost xxx and retrieve/destroy a special item. You can only do that between the next 30 to 60 mins (the time that the item will be at the outpost). At the same time a quest is available for the next 30 mins at your enemy's faction -defend the outpost xxx for the time the special item is there.
If noone gets the defend quest, there will be npcs that are defening the item. If someone gets it it will be a nice pvp battle both sides will enjoy. Maybe it will be a 5vs5 battle instead of 1vs1 where up to 5 player characters can take the quest for each side (npcs will fill empty places). When the attackers arive at the outpost they will be able to attack only the defenders, who have accepted the quest and vice versa.
Or special areas: the abandoned warehouse is a huge facility full of forgotten technologies. It is very hard to get at and is completely isolated. The only law that applies here is the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, every man for himself.
If you choose to enter it in search for rare items you should be prepared not only to fight whatever npcs/creatures you might find but also other players wanting the same items as you.
It's all about choise. You want to pvp? Then take that quest, go in the warhouse, or even in a pvp arena where you fight for money and glory.
You want to relax and do some exploring/kill some creatures for their loots? Noone should be able to jump in and kill you making you angry.
As for pvp rewards, if pvp is controlled and meaningfull rewards are there too: the completion/rewards of the quest, the items of the warehouse, money and glory from the pvp arena.
Finally for those who DO enjoy running around killing unsuspecting players there could be special outlaw quests for the players of the travelers faction where you would have to kill another player who matches some criteria (faction/level etc). Only people matching these criteria are attackable and after the first attack/death the quest is completed: you cant attack more. The downside would be that afterwards a quest would apear in the nearby town for all to get ( or just enfoncers) to hunt you down and kill you (once only). They could also have additional information like the general area you are in etc - you are a wanted person afterall- . But that would only lead to more pvp, only this time you are the victim : you can only attack players that attack you (those who have taken the bounty quest). Once you are dead the quest is completed for those who killed you - they get rewards- and is failed for the rest.
To keep this from growing into discomfort and griefing for the victims the outlaw quests should only be available to you once a day , and there should be limited outlaw quests available each day with different criteria. In addition an unsuspecting player can only be a victim once a day. After an outlaw kills him, he cant be targeted by onother outlaw during the same day (where day is a defined time space).
After all if you like just to pvp, you better be good at it and prepared. If you are good you will have a good day pvping: finding your target, killing him, and then repelling off the bounty hunters coming for you.
Well, this ended larger than I expected but I think that if pvp is somewhere in this direction it will be enjoyable by all.
Of course this will add to the complexity of the game. Icarus will have to make the pvp quests (or have them random generated), make the warehouse, make the arena , the outlaw quests etc. If they choose to just have a pvp on/off flag it will be easier.
But I really think that it is worth the trouble. They will not just be addressing pvp issues, they will be addind greatly to the game and its fun. Most players DO love to pvp. Its way better to fight someone with real intelligence over some ai. But they want to be able to choose when to pvp and they want pvp to
be fair ,rewarding and fun.
Well that's what I had to say, I hope I wasnt tiresome
Fallen earth has the potential of being the best mmo ever. I hope they wont ruin it (at least for me) by adding open pvp, full pvp loot and many other similar ideas that are "realistic" but not fun. After all it is a game. It wont ever be completely real. It is supposed to be fun. If I want realism I close the pc
.
Non-PvP types and non-combat types all fall into the same category. I should have used non-PvP types. Read Inglemo's response. That is a fairly good idea, though I hesitate at anything that provides PvPers an advantage over non-PvPers. I think we can all agree that all-out PvP is not effective, in any way, in recruiting and retaining a player base.
To answer your post briefly, you are making non-PvPers(which I stated above include non-combat types) the services-engine for PvPers. Heh. I don't know how else to answer that. I'll answer it in more detail after work.
To PvP realists I say this: I live in the real world, so why on Earth do you think I want to play in it too?
I think that is the aim of developers, and not to make the game world as realistic as possible. After all, I know I am not paying someone 15$ a month to have a second job!
And for your information, I am not a crafter all the time.
Ok here is my opinion on the subject which right now is a bit divided...
One thing i hate that tends to take away from the game IMO is people who want to kill just to kill. Ive played games where those who have worked their way up a bit just walk around and slaughter newbies just to power trip. there has to be some way to protect people from pvp when they really DONT want to or CANT...
on the other hand.. from an post-holocaust point of view.. there is chaos and no order.. therefore you should be subject to raiding parties etc. at any time. the very nature of the game should reflect that these are troubled and dangerous times and venturing out alone carries risks with it.
I do not agree with a complete alliance of one type. what made SWG great was that it reflected true society and structure and economy. nearly ever item in the game had to be MADE by someone, and that required obtaining resources to MAKE them.. creating the need for miners/farmers etc. You cant hope to have an entire class of military minded people, and allow them to simply kill and destroy all the scentists factions because they have no way of defending themselves. it would throw an imbalance into the game and cause a breakdown in the very structure... leading to everyone wanting to be a fighter just so they can have a chance of surviving. SWG used a "good vs evil" system which allowed people to be good, bad, or neutral. throwing multiple factions into the game where one must be a part of that particular belief will cause polarizations with more weak points than strong.
The idea of the game is to rebuild a new world. individuals cant accomplish that. the game must be teamwork based with incentives for grouping and clanning. subtleties must be encorporated that force people to either work together, or take extreme risks. that is the very point of an MMORPG!!! if you want to run around on your own and do your own thing.. go play fallout. MMORPGs are for massive amounts of people who derive their pleasure of the game from teamwork and working with other live players to accomplish something. there must be something to accomplish and each group should have the freedom to establish what is important to them, and be able to defend that.
SWG showed a good way to allow PvP all over the game without forcing anyone to do anything. Looking at Fallout, Mad Max or any other post apoc game/movie, there is a good and bad side. Those that want to rebuild the world and make it what it once was, and those that like the lawlessness and enjoy inflicting pain and misery to those around.
It is not hard to see FE allowing "factions", and having people fight for the good or bad side so to speak. This allows you to turn your status on or off if you want, and still be able to enjoy the entire game as whatever you wnt to be.
What was neat about UO, was the established cities were safe zones. Like I posted before, cities under :martial law" will have guards, and military command to enforce order. These woudl be noob cities as well as major economy cities around the world. But lesser cities (player cities?) or outposts along the way, should be open to PvP. Arena's are really lame and in a time period as this, unrealistic. Yes, I also posted about the sacrifices of realism vs an enjoyable game. But think about it...did Mad Max only fight in the Thunderdome? Or did he fight in the wastelands wherever "evil" might have been found.
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com DC Main Page
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/apocalypse Sci-Fi / Apoc Theme Forums
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/citadel DnD Style Theme forums (coming soon)
I think that PvP is great, but than again I love to RolePlay aswell and mixing the two can be sometimes a great pleasure and other times a horrid mess. The best way to mix the two if you are looking for that kind of thing would be to have 'guild wars' so certain guilds could declare war on other guilds and if you are a member of guild X and see a member of guild Y they are attackable anywhere Even in starting cities because new people really shouldnt join guilds until ready to fight or ready to have a bodyguard.. more of a RP feel to the game that way.
Also if you are having the factions fight do what SWG did and make it so you have to go OVERT to fight anyone else, but I think you should add in that you can help someone else in your faction if he is fighting another. Say you are covert and you see a member of Faction X (your faction) Attacking a member of Faction Y. He needs help so you join in on the fight.. And vise versa so you could get a whole battle starting up in a city because 2 guys started fighting.. this would be a lot more fun than having to run to a certain guy and running back to join in on the battle.
And of course you need to add a /duel command because RP is no fun without this. If you cant fight than really you cant Roleplay correctly. However you could make the PvP 100% of the time, but than you have griefers that ruin RP for the sake of killing people, but this would not be so bad if you had a Penelty system. So really I would need more information on PvP to help better the system. But above is how I would like the game to run PvP wise.
P.S. I love the clothing Ideas Great for RP keep up the GREAT work!
_______________________________
Current Game: None
(Waiting on Fallen Earth)
Games Tried:
Star Wars Galaxies (Pre-NGE): 9/10
Planetside: 7/10
Horizons: 4/10
Eve Online: 8/10
Asherons call: 3/10
All out PVP in any way, other than a faction based system as implemented in SWG or a system like it, would just lead eventually to the majority of players leaving the game entirely. Anything based on player choice is a very reasonable PvP system. SWG makes a very good example of how it should work. Not to say it was perfect, but it was very liveable.
As far as Mad Max goes, he never had to fight griefers and corpse campers either hehe
How realistic is griefing and corpse camping? If it is possible to eliminate the necessity for corpses, and being griefed, I suppose that PvP could make it feel more like an RPG. But, with PvP comes all of the above, including nerfs, since most changes are made because PvP classes are not balanced well enough to satisfy player X(who is a PvPer of a certain class) and player Y who is completely dominating him/her at the same skill and level(and is a PvPer of another class). Not to say that PvP is the reason we have nerfs, but it certainly contributes its fair share.
All in all, I am just repeating the same things over and over, just in more brief, segments. So, here is to hoping that FE will find that middleground. I think that your implied Good - Neutral - Evil type PvP system is a good idea. That is if I understood you correctly. That is about as close to SWG PvP as you can get.
I dunno, Star Wars used a faction system because there were two distinct factions. I don't think a post-apoc world is clear cut enough for factions. I say don't code them into the game... they will eventually form by themselves. I think the key for next generation titles is more player control.
http://www.fallenearth.se - Your source for Fallen Earth information
Which is what Good - Neutral - Evil can address, if you like. Personally, I am in the camp that believes that PvP is not utilized in an appropraite manner to be a premeir game system, or a reasonable method for addressing a constant, factional PvP system. That kind of framework will not please PvPers or Non-PvPers. As PvPers have stated that they even like taking a break from PvP, which means they like to relax in the Non-PvP settings of the Non-PvP areas. But, there would be no such thing with factional based PvP, since at any time someone from an opposing faction may come along and *murder* you, regardless of where you were. By allowing factions to ally themselves with a Good - Neutral - Evil structure, it is much easier to tell who your enemies and allies are.
Allowing Player factions to determine who they are fighting will only lead to chaos. It is only human nature that drives the desire for chaos. That is why we have a legal system and penalties. In an MMPORG, there is no effective way to monitor and control PvP without providing limitations. These limitations provide the "artificial" legal system with severe penalties, yet they might accomplish it through using "flags", "factions that are identifiable ie. good neutral evil .. could be 5 or 6, as long as there is a neutral ground", "PvP zones" etc..
At any rate, we as players are not disciplined enough to make these decisions for the developers. If PvP was anything like what you all are striving for in FE (all out kill everyone that is above level 10, let's say), then Icarus may as well dump their cash in the garbage bin. After all, it is their investment, of their own funds. And, personally, you are not going to take risks on PvP with your own money.
When EQ is still the biggest subscription based MMPORG around, based almost entirely on PvE, it makes you say,"Hrmm, if I do almost the same thing, in a different setting, I can make a ton of cash". The Fantasy-RPG genre which is EQ has had its hay day, at least for now. EQ2 was just more fo the same that EQ had, just prettier. So, naturally no one is going to continue subscribing to it, excepet for maybe die-hard EQ fans. There were about 400,000 subscribers at the pinnacle of the EQ subscription base (at 10 - 15$ per: that is about 4 - 6 million a month, not considering taxes). And in addition they have the Station Access as well, which sports somewhere around 50,000 users at 21$. I don't want FE to be another EQ or EQII, which it isn't from the looks of it.
PvP can make or breaks a game, peroid. You implement it the wrong way, and *blammo* you lose all of the people that can't stand PvP based gameplay all of the time. That is about all of your subscription base right there.
Secondly, "Good" groups fight with other "Good" groups all the time in fiction and real life, as do so called "Evil" groups. To not allow them to struggle against each other creates an artificial good vs. bad scenario, when the developers are focusing more on survival and conflict as seen in their movies and info about the game. You've obviously never played Lineage 2. It is the largest MMO in the world (over 3 million subscribers), and has full, open PvP outside of NPC towns. It also has guild controlled Castles, and guild raids. Open PvP works, but like has been said again and again, you will have griefers. Its one of the first and most lasting thing you will see. The next and most lasting thing you will see is what I like to call "defenders." Let me explain.
There is a game I play called Nationstates. It is a free game where you control a nation and get to rule on its domestic affairs. There are regions for different groups to come and go as they please, or set up their own if they wish. They can vote in people who control their region, and run basic things like discription and votes in the UN. What happened was people started invading other regions, taking them over and putting their own person in charge, then kicking out the others. What soon happened was that, rather than try and get the developers involved and have them deal with this unforseen problem which would take forever to deal with, defender groups started forming. Some were defensive pacts, saying they would help stop such invasions, others were groups of nations that wandered around and counter-actted invasions. In the end, invasions still go on (though no more kicking nations out of regions) but the community polices itself.
Another story I want to empart on you, is from my personal expiriance on Galaxies. What happened was that a guild called HARM came to my server from Bloodfin, a major PvP server. They joined the Rebels who were (and still are) getting their asses beaten. And they started winning, which is good. But the problem arose when they started "raping" the corpses of their defeated enemies. They would lay down on the bodies and emote "so-and-so rapes the corpse of opponent" and other disgusting things. There are many who play Galaxies who are still minors, and so the server called to anyone at SOE to stop them. SOE did nothing. So the server banded toghether, and policed HARM itself. Other Rebels limited or completely stopped their PvP until HARM was defeated, many even switched sides just to fight them. Merchants banned them from shops and vendors, as did many entertainers. Many PC towns banned them from using their facilities. We policed ourselves, and as we fought them we eventually defeated them time and again and drove them from the server.
And now I want to go to another reason why I love the idea of open PvP: EVE Online. In the latest issue of PC Gamer they tell the story of something that happened in EVE Online that is impossible on almost every other MMO out there now. Over the course of a year, this organization infiltrated a corperation, built themselves up inside, even go on the board of directors and became the CEO's bodyguard, and then in one fell swoop killed the CEO, plundered the corp of over 30 billion IDK (in game money, equal it $16,500 in real life), and got paid the 1 Billion for the bounty. These members of the organization attacked and crippled it from the inside. I find this so amaizing and awe inspiring. I wish we could do things like that in FE.
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Thank you, Cthulhuvong, for expertly conveying everything I wanted to say.
I just wanted to reinforce the fact that in a post-apoc world, everyone is in a gray area and not bound to Good - Neutral - Evil. For example, the Enforcers seem like they would fall under the Good category. But what if a small group inside the Enforcers was selling weapons to some Chota for a little extra profit? Under a strict faction system, you wouldn't be able to administer punishment to these characters.
We really need less restrictions. Less restriction means more player control, which in every MMO I've played so far is a good thing. Yes, there are possibilities for people to act immature, but it all evens out in time. It also in some ways takes a little strain off the developer to make content, as players inevitably make content for themselves (like Cthulhuvong's EVE Online story).
http://www.fallenearth.se - Your source for Fallen Earth information
Secondly, "Good" groups fight with other "Good" groups all the time in fiction and real life, as do so called "Evil" groups. To not allow them to struggle against each other creates an artificial good vs. bad scenario, when the developers are focusing more on survival and conflict as seen in their movies and info about the game.
You've obviously never played Lineage 2. It is the largest MMO in the world (over 3 million subscribers), and has full, open PvP outside of NPC towns. It also has guild controlled Castles, and guild raids. Open PvP works, but like has been said again and again, you will have griefers. Its one of the first and most lasting thing you will see. The next and most lasting thing you will see is what I like to call "defenders." Let me explain.There is a game I play called Nationstates. It is a free game where you control a nation and get to rule on its domestic affairs. There are regions for different groups to come and go as they please, or set up their own if they wish. They can vote in people who control their region, and run basic things like discription and votes in the UN. What happened was people started invading other regions, taking them over and putting their own person in charge, then kicking out the others. What soon happened was that, rather than try and get the developers involved and have them deal with this unforseen problem which would take forever to deal with, defender groups started forming. Some were defensive pacts, saying they would help stop such invasions, others were groups of nations that wandered around and counter-actted invasions. In the end, invasions still go on (though no more kicking nations out of regions) but the community polices itself.
Another story I want to empart on you, is from my personal expiriance on Galaxies. What happened was that a guild called HARM came to my server from Bloodfin, a major PvP server. They joined the Rebels who were (and still are) getting their asses beaten. And they started winning, which is good. But the problem arose when they started "raping" the corpses of their defeated enemies. They would lay down on the bodies and emote "so-and-so rapes the corpse of opponent" and other disgusting things. There are many who play Galaxies who are still minors, and so the server called to anyone at SOE to stop them. SOE did nothing. So the server banded toghether, and policed HARM itself. Other Rebels limited or completely stopped their PvP until HARM was defeated, many even switched sides just to fight them. Merchants banned them from shops and vendors, as did many entertainers. Many PC towns banned them from using their facilities. We policed ourselves, and as we fought them we eventually defeated them time and again and drove them from the server.
And now I want to go to another reason why I love the idea of open PvP: EVE Online. In the latest issue of PC Gamer they tell the story of something that happened in EVE Online that is impossible on almost every other MMO out there now. Over the course of a year, this organization infiltrated a corperation, built themselves up inside, even go on the board of directors and became the CEO's bodyguard, and then in one fell swoop killed the CEO, plundered the corp of over 30 billion IDK (in game money, equal it $16,500 in real life), and got paid the 1 Billion for the bounty. These members of the organization attacked and crippled it from the inside. I find this so amaizing and awe inspiring. I wish we could do things like that in FE.
It depends on how you want to interprete the success of Lineage as an MMPORG. If you are referring to a subscriber base, you are most likely checking MMOG chart.com. If this is the case, you will notice that there is not a clear number of identified subscriptions since it is played mostly through internet cafes in the Far EAstern part of the world where it was "born". It's measure of success in the US, as of the latest info on MMOG chart March 2005, is 7,623 subscribers. And this is referring to Lineage, which is estimated at 2.1 million subscribers worldwide(concentrated in South Korea), under varying subscription plans, as of March 2005. Lineage II, as of March 2005 has 65,644 subscribers in the US out of a worldwide number of 2.1 million. Probably alot of these are Lineage subscribers. The point is that Lineage is one of the most successful MMPORG's in the Far East: introduced in South Korea, spread to China, Japan, Taiwan and the US, with less success in these areas than in South Korea.
While Lineage and Lineage II are quite successful, the success is regional. I admit, the numbers look nice. I have played Lineage II, but it was too much of a cookie cutter from characters, clothing, armor, and the entire game, basically. Not to mention, I don't like the open PvP. So, who knows? But, this is all my personal preference, but it must be shared by others in the US, seeing the number of subscriptions it garners here. So, basically, the US seems to be the least in touch with actively playing MMPORG's in the numbers that we might see in other areas, where Lineage and Lineage II, for instance, enjoy the bulk of their fan base. But, itis more likely that the US players are split among a throng of MMPORG's and not really rooted in a single one. But, this is merely specualation, and the fact I enjoy nothing more than typing all day. Basically, because I have to do it all day anyway
So, I tried to sum that up as best as possible. I tried to be succinct and precise, and not leave anything up to the imagination this time (though I probably still managed to do this, just as we all do). The exception being my speculation at the end. Which, maybe most US video game players just play single player, or LAN based internet games because there isn't really a single MMPORG out there that appeals to them. I don't know. Maybe MMOG.com has some more specific information on this, or another site. But, a day of coding, school, and work is enough to drive me away from pursuing this.
I'll briefly address the Good-Neutral-Evil, if you like. I did not elaborate on it enough it seems, nor did I intend to. I suppose one sentence is not quite enough and leaves too much up to the imagination, which was the intent of the statement in the first place. My intent was to leave that statement purely up to, "filling in the blanks", and not intended to represent an ideal solution or system. I was more or less responding to the idea represented by a previous poster as an option(and it was the previous poster in the forum thread I am looking at). Definitely not intended to be taken in the way it was addressed in your post. As an aside, I liked the SWG faction system where neutrality was an option. I think I say that in every post I make. But, I haven't reread my posts yet, so who knows hehe
My preferred scheme would be to make PvP an option, and not force anyone to align themselves anywhere. And, that is really my concern.. making it fair, equal, and leaving choices up to the players on how they want to interact in the game. If that means I will never be the target of PvP, I should be able to choose that option without limiting my exposure to the game world and its content because of that decision. Likewise, those who choose to engage in PvP enjoy the same things. Equality in the way we choose to interact with the game. After all, this is supposed to represent our "vision" of Eutopia, and not a second reality. We already have one of those. I don't want a second one that is going to make me labor at someone elses' pace. Too much like a second job for my tastes and a majority/minority like me. Which can be said to hold true for both sides of this discussion, reversing the intent if you will..
As far as your experiences in SWG, I'm glad you guys did defend the population against them. Their conduct is something that SOE is famed for not acting upon. But, I still stand by the opinion that, players will, for the most part, not police themselves. Namely, because SWG happens to be one of the Faction based PvP systems I post about it being reasonable. Mainly because they have a neutral ground that will allow me to avoid PvP all together. That doesn't make what those indivduals did any less of an atrocity, but it is the players choice of whether they want to be exposed to that kind of conduct. With PvP comes that conduct.
I don't deny the fact that your server did not experience this, but your server probably lost alot of potential subscribers, or current subscribers, that may or may not have returned. Or maybe they didn't. Definitely, the conduct exhibited by that band of folks was just perverse, and that is the kind of thing that I am concerned about. I am really surprised that SOE didn't catch any kind of serious attention over that. But, Ithink it is definitely what I would consider any companies responsibility to ensure that players are not exposed to this kind of element in a game that specifically spells out that no such actions like this willl be tolerated. Go figure, it is SOE after all. They value dollars over people, as is evidenced by their customer service and the kind of things that you evidenced in your post, "slipping" under their "watchful" eye (much sarcasm intended here. I have no love for SOE).
The flip side to this is: Without the obvious atrocities they committed, would the remainder of the server really have policed them? I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you.
I actually have an EVE account as well. Mostly because I can train and do research and don't even have to log on or pay attention to it. But, then again, I am not concerned about subscription prices. I admit, I like most of the concepts in EVE. On a more personal side, I wish there was more of an avatar than just a spaceship to identify with...Well, you can see the picture of your character on your character screen, or in the chat channels. Although, that is really not the same.
The biggest thing I don't like about it, is that the best of the game is only found in unsecure space, or anything below .5. That is really the biggest disappointment I have with EVE. Otherwise, I enjoy it in the limited areas that secure space affords me
When I finally get to the point where I can acquire and fly a Freighter, I'll have fun for a while making millions on single trade runs. But, it is not a long term MMPORG for me, mainly because I would have to travel in deep space to actually enjoy it to the fullest.. and that just means PvP. .
I haven't played, nor have I heard of Nationstate. But, since you provided a link, I'll go check it out and see what it feels like.
Basically, if you haven't figured it out yet.. I am not a fan of PvP in any way, shape or form. My perception is that it leads to "too many bads" and "too few goods". It can make or break a game. That doesn't mean that all PVP will make or break a game. Don't read too much into what I am saying. PvP, implemented in the wrong fashion/way/method, will either make or break a game. Since I couldn't enjoy Lineage II for its obvious flaws(in my opinion, expressed above), I didn't play it for too long. Maybe a few weeks. Maybe it was only a week, I can't recall now. I did play it long enough, however, to watch a player that was afk get killed by someone while 30 some odd people just ran by(including me) and never stopped to help the poor fellow out. Actually I stayed long enough to see that quite a few times. As well as watching higher level characters camping the newbie hunting grounds to get their pleasant romp if you will. As well as watching players get ambushed by other players while they are in a close battle with an npc creature. That is just the kind of stuff that detracts from the enjoyability of exploring an MMPORG, in my opinion. I mean if I have to look over my shoulder every minute,why and how is that supposed to be fun? The game creates the immersion for me, and how well the systems are developed and implemented. The possibility of being killed by another player doesn't create immersion for me.
Heck of a police force we made.
So, anyway, I tried to address each of your comments about my post as best I could. But, I am definitely up for discussing things more, because I am a little worn out at this point. Actually, at this point I am not even sure I addressed everything, or that it makes much sense.. but I think it will have to wait until someone posts again... I need to get my Silent Storm Sentinels fix out of the way first.
And, none of this, was in any way intended to offend. Only to continue this discussion and exploration of PvP and Non-PvP and how it affects us. We are just not a true representation of the majority of people, wherever we are(except maybe for the Far East: South Korea specifically). And then again, there could be other factors that are affecting the type of games they play, and how much exposure they get to other MMPORG markets.
Those of us here are just die-hard fans. We have die-hard beleifs in what makes or breaks a game in our eyes. I'll continue to defend my beliefs, just as I am sure you all will do the same for yours as well.
This has become quite an interesting thread.
This is my first post and while I've read through most of this, please forgive me if the idea has been mentioned already.
I'm a 38 year old professional that plays MMORPGs about 5 hours a week. I've played just about every out there and I also like a harsh death penalty and PvP. For me, this makes the game fun. I personaly don't PvP. Here is my idea. In real life, you can usually easily spot someone who goes around beating people up or killing, in part how they look, how they act, and by reputation. In addition to a bounty (which I like alot), what about a good/bad rating for each player? Players would have a sliding scale with one end being good, the other being bad. You get "bad" by doing bad things, stealing, killing etc. So, depending who you kill, this would affect the rating. If you PvP a bad person, it has small impact on your rating but if you PvP a good person, your rating slides significantly towards bad. If you do this often, you'd become so bad that anyone could kill you on sight "anywhere" no negative impact to there own rating. You would become an outcast forced to live in the wastelands away from the towns and the good people. Also, you are only as good (or bad) as the company you keep so if you are good and manage to team up with someone who is bad, your good rating will slowly deteriorate.
This would incourage PvP between players that like to PvP
Discourage PvP against players who don't PvP
Encourage players with similar play styles to stick together
Anyway, my 2 cents.
Perma-ratings of players I think is a bad idea. I say this only because I remember being a "murderer" on the UO game and I was NEVER allowed to enter ANY city unless it was Buck's Den without being killed by guards. I like the idea of being a noted murder or felon of some kind, but the problem comes into play WHERE does it end?
Perhapse if that idea was to be implemented, cities or "regions" would have wanted posters up of those individuals that kill in that AREA. So, if I kill and murder in Las Vegas, I can go to Chicago and might not be known. Or, I might be a known Murder but not wanted in that jurisdiction.
OR
Like I previously posted, depending on what faction or side is winning in an area, that area is contoled by guards that will take care of their own. If the bad guys and crime syndicates own Las Vegas, then a murder can walk freely and not be attacked by guard / police NPCs. Might be a good idea that way?
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com DC Main Page
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/apocalypse Sci-Fi / Apoc Theme Forums
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/citadel DnD Style Theme forums (coming soon)
Agreed and I love your suggestion of being branded a murder only in the territory where the crime was commited. This would make bounty hunting challenging and a real adventure because the "murder" has probably gone far away.
Also, this also penalizes dishonorable PvP by forcing someone out of town or territory, they also by default forfit the possibility of the quests in that area as they would unlikely be able to complet quest with all the locals hunting them down. You would less likely have low level players that are just mucking around making everyones lives miserable as they would unlikely survive the journey to a new territory.
Basically, there are serious concequences to killing someone that does not participate in PvP while those who do will can PvP each other to there heart's content.
Drycat, for the most part I agree with you on many of your points (especially on L2). The basic idea I've come to is you have to declare to become PvP, at which point you have to wait a certain amount of time before you become PvP. Once PvP you can attack anyone else who is PvP. If you want to leave, you have to undeclare PvP, and then wait a certain amount of time for it to wind down. Say talking to town guards to declare/undeclare.
Hardware-DC and userx, I like the ideas about the bounties and moving to different areas that don't know of your bounty. The more you do, whether in one area or moving around, the more the bounty should spread and the bigger it should get. Also, if you kill important NPCs, it should also add to your bounty, though not as much as killing players.
One problem that comes up now is "why PvP?" If certain areas were only open PvP like in EVE Online then there would be a reason. But if they go with a declare system, why would anyone declare? The only reason I can think of is for holding territory. City/Base raids.
Basically my idea use a tweaked version of the basic L2/SWG/CoV raids: The people in charge of the town/base/outpost/whatever choose a time when this can be raided. Then someone chooses to raid the town, and so the town is notified. 30 minutes before the raid is to happen, everyone within 1 mile of the city is notified that raiders have been sighted and are coming with a (30 minutes) next to the message. Then the message goes off ever 5 minutes, with the last one saying something like "The raiders are almost here, anyone who doesn't want to get caught in the fight should leave now (5 minutes)". Then what happens is this: everyone within 1/2 mile of the center of the target gets the options to be a "Defender" or "Civilian". The defender is PvP open, and defending the town. The civilian is non-pvp, and is just a bystandard. Everyone withing the next 1/2mile out gets the option to be a "Raider" or "Civilian," meaning PvP attacking the town or non-pvp. Anyone who leaves the 1 mile radius gets a message asking them if they want to leave the raid, and if they say yes they are out. The raid is over after a set time (either 30 minutes or 1 hour), or one side wipes the other out, or one side forfiets by all leaving the 1 mile radius (with a "you sure?" message before leaving), or a certain objective is finished.
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Too much structure.. what if the defenders or raiders want reinforcements halfway into the raid? Why force a wait on raiding... I think thats the last thing people will want to do is sit around for 30 minutes. Also, the announcement completely negates any form of stealth. Enforcing a 30 min - 1 hour time on the raid seems strange.. wouldn't it just be over when one side wipes out the other? What if the attackers were using a sieging strategy, that would take far longer than an hour?
I'm sorry about sounding so negative, but I'm not sure adding structure to PvP will make it any more tolerable or enjoyable.
http://www.fallenearth.se - Your source for Fallen Earth information
I have been PvPing on-line since 1993 starting at the good old days of MUDs through UO and SWG to now, and I can tell you the main reason most people like to PvP........the challange. Those of you that have played SWG will remember the bugs where a Krayte Dragon could be "hung up" on a rock, or harvestor and stay in 1 spot to be picked off by 1 player. WOW...that is so exciting my teeth hurt. I am by no means an engine expert, but I find it hard to make an AI for an on-line game that is not flawed or bugged at some time.
Now, take another human, with a passion to fight, the cash to spend and the pride to fight for his name in the game. And you will see titans in the game fight each other over and over, all day long. Do I feel PvP should be the entire game? No. I think SWG did it best allowing the less fighting types out there to have a sims on-line lifestyle dancing, or playing music to enjoy a social aspect of the game. But, there is a large call for PvP just based on the challange to fight someone that is always thinking, you can't look or read an /examine card and see what they have, use or are classed as. Whatever move you do to an AI, they have a normal chain of events they follow. You do something to a player, or change fighting styles on them, they are forced to adpt and fight or die.
Besides the challange with PvP, you are allowing people to organise and fight in larger scaled battles. I have been involved in some of the largest PvP battles (at least on Flurry) during my time there. And always, people are impressed and excited when we would go out to attack bases. It is an incredible feeling to see on your screen 100 of your friends (or faction friends) running into a city and engaging the enemy. At the ame time, it is exciting being the defender watching your radar fill up with countless red dots and wondering if your about to be a prison inmate, or if you will defeat them.
There will be a lot of people to say otherwise, I am speaking personally from my experiances. To me, PvP is the best thing a game can do, however it is always something that is abused and some of the worst people do it to cause harm or grief. Can't say I am totally innocent myself. but, that is what having faction turn-on/off such a good method. If your red, you made yourself red. so....I will now kill you. You don't wanna be red, then don't engage.
Another post or thread talked about allowing allies to assist in combat situations. This would not be so bad if it wasn't for the countless sleepers you will always have when going into an encounter. I have brought a small team of lets say 6 guys into Theed to gank and run down the single standing rebels after getting intel of only 2-4 overts. Back when you could flag yourself by healing or assisting in some way, you would come across a much LARGER sized group than antisipated. Is that a good 'technique" for fighting? Hell yes it is. however, the problem comes in when that is all people do is hide COVERT in status until an engagement and then run up and gank people and run away. Hard for me to say I hate that idea, it served its purpose for and against me. But, it was always a cheap shot a lot of people did not like.
the game can easily have factions. either you are for the restoration of civilization or you are for anarchy and chaos over law and order. Or, you can be one of the guys in the middle that doesn't wanna be involved. Chose a side and fight for them and MAKE THE GAME yours. These DEVS I have worked under, with and against for over 10yrs now in games. They can not code everything. It is not possible. It is up to the players to MAKE CONTENT and make the game what they want. When you take that option away, then you take away just how dynamic a game could be and make it mundain and soft IMHO.
DISCLAIMER: My typing is horrible, so I hope you get the point. It is 4am here
Also, these are my opinions and by no means am I trying to force them on anyone. I am mearly stating how long I have played, I have seen both sides of the coin and what I prefer and how I think it could be better. This game has potential.....but so did SWG.
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com DC Main Page
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/apocalypse Sci-Fi / Apoc Theme Forums
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/citadel DnD Style Theme forums (coming soon)
One thing I want to say is we've gone from (as one poster put it):
Yes to non consensual PvP
Yes to full loot drops
Yes to non-uber items (i.e. rare items that are rare for a reason, most kit is standard for a reason too)
No to item insurance
To an Evercraft clone. Let me show you.
Originally posted by Radzik: I'm hoping in this game its more like. "Check that guy out, he's got the new xxriffle and the xxbody armor...if we ambush him..."
Originally posted by Radzik: One of the main rules I think all games should live by is RISK vs. REWARD. Too many games took this rule out to take care of the crybabies. Put something worthwhile in a PvP zone, and all the non-pvpers cry about not being fair and balanced. Its all Risk vs. Reward. You dont want to risk going into pvp lands, then you get no reward. Too many games are taking away from the risk, and adding to the reward.
The PvP zones should have much more powerful items to be found in compaired to the non pvp zones. Again, the golden rule, Risk vs. Reward.
Originally posted by Thrak: I both disagree and agree here. The problem is that this is not a balance of risk and reward, it is a complete polarisation. To have an area you can generate items or resources in without risk (i.e. a PvE only area) means that those people not willing to go out and risk pvp will simply PvE for the cash to buy those items they cannot get themselves. As long as there is a situation where money can be generated with zero risk, inflation and economic realism go out of the window (see every rpg except until recently EVE Online). And if one thing does not fit with a post apocalyptic setting it is the glut of resources zero-risk PvE causes.
Its more or less my opinion that the the only non-PvP zones present should be those in and directly (very directly) around the starting npc run towns. And that literally you can gain nothing or very close to nothing from them. The best way to make these non-PvP zone is to have the players hand in all weapons (automated, for a 'ticket') to npcs before entering the town, and of course have the town choc-a-bloc full of heavily armed npc guards that dissuade PvP for line of sight from the town - and maybe a few NPC guard outposts at critical junctions nearby.
Anyways, I totally agree with the risk vs reward mentality.
Yes to non consensual PvP
Yes to full loot drops
Yes to non-uber items (i.e. rare items that are rare for a reason, most kit is standard for a reason too)
No to item insurance
I should also add, that I am against arena and CTF combat, it totally ruins the immersion for me.
Basically I feel that in a post apocalyptic world, ppl should have to watch thier backs and tread carefully.
Originally posted by Cthulhuvong: I was talking with my friend last night about FE and he said that one thing he wanted to see in a game like this was working police. He wanted some kind of force in towns that could stop fights if they occured.
Lets say Player A sees a noob just starting and wants to gank him. He takes a shot and wings the noob, and this alert nearby police (any within sight/hearing range). They run at him yelling stop with weapons drawn, and if he fires again, they take him dow hard. Maybe they could do subdual damage and just knock him out of he hasn't threatened a cop, or maybe they just kill him. If hes dead, his body is now free to loot.
And by full loot drops I'm assuming that you all mean everyone is able to loot from anyone's kill.
Originally posted by Thrak: If you make it single server, only non-consentual, the carebears don't have a choice but to play or not to. And I think in this universe they will play. Let me put it this way: I am hoping against all odds that this is not going to be a Post Apocalyptic flavoured Everquest clone. And without non-consensual pvp, a mmorpg in this setting can pretty much only aspire to be that. Any player towns, zoneless maps etc is just trimming on the same game dynamic.
We have gone from people talking of having to be careful and watch out to not having to worry about anything. We've gone from Risk vs. Reward to "it will scare people away." We have gone from realistic feeling Post-Apocalypse to Post-Apocalypse flavored WoW. Before, I was against the spliting of servers, as I believed having 1 universe so that content is constantly flowing and changing is better than the industry standard of a stagnant world (see EQ, WoW, SWG, basically all of them except for EVE). Now I say there has to be atleast 2 servers to satisfy everyone. A Hardcore server with open PvP and a constantly changing landscape, and another one (don't want to call it the Carebear server, maybe Easy would be best) which is no/limited PvP and due to the fact that not much can happen to change the landscape.
Go back, read the 20 pages. We've gone over bounties, law enforcement, PvP (zoneless or not), looting. Its all there.
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
You're absolutely right. I never responded to the comment about "carebears" before, but I'm glad you mentioned that as one of the innapropriate labels. I'd like the person who posted, or any person that takes that same stance (can't remember right now who it was), to explain what that is in their eyes so I can understand how to stratify the people in this forum. ( myself included! hehe )
At any rate, since there are PvPers that want a choice of when they are affected by PvP or can relax in the safety of a non-PvP setting, does that make them "carebears" too? Some people just enjoy PvP for the challenge, but they do not want to be challenged by having to PvP whenever someone else decides its time. They want to PvP when they want to. (That doesn't mean that they want to go into town and sit down and just craft either as an alternative to taking a break from PvP). Does that make them "carebears" too?
I don't know how FE will turn out on this. But I hope it is more geared towards something in the middle-ground. None of us knows which half, or which middle position, or any of our positions will best suit the game and support a long term player base. We are all across the extremes when it comes to our opinion on what would best suit the game, as Cthul posted. Will any of these concepts alone be able to support and nurture a long term player base? ( Meaning, something between 6 months and a year to get a good feel of the player base you will support and sustain )
I think your idea about 2 different servers is an excellent idea Cthul. It is much easier then for the developers/owners of FE see how the active, populations vary over the two servers, while still providing all players what they want. Maybe then they will be able to make a more informed decision, if necessary.
excellent post Cthul
If by 2 different servers you/Cthul mean 1 server with PvP and one without, I'm not sure about that. I don't think that the game is big enough for that, and players probably won't want to make that choice.
Think about this from the perspective of the "average" player (someone who might download the beta for free, looking to have some fun).
He/she probably wants some action. He/she probably wants the game to be fairly realistic. Still, he/she probably does NOT want to be killed by some "1337" player (this is exactly what you will get, especially if the game is twitchy) who has a ridiculously high bounty but still manages to gank at random.
My stance on PvP in MMO's has always been relatively consistent. Give players a place to start out in that's free of PvP (with the exception of consentual PvP of some sort if they're too anxious to prepare themselves for playing regulars), let them build their skills up in typical MMO fashion, and then give them the option of entering the fray in the "badlands", where anything goes. I have yet to see any sound reasoning as to why new players should be subjected to PvP that they are not prepared for.
-----------------------------------
Go you must.
No guest shall stay
in one place for ever.
Love will be lost
if you sit too long
at a friend's fire.
-- The Havamal
If by 2 different servers you/Cthul mean 1 server with PvP and one without, I'm not sure about that. I don't think that the game is big enough for that, and players probably won't want to make that choice.
Think about this from the perspective of the "average" player (someone who might download the beta for free, looking to have some fun).
He/she probably wants some action. He/she probably wants the game to be fairly realistic. Still, he/she probably does NOT want to be killed by some "1337" player (this is exactly what you will get, especially if the game is twitchy) who has a ridiculously high bounty but still manages to gank at random.
My stance on PvP in MMO's has always been relatively consistent. Give players a place to start out in that's free of PvP, let them build their skills up in typical MMO fashion, and then give them the option of entering the fray in the "badlands", where anything goes. I have yet to see any sound reasoning as to why new players should be subjected to PvP that they are not prepared for.
Not completely Non-PvP and PvP. Just consensual PvP of some sort. By that I mean having a similiar system like SWG, or some other format that gives the player a choice whether they want to be PvP enabled. As for the second server, it could be open PvP if that is the choice. The progression you talk about could be implemented on the PvP server for instance, while the Non-PvP server (if we want to call it that) features a system that allows the player a decision on whether they will enable themselves for PvP. Much how PvP was implemented in SWG. I liked that system, as it allowed the neutral players to explore the same game content, minus the faction specific items, that the PvP players(Imperial and Rebel) had access to. So, certain game world/content/loot/resources was not limited to people who were PvP enabled(Imperials and Rebels).
It could be one server for all that matters, as long as it gives the choice to the player whether they are going to be PvP enabled or not.
Since the FE homepage seems to give the impression that PvP will be area-oriented, I would say that the best related system would be one of appropriate risk vs reward. This means a few things;
1) To acquire truly exceptional items and see the most amazing sights, you would have to brave the uncontrolled PvP areas.
2) As a result, people who don't like PvP can stay in the non-PvP areas, and just play the game out that way.
3) If a non-PvPer decides they want the exceptional items, but dont want the risk, they can hire another player to brave the PvP area and get it for them. (as an extension to this, if you want to safely see the risky sights, hire another player to get high level movement enhancing equipment, or a vehicle for you, and just outrun PvPers.)
Ideas, compliments, moans, groans, anyone?
___________________
