I can't remember the name of the game but there was a FFA PVP game where you could choose one race that did not PVP at all.....I thought it was a very itneresting concept as I would like alot of these games but I do not like FFA PVP at all.......Im no sure how many people played taht race but I know I would have.
I don't care what anyone says: if a Dev says their game is going to have World FFA PvP... if you don't like it... don't play it. The game isn't for you. You either accept that or go play a different game that is more to your liking.
I think people who don't want a game where there is World FFA PvP really just want a Co-op RPG... with crafting. Stop trying to make MMO's into that. MMO's provide a different experience. They provide experiences for all facets of gameplay. If you don't like it - play something else.
I'm not saying World PvP isn't without its issues. I'm saying that getting rid of it and complaining you don't want it are not resolving those issues.
Firstly MMORPG's are a more diverse thing than you pretend. Yest there are PvP focused games but there are also exclusively crafting and building games. There are many different points on the spectrum.
Secondly PvP will always have a place in the overall mix of MMORPG's more PvP in some less or none in others.
Now as an exclusively PvE players I generally do not play high PvP games. I have tried some of them and avoided others entirely, I do not post saying game X has too much PvP and would be better without it, I simply do not play it.
This topic, however, addresses all MMORPG's and not just those that their Developers set out to make a PvP game. In fact many of us are responding to this thread in the context of Evequest NEXT and in this context it is completely unclear what the Dev's intend to give us in this game.
Finally there are many forms PvP can take. To return to the thread title there is no need for always on FFA PvP to be global. There are many options that is just one of them,.
So... I don't understand what your issue is.
If the game you want to play, doesn't have a feature you like, or has a feature you don't like - either accept it as it is, or move along to another game that is more agreeable with you.
We aren't talking about crafting and building. We're talking about PvP. Why would I enter into a thread about PvP and start talking about crafting and building?
MMO's are more diverse than I pretend? Did you not just quote me as saying, "They [MMO's] provide experiences for all facets of gameplay"? How is this me pretending they aren't diverse? I'm confused. What part of that statement implies that I am not aware that there is more to an MMO than PvP? Take off the blinders, fella. Not everyone who likes to PvP is a baffoon who has no idea about anything other than their own desires.
We aren't talking about where PvP's place is. We're talking about Open World FFA PvP. Did I talk about the characteristics of Arena PvP? No. I was on point the entire time. Always on FFA PvP has a place if the Devs say it has a place. End of story. You don't get to whine and change it. That is a royal "you". I'm not speaking about YOU directly.
If you don't play high tolerance PvP games - why are you even bothering to comment in a thread that asks a question about Open World FFA PvP? It's implied - an MMO that is not high tolerance PvP oriented isn't going to have Open World FFA PvP.
If we don't know what EQN will offer, and the point of the thread is all speculation on that game - then anything anyone says is irrelevant. It could be high tolerence... it might not be. Who knows? But that is beside the point. The OP asked a question specifically about Open World FFA PvP. I gave my thoughts on the matter.
Always on FFA PvP is an issue dictated by the game developers. Sometimes developers don't have it. Fine. I'm sure it's a great game. Sometimes they do. Fine. More power to them. If we're going to speculate on this under the president of the unveiled EQN.... I still don't know how anything I said is wrong or off-topic.
I don't care what anyone says: if a Dev says their game is going to have World FFA PvP... if you don't like it... don't play it. What you don't get to do is go into the game and start complaining and begging them to change it or add rules that previously did not exist, just so you don't have to deal with a part of the game that was designed to exist. The game isn't for you. You either accept that or go play a different game that is more to your liking.
One of the problems with this, is there's a seemingly significant (if you go by singleplayer sandboxes popularity) group of people who want to play sandbox games but not wanting to deal with FFA PvP. Telling them to go play something else instead of whining about existing rules is all fine and dandy but there really isn't other games to go to. If you want to play a sandbox and more specifically a fantasy sandbox with RPG elements, you know swords, bows dragons magic, the whole nine you have have what to choose from again?
Maybe the solution to your gripe would be more diverse choices
I don't care what anyone says: if a Dev says their game is going to have World FFA PvP... if you don't like it... don't play it. The game isn't for you. You either accept that or go play a different game that is more to your liking.
I think people who don't want a game where there is World FFA PvP really just want a Co-op RPG... with crafting. Stop trying to make MMO's into that. MMO's provide a different experience. They provide experiences for all facets of gameplay. If you don't like it - play something else.
I'm not saying World PvP isn't without its issues. I'm saying that getting rid of it and complaining you don't want it are not resolving those issues.
Firstly MMORPG's are a more diverse thing than you pretend. Yest there are PvP focused games but there are also exclusively crafting and building games. There are many different points on the spectrum.
Secondly PvP will always have a place in the overall mix of MMORPG's more PvP in some less or none in others.
Now as an exclusively PvE players I generally do not play high PvP games. I have tried some of them and avoided others entirely, I do not post saying game X has too much PvP and would be better without it, I simply do not play it.
This topic, however, addresses all MMORPG's and not just those that their Developers set out to make a PvP game. In fact many of us are responding to this thread in the context of Evequest NEXT and in this context it is completely unclear what the Dev's intend to give us in this game.
Finally there are many forms PvP can take. To return to the thread title there is no need for always on FFA PvP to be global. There are many options that is just one of them,.
So... I don't understand what your issue is.
If the game you want to play, doesn't have a feature you like, or has a feature you don't like - either accept it as it is, or move along to another game that is more agreeable with you.
We aren't talking about crafting and building. We're talking about PvP. Why would I enter into a thread about PvP and start talking about crafting and building?
MMO's are more diverse than I pretend? Did you not just quote me as saying, "They [MMO's] provide experiences for all facets of gameplay"? How is this me pretending they aren't diverse? I'm confused. What part of that statement implies that I am not aware that there is more to an MMO than PvP? Take off the blinders, fella. Not everyone who likes to PvP is a baffoon who has no idea about anything other than their own desires.
We aren't talking about where PvP's place is. We're talking about Open World FFA PvP. Did I talk about the characteristics of Arena PvP? No. I was on point the entire time. Always on FFA PvP has a place if the Devs say it has a place. End of story. You don't get to whine and change it. That is a royal "you". I'm not speaking about YOU directly.
If you don't play high tolerance PvP games - why are you even bothering to comment in a thread that asks a question about Open World FFA PvP? It's implied - an MMO that is not high tolerance PvP oriented isn't going to have Open World FFA PvP.
If we don't know what EQN will offer, and the point of the thread is all speculation on that game - then anything anyone says is irrelevant. It could be high tolerence... it might not be. Who knows? But that is beside the point. The OP asked a question specifically about Open World FFA PvP. I gave my thoughts on the matter.
Always on FFA PvP is an issue dictated by the game developers. Sometimes developers don't have it. Fine. I'm sure it's a great game. Sometimes they do. Fine. More power to them. If we're going to speculate on this under the president of the unveiled EQN.... I still don't know how anything I said is wrong or off-topic.
Hmm either we are in agreement and you are just being argumentative or deliberately avoiding the point.
The original post:
Originally posted by lizardbones
This is something I've wondered about, but not really understood the logic of. It has definitely gotten a lot more attention recently with the pending release of EQN information.
I understand that PvP is more exciting, can add something akin to a political element to a game, and can even make items in the economy more valuable, but I've never understood the insistence that if there is FFA PvP in a game everyone must participate.
For example, if there are safe areas and unsafe areas, the unsafe areas must contain more valuable items. Why? To me this seems like a mechanic that arbitrarily limits the people who would want to play a game. It seems like the people who would want to PvP would hang out in the unsafe areas and the people who don't like PvP would hang out in the safe areas.
I've also gotten the impression, possibly wrongly, that people who like FFA, Always On PvP are against the idea of having two different server types, one with the PvP rule set and one with the PvP rule set. Why? It seems like a good idea for people who like PvP to be on one server and people who don't want PvP on all the time on another server.
So, what are your thoughts on this? Why must FFA or Always On PvP be universal or all encompassing?
So what are your thoughts on why FFA PvP must be always on, universal or all encompassing?
My opinion is that having two different server types is the best option for EQ Next, and indeed for most MMO's. Of course there is the place for exclusive niche products, heck I even kicked up some dollars for Camelot Unchained even though I do not intend to ever play it.
It's all about having plenty of victims to victimize. Developers who like this sort of thing are no better than the gamers who demand it. Hence plenty of games that have pvp where the developers purposefully leave out mechanics that protect victims of abuse or harassment.
I don't care what anyone says: if a Dev says their game is going to have World FFA PvP... if you don't like it... don't play it. The game isn't for you. You either accept that or go play a different game that is more to your liking.
I think people who don't want a game where there is World FFA PvP really just want a Co-op RPG... with crafting. Stop trying to make MMO's into that. MMO's provide a different experience. They provide experiences for all facets of gameplay. If you don't like it - play something else.
I'm not saying World PvP isn't without its issues. I'm saying that getting rid of it and complaining you don't want it are not resolving those issues.
Firstly MMORPG's are a more diverse thing than you pretend. Yest there are PvP focused games but there are also exclusively crafting and building games. There are many different points on the spectrum.
Secondly PvP will always have a place in the overall mix of MMORPG's more PvP in some less or none in others.
Now as an exclusively PvE players I generally do not play high PvP games. I have tried some of them and avoided others entirely, I do not post saying game X has too much PvP and would be better without it, I simply do not play it.
This topic, however, addresses all MMORPG's and not just those that their Developers set out to make a PvP game. In fact many of us are responding to this thread in the context of Evequest NEXT and in this context it is completely unclear what the Dev's intend to give us in this game.
Finally there are many forms PvP can take. To return to the thread title there is no need for always on FFA PvP to be global. There are many options that is just one of them,.
So... I don't understand what your issue is.
If the game you want to play, doesn't have a feature you like, or has a feature you don't like - either accept it as it is, or move along to another game that is more agreeable with you.
We aren't talking about crafting and building. We're talking about PvP. Why would I enter into a thread about PvP and start talking about crafting and building?
MMO's are more diverse than I pretend? Did you not just quote me as saying, "They [MMO's] provide experiences for all facets of gameplay"? How is this me pretending they aren't diverse? I'm confused. What part of that statement implies that I am not aware that there is more to an MMO than PvP? Take off the blinders, fella. Not everyone who likes to PvP is a baffoon who has no idea about anything other than their own desires.
We aren't talking about where PvP's place is. We're talking about Open World FFA PvP. Did I talk about the characteristics of Arena PvP? No. I was on point the entire time. Always on FFA PvP has a place if the Devs say it has a place. End of story. You don't get to whine and change it. That is a royal "you". I'm not speaking about YOU directly.
If you don't play high tolerance PvP games - why are you even bothering to comment in a thread that asks a question about Open World FFA PvP? It's implied - an MMO that is not high tolerance PvP oriented isn't going to have Open World FFA PvP.
If we don't know what EQN will offer, and the point of the thread is all speculation on that game - then anything anyone says is irrelevant. It could be high tolerence... it might not be. Who knows? But that is beside the point. The OP asked a question specifically about Open World FFA PvP. I gave my thoughts on the matter.
Always on FFA PvP is an issue dictated by the game developers. Sometimes developers don't have it. Fine. I'm sure it's a great game. Sometimes they do. Fine. More power to them. If we're going to speculate on this under the president of the unveiled EQN.... I still don't know how anything I said is wrong or off-topic.
Hmm either we are in agreement and you are just being argumentative or deliberately avoiding the point.
The original post:
Originally posted by lizardbones
This is something I've wondered about, but not really understood the logic of. It has definitely gotten a lot more attention recently with the pending release of EQN information.
I understand that PvP is more exciting, can add something akin to a political element to a game, and can even make items in the economy more valuable, but I've never understood the insistence that if there is FFA PvP in a game everyone must participate.
For example, if there are safe areas and unsafe areas, the unsafe areas must contain more valuable items. Why? To me this seems like a mechanic that arbitrarily limits the people who would want to play a game. It seems like the people who would want to PvP would hang out in the unsafe areas and the people who don't like PvP would hang out in the safe areas.
I've also gotten the impression, possibly wrongly, that people who like FFA, Always On PvP are against the idea of having two different server types, one with the PvP rule set and one with the PvP rule set. Why? It seems like a good idea for people who like PvP to be on one server and people who don't want PvP on all the time on another server.
So, what are your thoughts on this? Why must FFA or Always On PvP be universal or all encompassing?
So what are your thoughts on why FFA PvP must be always on, universal or all encompassing?
My opinion is that having two different server types is the best option for EQ Next, and indeed for most MMO's. Of course there is the place for exclusive niche products, heck I even kicked up some dollars for Camelot Unchained even though I do not intend to ever play it.
Why should FFA PvP always be on? Well, because if it isn't... then it isn't FFA PvP - that's why. I'm pretty certain I covered this.
Why shouldn't there be servers that have them always off? Well, because that's the same thing as demanding special rules to applied to a game that was designed to have FFA PvP - that's why. If that is not your thing - then move to another game that is more agreeable to you. I'm pretty sure I covered this as well.
The only person being argumentative is you. I've stated the same thing three times now.
Hmm either we are in agreement and you are just being argumentative or deliberately avoiding the point.
The original post:
Originally posted by lizardbones
This is something I've wondered about, but not really understood the logic of. It has definitely gotten a lot more attention recently with the pending release of EQN information.
I understand that PvP is more exciting, can add something akin to a political element to a game, and can even make items in the economy more valuable, but I've never understood the insistence that if there is FFA PvP in a game everyone must participate.
For example, if there are safe areas and unsafe areas, the unsafe areas must contain more valuable items. Why? To me this seems like a mechanic that arbitrarily limits the people who would want to play a game. It seems like the people who would want to PvP would hang out in the unsafe areas and the people who don't like PvP would hang out in the safe areas.
I've also gotten the impression, possibly wrongly, that people who like FFA, Always On PvP are against the idea of having two different server types, one with the PvP rule set and one with the PvP rule set. Why? It seems like a good idea for people who like PvP to be on one server and people who don't want PvP on all the time on another server.
So, what are your thoughts on this? Why must FFA or Always On PvP be universal or all encompassing?
So what are your thoughts on why FFA PvP must be always on, universal or all encompassing?
My opinion is that having two different server types is the best option for EQ Next, and indeed for most MMO's. Of course there is the place for exclusive niche products, heck I even kicked up some dollars for Camelot Unchained even though I do not intend to ever play it.
Why should FFA PvP always be on? Well, because if it isn't... then it isn't FFA PvP - that's why. I'm pretty certain I covered this.
Why shouldn't there be servers that have them always off? Well, because that's the same thing as demanding special rules to applied to a game that was designed to have FFA PvP - that's why. If that is not your thing - then move to another game that is more agreeable to you. I'm pretty sure I covered this as well.
The only person being argumentative is you. I've stated the same thing three times now.
So what you are saying is:
You cannot have FFA PvP in a game unless every server running the game has FFA PvP?
Now I have said numerous times I have no problem with any form of PvP, but if it is compulsory in a particular game I will not play it. As for EQ Next as I do want to play that game I do not want it to have any form of compulsory PvP, as the developers have not revealed the extent of PvP in that game (although indicating that it will not be compulsory) I think that is a valid point to make.
As to the argument that you cannot have FFA PvP in a game unless every server running the game has FFA PvP why on earth not? Your statement about special rules and design falls down if the developers have set out to make a game that provides for both on separate servers. It becomes particularly irrelevant if you regard FFA PvP as the "special rules" tacked onto a PvE game and genre. Which I do.
I don't think the problem is that people who don't like World FFA PvP don't like it because it is forced, necessarily. I think the issue is that it is too easy to be forced into a situation you have absolutely no way of winning. You don't even have a chance.
Ganking. Ganking occurs in two ways: either you are totally outnumbered or you are totally outleveled.
1. To me, this is the fundamental problem with World FFA PvP. And it has to do with the Themepark nature of the game. The areas are built around a specific array of levels. But nothing stops higher level players from entering these areas and rolling face. And given Themepark use of gear-based stats... the fact that they are higher level and would be more powerful anyway, the fact that their gear makes them a god in comparison to a low level player, no amount of zone-level comradery will matter. In other words, a gank squad of level 10's of any amount will never bring down a single level 50 with tricked out gear.
There are ways around this issue, but it would require a totally different design than what we are used to seeing. I won't go too deep into it, but basically, you have to design the game for lateral progression instead of vertical progression. But we will never see this, so it's a moot point.
2. Then there is the matter of a single 10th lvl guy being ganked by 15 10th level guys. Again, the lone guy doesn't have a chance. If this were a FPS like Call of Duty or something, this sort of thing happens all the time. One guy could potentially take out the entire opposite team. I've seen it happen before - a lot. Hell, I've DONE it before. But that was years ago when I was younger. And besides that, it takes a player who really knows how to play the game well to pull off on a consistent basis. And moreover, this is not something that a game should bank on happening by the bulk of its players in the first place.
The thing is, the sort of game where these things happen revolves entirely on player skill. MMO's do not revolve around player skill in any shape or form. They revolve around statistics. One lone player, even totally min-maxed, will never take out an entire team of equal level players, unless their class is OP (which is often the case), and even then... it won't happen. The numbers will not support it. They'll be dead before they take out one of the gankers.
Add to all of this that it is very easy for these gankers to completely lock down an entire area to the point that many players can absolutely not do a single thing in the game until the gankers move on... It's very easy to see how this can be frustrating. I love open world FFA PvP, and even I can see this sucks.
However, I am not bothered by the second issue too much, so long as the first issue has been solved. The second one is a necessary evil in my mind, and it promotes grouping instead of soloing. Safety in numbers. But... people just won't do it.
I've seen it progress for years - people are constantly not wanting to group in a multi-player game. This is what baffles me. I'm all for wanting to do what you want to do... but you first have to make sure what you want to do is even available in the game. For instance, I don't play Skyrim and expect to drive cars. I'm tired of MMO's being released that cater to people who are really just looking for a single player game with a chat box.
I don't care what anyone says: if a Dev says their game is going to have World FFA PvP... if you don't like it... don't play it. What you don't get to do is go into the game and start complaining and begging them to change it or add rules that previously did not exist, just so you don't have to deal with a part of the game that was designed to exist. The game isn't for you. You either accept that or go play a different game that is more to your liking.
I think people who don't want a game where there is World FFA PvP really just want a Co-op RPG... with crafting. Stop trying to make MMO's into that. MMO's provide a different experience. They provide experiences for all facets of gameplay. If you don't like it - play something else.
I'm not saying World PvP isn't without its issues. I'm saying that getting rid of it and complaining you don't want it are not resolving those issues.
These games are RPGs (as in mmoRPG) which implies character progression. If you don't like that with your pvp, then you have FPS games for "true" pvp. I don't understand why hardcore pvp players insist on playing mmorpg when you have your games waiting for you.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
You cannot have FFA PvP in a game unless every server running the game has FFA PvP?
Now I have said numerous times I have no problem with any form of PvP, but if it is compulsory in a particular game I will not play it. As for EQ Next as I do want to play that game I do not want it to have any form of compulsory PvP, as the developers have not revealed the extent of PvP in that game (although indicating that it will not be compulsory) I think that is a valid point to make.
As to the argument that you cannot have FFA PvP in a game unless every server running the game has FFA PvP why on earth not? Your statement about special rules and design falls down if the developers have set out to make a game that provides for both on separate servers. It becomes particularly irrelevant if you regard FFA PvP as the "special rules" tacked onto a PvE game and genre. Which I do.
No.
FFA PvP can only exist if it is Always On. If it isn't Always On, then it isn't FFA PvP. It's something else.
If the Devs say their game will have this feature, and someone who doesn't like it willingly plays the game anyway, they do not have the right to complain for the game to change according to their liking. Go find another game. I'm sorry, this isn't the game for you.
If the Devs do not offer special server rules from the outset, then it is obvious that they did not intend on providing an experience that does not offer FFA PvP. In which case, people who play the game wanting a different experience need to move along and stop trying to change the game that goes against what the Devs designed it to do. Or, they can stay... and try to enjoy the experience.
The issue about different server rules was something I never addressed directly, specifically because I figured that it was self-explanatory in what I already stated. "If the Devs say this and you don't like it - move along." Why would this statement not apply to anything the Devs say? I was speaking specifically about FFA PvP when I addressed the issue, because the thread isn't about crafting, in-game weddings, or fishing. Sorry... I wasn't thinking about those things because I was trying to answer his question.
You seem like a smart person, so I will assume that you would suspect that they would offer different server rules. I'm a smart person, and I assume that they will too. In which case, your questions for me are irrelevant since if we are both aware of the possibility, then we must be aware of what that would mean for servers that are not FFA PvP enabled... they won't have FFA PvP. In which case, you should refer to what I said to people who want to change a game that was never promised to be what they want, "If the Devs said it and you don't like it - move along."
The reason I did not get as specific into this as I am now, is because we don't know what EQN will offer. The Devs have said NOTHING. By this logic, I default to the defensive. If the Devs say FFA PvP with no option of different servers - move along. This is not the game for you - don't try to change it.
But, again, because you and I are smart people... we both know that that is a ludicrous insinuation, even if it must be said in defense of what is right and just. EverQuest has historically been a PvE focussed game. They would never not have the optional server for a disabled FFA PvP game experience. If they did... I'd be the first to be surprised.
HOWEVER...
As for my personal opinion on why there should NOT be optional servers if the game allows for FFA PvP:
When I played SWTOR back when it was launched, I played on a PvP-RP server. Basically, that means that people who enjoy FFA PvP as equally as PvE content, should play on a PvP-RP server. I like both equally, thus I play on that server. Other players who specifically enjoy PvP and could care less for PvE typically play on the PvP servers. PvE players play on the PvE servers. You know how this works... because you're smart.
Now, what I experienced in this game changed my attitude about this issue entirely.
Two weeks after Launch, Bioware goes into heavy class Nerfing. Why? Because of PvP imbalances. Now, I could write a novel on how much of a bonehead move they made in how they went about these nerfs, but whatever. They did some hardcore nerfing, specifically because some classes were owning total face in PvP.
These nerfs did not just affect the PvP balance. They affecting the balance of everything - including people who play on PvE servers who have no care in the world for PvP. And even worse, there was absolutely no issues whatsoever with the class balance in PvE. This is the making for a gigantic shit-storm. It would be just as bad if it were the other way around.
So, as cruel and unfair as it sounds to say optional servers should not be available - I have to stand by my original statement when it pertains to ANY game, including EQN. "If the Devs say there is FFA PvP, and you don't like it.... Move along." You will be doing yourself a favor, because you won't have to go through the trouble of experiencing nerf after nerf after nerf of your character whom you only use for PvE purposes.
These games are RPGs (as in mmoRPG) which implies character progression. If you don't like that with your pvp, then you have FPS games for "true" pvp. I don't understand why hardcore pvp players insist on playing mmorpg when you have your games waiting for you.
I think it might be because most FPS lacks customization and individualization options - they are too simplistic.
MMO PvPers generally like playing MMO I think because they liked to be recognised and be able to be notorious. The problem with just FPS is they usually lack deep, diversity and a sense of individually. I would say developers are partly to blame for that (ie. they automatically assumed that FPS players don't care about individually and looks, so just give them kill kill kill gameplay).
Which is I think part of the reason why games like GTA and Saint Row becomes quite successful - there are some depth and customization in their kill kill kill-ness.
I don't think the problem is that people who don't like World FFA PvP don't like it because it is forced, necessarily. I think the issue is that it is too easy to be forced into a situation you have absolutely no way of winning. You don't even have a chance.
Ganking. Ganking occurs in two ways: either you are totally outnumbered or you are totally outleveled.
1. To me, this is the fundamental problem with World FFA PvP. And it has to do with the Themepark nature of the game. The areas are built around a specific array of levels. But nothing stops higher level players from entering these areas and rolling face. And given Themepark use of gear-based stats... the fact that they are higher level and would be more powerful anyway, the fact that their gear makes them a god in comparison to a low level player, no amount of zone-level comradery will matter. In other words, a gank squad of level 10's of any amount will never bring down a single level 50 with tricked out gear.
There are ways around this issue, but it would require a totally different design than what we are used to seeing. I won't go too deep into it, but basically, you have to design the game for lateral progression instead of vertical progression. But we will never see this, so it's a moot point.
2. Then there is the matter of a single 10th lvl guy being ganked by 15 10th level guys. Again, the lone guy doesn't have a chance. If this were a FPS like Call of Duty or something, this sort of thing happens all the time. One guy could potentially take out the entire opposite team. I've seen it happen before - a lot. Hell, I've DONE it before. But that was years ago when I was younger. And besides that, it takes a player who really knows how to play the game well to pull off on a consistent basis. And moreover, this is not something that a game should bank on happening by the bulk of its players in the first place.
The thing is, the sort of game where these things happen revolves entirely on player skill. MMO's do not revolve around player skill in any shape or form. They revolve around statistics. One lone player, even totally min-maxed, will never take out an entire team of equal level players, unless their class is OP (which is often the case), and even then... it won't happen. The numbers will not support it. They'll be dead before they take out one of the gankers.
Add to all of this that it is very easy for these gankers to completely lock down an entire area to the point that many players can absolutely not do a single thing in the game until the gankers move on... It's very easy to see how this can be frustrating. I love open world FFA PvP, and even I can see this sucks.
However, I am not bothered by the second issue too much, so long as the first issue has been solved. The second one is a necessary evil in my mind, and it promotes grouping instead of soloing. Safety in numbers. But... people just won't do it.
I've seen it progress for years - people are constantly not wanting to group in a multi-player game. This is what baffles me. I'm all for wanting to do what you want to do... but you first have to make sure what you want to do is even available in the game. For instance, I don't play Skyrim and expect to drive cars. I'm tired of MMO's being released that cater to people who are really just looking for a single player game with a chat box.
I don't care what anyone says: if a Dev says their game is going to have World FFA PvP... if you don't like it... don't play it. What you don't get to do is go into the game and start complaining and begging them to change it or add rules that previously did not exist, just so you don't have to deal with a part of the game that was designed to exist. The game isn't for you. You either accept that or go play a different game that is more to your liking.
I think people who don't want a game where there is World FFA PvP really just want a Co-op RPG... with crafting. Stop trying to make MMO's into that. MMO's provide a different experience. They provide experiences for all facets of gameplay. If you don't like it - play something else.
I'm not saying World PvP isn't without its issues. I'm saying that getting rid of it and complaining you don't want it are not resolving those issues.
These games are RPGs (as in mmoRPG) which implies character progression. If you don't like that with your pvp, then you have FPS games for "true" pvp. I don't understand why hardcore pvp players insist on playing mmorpg when you have your games waiting for you.
These games are RPGs (as in mmoRPG) which implies character progression. If you don't like that with your pvp, then you have FPS games for "true" pvp. I don't understand why hardcore pvp players insist on playing mmorpg when you have your games waiting for you.
I think it might be because most FPS lacks customization and individualization options - they are too simplistic.
MMO PvPers generally like playing MMO I think because they liked to be recognised and be able to be notorious. The problem with just FPS is they usually lack deep, diversity and a sense of individually. I would say developers are partly to blame for that (ie. they automatically assumed that FPS players don't care about individually and looks, so just give them kill kill kill gameplay).
Which is I think part of the reason why games like GTA and Saint Row becomes quite successful - there are some depth and customization in their kill kill kill-ness.
Well, for myself specifically:
I like PvP in my PvE MMO, especially FFA Open World PvP, because I enjoy the idea of... you know... Role Playing in an alternate world that is only cool because it borrows from real world scenarios.
Take Star Wars The Old Republic, for instance. I played a Smuggler. I like the idea that there is another Player Bounty Hunter out there somewhere trying to capture me. You know... like Han Solo and Boba Fett. Since the game doesn't technicaly have such an intricate design element in is such as actual Bounty Hunting.... I have to use my imagination.
WHOA - WHAT? PVPERS HAVE THAT?
Yes, we do. So since I am using my imagination, I pretend that that enemy Bounty Hunter I just saw zoom past me on a Speeder Bike is out to get me, especially since I am in my Faction's questing zone and I am the only person around here. Maybe I live. Maybe I die. I don't know. But I am one hell of a Smuggler who somehow always finds himself in trouble and must escape danger somehow.
Sorry pal... I don't mean to destroy your make believe image of all players who like PvP. Some of us enjoy the thrill it adds to our imagination that a purely PvE experience doesn't provide. Why? Well... because there is no guesswork against leveling PvE mobs. I'm going to win.
this may or may not pertain to the topic ,but if I want PVP all I have to do is sail over to Chaos or go through an epic portal. I am happy on a PVE server , and yes , the game I play is a sandbox , no classes and no quests just skills and a world to shape to our desires. )
These games are RPGs (as in mmoRPG) which implies character progression. If you don't like that with your pvp, then you have FPS games for "true" pvp. I don't understand why hardcore pvp players insist on playing mmorpg when you have your games waiting for you.
I think it might be because most FPS lacks customization and individualization options - they are too simplistic.
MMO PvPers generally like playing MMO I think because they liked to be recognised and be able to be notorious. The problem with just FPS is they usually lack deep, diversity and a sense of individually. I would say developers are partly to blame for that (ie. they automatically assumed that FPS players don't care about individually and looks, so just give them kill kill kill gameplay).
Which is I think part of the reason why games like GTA and Saint Row becomes quite successful - there are some depth and customization in their kill kill kill-ness.
Well, for myself specifically:
I like PvP in my PvE MMO, especially FFA Open World PvP, because I enjoy the idea of... you know... Role Playing in an alternate world that is only cool because it borrows from real world scenarios.
Take Star Wars The Old Republic, for instance. I played a Smuggler. I like the idea that there is another Player Bounty Hunter out there somewhere trying to capture me. You know... like Han Solo and Boba Fett. Since the game doesn't technicaly have such an intricate design element in is such as actual Bounty Hunting.... I have to use my imagination.
WHOA - WHAT? PVPERS HAVE THAT?
Yes, we do. So since I am using my imagination, I pretend that that enemy Bounty Hunter I just saw zoom past me on a Speeder Bike is out to get me, especially since I am in my Faction's questing zone and I am the only person around here. Maybe I live. Maybe I die. I don't know. But I am one hell of a Smuggler who somehow always finds himself in trouble and must escape danger somehow.
Sorry pal... I don't mean to destroy your make believe image of all players who like PvP. Some of us enjoy the thrill it adds to our imagination that a purely PvE experience doesn't provide. Why? Well... because there is no guesswork against leveling PvE mobs. I'm going to win.
What you said is basically the same as what I have said - individualization and customization are all part of role play.
These games are RPGs (as in mmoRPG) which implies character progression. If you don't like that with your pvp, then you have FPS games for "true" pvp. I don't understand why hardcore pvp players insist on playing mmorpg when you have your games waiting for you.
I think it might be because most FPS lacks customization and individualization options - they are too simplistic.
MMO PvPers generally like playing MMO I think because they liked to be recognised and be able to be notorious. The problem with just FPS is they usually lack deep, diversity and a sense of individually. I would say developers are partly to blame for that (ie. they automatically assumed that FPS players don't care about individually and looks, so just give them kill kill kill gameplay).
Which is I think part of the reason why games like GTA and Saint Row becomes quite successful - there are some depth and customization in their kill kill kill-ness.
Well, for myself specifically:
I like PvP in my PvE MMO, especially FFA Open World PvP, because I enjoy the idea of... you know... Role Playing in an alternate world that is only cool because it borrows from real world scenarios.
Take Star Wars The Old Republic, for instance. I played a Smuggler. I like the idea that there is another Player Bounty Hunter out there somewhere trying to capture me. You know... like Han Solo and Boba Fett. Since the game doesn't technicaly have such an intricate design element in is such as actual Bounty Hunting.... I have to use my imagination.
WHOA - WHAT? PVPERS HAVE THAT?
Yes, we do. So since I am using my imagination, I pretend that that enemy Bounty Hunter I just saw zoom past me on a Speeder Bike is out to get me, especially since I am in my Faction's questing zone and I am the only person around here. Maybe I live. Maybe I die. I don't know. But I am one hell of a Smuggler who somehow always finds himself in trouble and must escape danger somehow.
Sorry pal... I don't mean to destroy your make believe image of all players who like PvP. Some of us enjoy the thrill it adds to our imagination that a purely PvE experience doesn't provide. Why? Well... because there is no guesswork against leveling PvE mobs. I'm going to win.
What you said is basically the same as what I have said - individualization and customization are all part of role play.
Is it not?
Customization is irrelevant to my liking PvP, though like FFA PvP in particular, it is highly relevant to me having another layer for experiencing my character's exploits in my imagination. The cooler he looks, the richer my imagination becomes. But it's not like I am a "PvPer". I don't even like to PvP. I just like FFA PvP in the game. It gives me that additional layer that otherwise would not exist. I don't like Customization because my FPS doesn't offer it. I'm not missing it from one place and compensating in another. Not all PvPer's are die hard Call of Duty fanatics - which is a false presumption people tend to make.
Individuality in the sense that you described (notoriety or popularity) is irrelevant to my liking PvP. It's not even the competition or the challenge of something harder than trash mobs. And I especially detest grinding for PvP gear in arenas. I would RATHER it be FFA PvP with NO arenas.
It's an additional layer of visceral experience that increases the potential ceiling for emotional response with the imagination I have invested in my character. It's not for anyone else. It's just for me. No one else cares about my pretend heroics. The game doesn't even acknowledge them in the way I imagine it.
In my imagination, my guy lives in a believable world that has danger at every corner. People might chase after him for some reason or another. He is a Smuggler after all. This world would be dull if the other people in it could not execute my demise at their convenient discretion - I would fight back of course. FFA PvP facilitates my needs for a believable world. Regardless of what world or character I am playing. I'm only famous in my imagination. I could care less if other players actually know who I am. And typically they don't... dude I suck at PvP. But I love it.
These games are RPGs (as in mmoRPG) which implies character progression. If you don't like that with your pvp, then you have FPS games for "true" pvp. I don't understand why hardcore pvp players insist on playing mmorpg when you have your games waiting for you.
I think it might be because most FPS lacks customization and individualization options - they are too simplistic.
MMO PvPers generally like playing MMO I think because they liked to be recognised and be able to be notorious. The problem with just FPS is they usually lack deep, diversity and a sense of individually. I would say developers are partly to blame for that (ie. they automatically assumed that FPS players don't care about individually and looks, so just give them kill kill kill gameplay).
Which is I think part of the reason why games like GTA and Saint Row becomes quite successful - there are some depth and customization in their kill kill kill-ness.
Well, for myself specifically:
I like PvP in my PvE MMO, especially FFA Open World PvP, because I enjoy the idea of... you know... Role Playing in an alternate world that is only cool because it borrows from real world scenarios.
Take Star Wars The Old Republic, for instance. I played a Smuggler. I like the idea that there is another Player Bounty Hunter out there somewhere trying to capture me. You know... like Han Solo and Boba Fett. Since the game doesn't technicaly have such an intricate design element in is such as actual Bounty Hunting.... I have to use my imagination.
WHOA - WHAT? PVPERS HAVE THAT?
Yes, we do. So since I am using my imagination, I pretend that that enemy Bounty Hunter I just saw zoom past me on a Speeder Bike is out to get me, especially since I am in my Faction's questing zone and I am the only person around here. Maybe I live. Maybe I die. I don't know. But I am one hell of a Smuggler who somehow always finds himself in trouble and must escape danger somehow.
Sorry pal... I don't mean to destroy your make believe image of all players who like PvP. Some of us enjoy the thrill it adds to our imagination that a purely PvE experience doesn't provide. Why? Well... because there is no guesswork against leveling PvE mobs. I'm going to win.
What you said is basically the same as what I have said - individualization and customization are all part of role play.
Is it not?
Customization is irrelevant to my liking PvP, though like FFA PvP in particular, it is highly relevant to me having another layer for experiencing my character's exploits in my imagination. The cooler he looks, the richer my imagination becomes. But it's not like I am a "PvPer". I don't even like to PvP. I just like FFA PvP in the game. It gives me that additional layer that otherwise would not exist. I don't like Customization because my FPS doesn't offer it. I'm not missing it from one place and compensating in another. Not all PvPer's are die hard Call of Duty fanatics - which is a false presumption people tend to make.
Individuality in the sense that you described (notoriety or popularity) is irrelevant to my liking PvP. It's not even the competition or the challenge of something harder than trash mobs. And I especially detest grinding for PvP gear in arenas. I would RATHER it be FFA PvP with NO arenas.
It's an additional layer of visceral experience that increases the potential ceiling for emotional response with the imagination I have invested in my character. It's not for anyone else. It's just for me. No one else cares about my pretend heroics. The game doesn't even acknowledge them in the way I imagine it.
In my imagination, my guy lives in a believable world that has danger at every corner. People might chase after him for some reason or another. He is a Smuggler after all. This world would be dull if the other people in it could not execute my demise at their convenient discretion - I would fight back of course. FFA PvP facilitates my needs for a believable world. Regardless of what world or character I am playing. I'm only famous in my imagination. I could care less if other players actually know who I am. And typically they don't... dude I suck at PvP. But I love it.
This is something I've wondered about, but not really understood the logic of. It has definitely gotten a lot more attention recently with the pending release of EQN information.
I understand that PvP is more exciting, can add something akin to a political element to a game, and can even make items in the economy more valuable, but I've never understood the insistence that if there is FFA PvP in a game everyone must participate.
For example, if there are safe areas and unsafe areas, the unsafe areas must contain more valuable items. Why? To me this seems like a mechanic that arbitrarily limits the people who would want to play a game. It seems like the people who would want to PvP would hang out in the unsafe areas and the people who don't like PvP would hang out in the safe areas.
I've also gotten the impression, possibly wrongly, that people who like FFA, Always On PvP are against the idea of having two different server types, one with the PvP rule set and one with the PvP rule set. Why? It seems like a good idea for people who like PvP to be on one server and people who don't want PvP on all the time on another server.
So, what are your thoughts on this? Why must FFA or Always On PvP be universal or all encompassing?
Well.. not a lot of answers to your question. Some tried to explain, but did not really a good job withit.
So i will give it a try to explain you what i think is the answer to your question.
First of all it is not about FFA PvP alone, or PvP in that sense especially not PvP a lot of players think of. PvP in the sense of one player is attacking another player.
It is gameplay offered in EvE or was partially offered in old UO, and with that i will take those two to explain it.
One gameplay option, one role so to say in such a game is that of a trader, or transporter or gatherer. Lets take at first the transporter.
In EvE you transport goods from A to B. You either get paid for the transportation itself, or you make profit because goods you buy in A you can sell to with a much higher price in B. The reason why it is like that may be because in A is a rare resource near by and in B is a weapon factory in need of that rare resource. A is in null sec and b is in high sec or safe zone so to say.
For traveling you have to travel through null sec. And withit comes the danger and the challenge. You may have some escorts to look ahead the traveling route to check out if any pirates or enemy players are around, which may attack you. So it is about planning, it is about finding a secure route and it is about defending your goods, if you get actually attacked.
And it is a lot of fun to play.. at least for some. And you play pvp but without incentive to actually fight.. well you even try to avoid any fight.
Similar scenarios will apply to traders, to gatherer, to salvager... all of them don't look for a pvp fight, but the gameplay is depending on it.
And exactly the same is true for their counterparts, pirates, highwaymen(in a fantasy setting), bandits, with the difference that those guys look for a fight, but even more look for the profit to make with that fight.
So what happens to those gameplay style when you mix pve safe zones with the exact same resources into a game. And this applied to UO as the introduced trammel. They copied 1:1 felucca with pvp deaktivated, with all resources exactly the same.
Rather simple.. those gameplay options die out. Of course now you gather resources from the safe spot, because there is no risk involved. Transportation is not requested, because everyone can do it, because no danger no risk is involved. And as another result prices for high value resources go down dramatically, because it is a lot easier and not dangerous to get those resources.. and after some time, realizing you don't have any fun with resource gathering, transportation you quit the game.(because it became a grind and not an adventure it was originally) Exactly that happened to me in UO after the introduction of Trammel. Not even neccessary to talk about the inflation of the economy because of abuntant supply.
To compare it in PvE language. Think about a world boss, instance or raid. You have two versions of them.. they are exactly the same, with the difference one drops a lot of loot and the other one nothing. Which one will be farmed? Or which instance will be used? And which one will be rather abandoned?
Or a better comparsion. You have a rather easy world boss and a extremely difficult world boss. But both drop the exact same stuff. Which one will be farmed?
With other words you have destroyed different kinds of playstyles by introducing a pve zone with the exact same resources.
But that is it not alone. The same is true for the conquering game. Why you should take the trouble, the resources, the investment to conquer a territory, when there is a safe territory with the exact same resources and rewards? As often said, in such a game it is not only about the fight, it is about risk vs. reward, it is about meaning of pvp engangement.
If you take out any meaning from pvp it becomes rather dull for a lot of players.
But does that mean you can't have any safe/pve zones in such a world? No. You just have to balance it, you have to have those different playstyle in mind. As it is in EvE they do it with resource distribution.. the more valuable resources are in null sec. and therefore all those playstyles stay intact, and the same is for the conquer game or territory control. Balance of risk vs. reward.
You could add the exact same valuable resources in a pve zone, too. But then it have to be balanced difficult to get those resources, to not interfere or destroy those playstyles. Point is, not one game did it up to now in a satisfied way. Hell.. even in a ffa environment there is more or less just EvE, which get those economic playstyles right. Because it is not just ffa pvp, you need a lot of other mechanics, too, to support that kind of gameplay. (which is also often refered as part of the sandbox experience, although it alone does not define a sandbox)
In the end, it is not because of the pvp fight. The fight alone could be done in a lot of ways without the need of a world, without the need of persistence, massivness, economy and all those things found in MMORPGs or EvE. If it would only be about the pvp fight alone we could easily play Battlefield, DoTA or any similar game.
I hope you understand it now.
PS: And not everyone have to take part in pvp fights in such a world, but everyone is part of equation. Like some crafter or trader may never leave the safe zone, but hire people, which take part in it, and do jobs for them.
Edit/PPS:
Some games try to mimic the transporter/trader vs. pirates relation like Arche Age. There you craft/buy transportation goods you can sell at liberty island with a high reward. The way in between is pvp, and pirates or any enemy player can attack you and take the goods from you to sell it themselves.
This is something I've wondered about, but not really understood the logic of. It has definitely gotten a lot more attention recently with the pending release of EQN information.
I understand that PvP is more exciting, can add something akin to a political element to a game, and can even make items in the economy more valuable, but I've never understood the insistence that if there is FFA PvP in a game everyone must participate.
For example, if there are safe areas and unsafe areas, the unsafe areas must contain more valuable items. Why? To me this seems like a mechanic that arbitrarily limits the people who would want to play a game. It seems like the people who would want to PvP would hang out in the unsafe areas and the people who don't like PvP would hang out in the safe areas.
I've also gotten the impression, possibly wrongly, that people who like FFA, Always On PvP are against the idea of having two different server types, one with the PvP rule set and one with the PvP rule set. Why? It seems like a good idea for people who like PvP to be on one server and people who don't want PvP on all the time on another server.
So, what are your thoughts on this? Why must FFA or Always On PvP be universal or all encompassing?
Asheron's call 2 had different pvp zones and one main pvp zone but most where always abandon.
Pve mixed with free for all zones don't work at all.
I realy don't see why its a problem when a game have pve servers and a free for all full loot server?
Why would someone play a game where free for all are rule set and then start whining about ?
I kinda miss the bit of i guess you can say runescape for simplicity sake,
that you can go into a pvp area and gradually increases in level zone, like.. first few steps are pvp1 , then pvp+2. each step deeper means a higher level can attack you etc but increased rewards / resource node.
capped at +50 orso BUT at +50 deep zone, the rewards would be.. immense as is the danger.
where is the good old time where guilds fought over resources, with an entire guild surround a resource and let their miners or harvesters get the max resources they can all carry and then get the heck out, as theres a massive horde of allied guilds coming to try and take it back.
those were fun, its also a reason I still love the game Tibia. you die.. you loose your shit and possibly a level.
the threat of the unknown is a bit of a rush. every turn could be something deadly that will swallow you whole.
Originally posted by GroovyFlower Asheron's call 2 had different pvp zones and one main pvp zone but most where always abandon.Pve mixed with free for all zones don't work at all.I realy don't see why its a problem when a game have pve servers and a free for all full loot server?Why would someone play a game where free for all are rule set and then start whining about ?
I'm not really looking at people who are for or against FFA or Always On PvP. We know there are people who like it and people who don't, with reasons for their points of view.
Another example of what I'm talking about.
There are periodically calls for Darkfall to have a PvE server, with a PvE rule set and where the PvP would optional. There are people who like the mob AI and the sandbox style world, but who just don't want to deal with the PvP aspect of the game.
There are people who are categorically against having a PvE server for Darkfall, on what seems to be ascetic reasons. It would just be "wrong". However, there was actually a legitimate reason to not do this, other than just not liking it. It would dilute developer resources because they would have to focus on making the PvE game a good game without the PvP aspects at the same time they were working on the PvP side of the game which included the PvE aspects. Too many spices in the soup kind of thing.
You've raised another good point I think with Asheron's Call. If you have safe zones and unsafe zones, unless there's a good reason for people to head into the unsafe zones, it's likely they won't travel to those zones. Eve is an example of this too. A very large portion of Eve's population don't go into the low sec space. They have everything they want or need in high sec space.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well.. not a lot of answers to your question. Some tried to explain, but did not really a good job with it.
So i will give it a try to explain you what i think is the answer to your question.
.... Long and (in my eyes at least) idealised view of the game EVE .....
If you take out any meaning from pvp it becomes rather dull for a lot of players.
I hope you understand it now.
PS: And not everyone have to take part in pvp fights in such a world, but everyone is part of equation. Like some crafter or trader may never leave the safe zone, but hire people, which take part in it, and do jobs for them.
As said elsewhere the EV E card has been played over and over again. What is left out is the large number of MMORPG players who have tried EVE and did not like it because of the FFA PvP and the even larger number of players that did not try it at all for a variety of reasons. The thing about EVE is that there is only one server so the option of having two rule sets disappears it was also designed from the ground up to be a PvP game. It suceeds in this well (perhaps even very well). But the option still exists for games with multiple servers to have multiple rule sets. While Apraxis does not state that he is opposed to have multiple servers with different rule sets many have using much the same examples that he does.
I do not dispute that providing a place for people to go who do not want to PvP in any way shape or form may make PvP dull for a lot of players, but not providing this option alienates another large group of players.
In addition creating ghetto zones for people who do not want to PvP is not a good solution socially, it discriminates against those players and encourages PvP players to start using terms like NOOB and Carebear. As to having to wait for a group of PvP players to "escort" me anywhere that is just contemptible.
If you want an OW FFA Pvp game they are out there: Darkfall:UW, EVE, Defiance, the upcoming Camelot Unchained. Even Archage looks to be largely OW FFA PvP. But to provide options for those that do not want OW FFA PvP other games need to be released that do encourage a PvE only play style. Hopefully Everquest Next will be one of these.
Well.. not a lot of answers to your question. Some tried to explain, but did not really a good job with it.
So i will give it a try to explain you what i think is the answer to your question.
.... Long and (in my eyes at least) idealised view of the game EVE .....
If you take out any meaning from pvp it becomes rather dull for a lot of players.
I hope you understand it now.
PS: And not everyone have to take part in pvp fights in such a world, but everyone is part of equation. Like some crafter or trader may never leave the safe zone, but hire people, which take part in it, and do jobs for them.
...
If you want an OW FFA Pvp game they are out there: Darkfall:UW, EVE, Defiance, the upcoming Camelot Unchained. Even Archage looks to be largely OW FFA PvP. But to provide options for those that do not want OW FFA PvP other games need to be released that do encourage a PvE only play style. Hopefully Everquest Next will be one of these.
I am not argueing if one game or the other should support or offer that experience or not. Some like that kind of game, and others like another kind of game. And i am completely ok with it.. for everyone their cup of tea.
I was just trying to answer the OPs question, why in certain games full PvE Zones and PvP Zones don't fit as easily together. The very same is true for different ruleset servers.
It isn't just enough to switch the pvp toggle on or off to deliver a good game, be it a good PvE game with switching pvp toggle off, or delivering a good pvp game with switching the pvp toggle on. Finally it is up to the designer and developers what kind of game they want, what audience they target. And the same is true for EQN.. i don't know what it will deliver, and we all have to wait another month to get any information about it.
As example. Darkfall would be a miserable pve game with just switching the pvp toggle off. And as much as most themepark mostly PvE games are miserable pvp games with a ffa ruleset server with just switching the pvp toggle on. Nevertheless a lot of developer do this, or have done it in the past, but it is always a very easy and cheap solution.
All those talk about pvp and EQN just appeared, because Smedly preannounced it as the greatest sandbox ever, and also made some comparsion to EvE. Do i think EQN will be a pvp game like EvE in a fantasy setting? Most probably not. I am not even sure if it will be a sandbox at all. Up to now it is just big talk from Smedly. The most i expect at the moment is more or less another EQ game with a few sandbox tools, and i don't know if that one will really work out that good.
But finally we all have to wait and see it first, before we can discuss about it seriously.
Originally posted by GroovyFlower Asheron's call 2 had different pvp zones and one main pvp zone but most where always abandon.
Pve mixed with free for all zones don't work at all.
I realy don't see why its a problem when a game have pve servers and a free for all full loot server?
Why would someone play a game where free for all are rule set and then start whining about ?
I'm not really looking at people who are for or against FFA or Always On PvP. We know there are people who like it and people who don't, with reasons for their points of view.
Another example of what I'm talking about.
There are periodically calls for Darkfall to have a PvE server, with a PvE rule set and where the PvP would optional. There are people who like the mob AI and the sandbox style world, but who just don't want to deal with the PvP aspect of the game.
There are people who are categorically against having a PvE server for Darkfall, on what seems to be ascetic reasons. It would just be "wrong". However, there was actually a legitimate reason to not do this, other than just not liking it. It would dilute developer resources because they would have to focus on making the PvE game a good game without the PvP aspects at the same time they were working on the PvP side of the game which included the PvE aspects. Too many spices in the soup kind of thing.
You've raised another good point I think with Asheron's Call. If you have safe zones and unsafe zones, unless there's a good reason for people to head into the unsafe zones, it's likely they won't travel to those zones. Eve is an example of this too. A very large portion of Eve's population don't go into the low sec space. They have everything they want or need in high sec space.
Asheron's call 1&2 it worked perfectly you had many pve servers few Kingdom vs Kingdom servers and one free for all pvp server called Darktide.
Im possitive developers can easly release game that have pve servers and FFA PVP servers.
Originally posted by craftseeker Originally posted by ApraxisWell.. not a lot of answers to your question. Some tried to explain, but did not really a good job with it.So i will give it a try to explain you what i think is the answer to your question. .... Long and (in my eyes at least) idealised view of the game EVE ..... If you take out any meaning from pvp it becomes rather dull for a lot of players.I hope you understand it now.PS: And not everyone have to take part in pvp fights in such a world, but everyone is part of equation. Like some crafter or trader may never leave the safe zone, but hire people, which take part in it, and do jobs for them.
As said elsewhere the EV E card has been played over and over again. What is left out is the large number of MMORPG players who have tried EVE and did not like it because of the FFA PvP and the even larger number of players that did not try it at all for a variety of reasons. The thing about EVE is that there is only one server so the option of having two rule sets disappears it was also designed from the ground up to be a PvP game. It suceeds in this well (perhaps even very well). But the option still exists for games with multiple servers to have multiple rule sets. While Apraxis does not state that he is opposed to have multiple servers with different rule sets many have using much the same examples that he does.
I do not dispute that providing a place for people to go who do not want to PvP in any way shape or form may make PvP dull for a lot of players, but not providing this option alienates another large group of players.
In addition creating ghetto zones for people who do not want to PvP is not a good solution socially, it discriminates against those players and encourages PvP players to start using terms like NOOB and Carebear. As to having to wait for a group of PvP players to "escort" me anywhere that is just contemptible.
If you want an OW FFA Pvp game they are out there: Darkfall:UW, EVE, Defiance, the upcoming Camelot Unchained. Even Archage looks to be largely OW FFA PvP. But to provide options for those that do not want OW FFA PvP other games need to be released that do encourage a PvE only play style. Hopefully Everquest Next will be one of these.
I don't have any qualitative arguments with Eve, I think they've got their system setup well, and it works. Better than most FFA, Always On PvP systems I can think of.
The only thing I would say is that the effects of PvP in Eve can be done with PvE, without using the PvP mechanic. To me, that means the reasons listed for requiring PvP for all players* are not good ones. They are good reasons for a Risk vs Reward system, and for having both high and low sec space, but not for PvP to be the particular solution. It's not a reason against PvP as the solution in the Risk vs Reward system either.
* Eve does allow PvP everywhere, but the split between high and low sec space gives players a nearly 100% chance of avoiding PvP if they want to avoid it. Even in low sec space, with a little forethought players can avoid PvP there too, but with a lower chance of success.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
So... I don't understand what your issue is.
If the game you want to play, doesn't have a feature you like, or has a feature you don't like - either accept it as it is, or move along to another game that is more agreeable with you.
We aren't talking about crafting and building. We're talking about PvP. Why would I enter into a thread about PvP and start talking about crafting and building?
MMO's are more diverse than I pretend? Did you not just quote me as saying, "They [MMO's] provide experiences for all facets of gameplay"? How is this me pretending they aren't diverse? I'm confused. What part of that statement implies that I am not aware that there is more to an MMO than PvP? Take off the blinders, fella. Not everyone who likes to PvP is a baffoon who has no idea about anything other than their own desires.
We aren't talking about where PvP's place is. We're talking about Open World FFA PvP. Did I talk about the characteristics of Arena PvP? No. I was on point the entire time. Always on FFA PvP has a place if the Devs say it has a place. End of story. You don't get to whine and change it. That is a royal "you". I'm not speaking about YOU directly.
If you don't play high tolerance PvP games - why are you even bothering to comment in a thread that asks a question about Open World FFA PvP? It's implied - an MMO that is not high tolerance PvP oriented isn't going to have Open World FFA PvP.
If we don't know what EQN will offer, and the point of the thread is all speculation on that game - then anything anyone says is irrelevant. It could be high tolerence... it might not be. Who knows? But that is beside the point. The OP asked a question specifically about Open World FFA PvP. I gave my thoughts on the matter.
Always on FFA PvP is an issue dictated by the game developers. Sometimes developers don't have it. Fine. I'm sure it's a great game. Sometimes they do. Fine. More power to them. If we're going to speculate on this under the president of the unveiled EQN.... I still don't know how anything I said is wrong or off-topic.
One of the problems with this, is there's a seemingly significant (if you go by singleplayer sandboxes popularity) group of people who want to play sandbox games but not wanting to deal with FFA PvP. Telling them to go play something else instead of whining about existing rules is all fine and dandy but there really isn't other games to go to. If you want to play a sandbox and more specifically a fantasy sandbox with RPG elements, you know swords, bows dragons magic, the whole nine you have have what to choose from again?
Maybe the solution to your gripe would be more diverse choices
Hmm either we are in agreement and you are just being argumentative or deliberately avoiding the point.
The original post:
So what are your thoughts on why FFA PvP must be always on, universal or all encompassing?
My opinion is that having two different server types is the best option for EQ Next, and indeed for most MMO's. Of course there is the place for exclusive niche products, heck I even kicked up some dollars for Camelot Unchained even though I do not intend to ever play it.
Why should FFA PvP always be on? Well, because if it isn't... then it isn't FFA PvP - that's why. I'm pretty certain I covered this.
Why shouldn't there be servers that have them always off? Well, because that's the same thing as demanding special rules to applied to a game that was designed to have FFA PvP - that's why. If that is not your thing - then move to another game that is more agreeable to you. I'm pretty sure I covered this as well.
The only person being argumentative is you. I've stated the same thing three times now.
So what you are saying is:
These games are RPGs (as in mmoRPG) which implies character progression. If you don't like that with your pvp, then you have FPS games for "true" pvp. I don't understand why hardcore pvp players insist on playing mmorpg when you have your games waiting for you.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
No.
FFA PvP can only exist if it is Always On. If it isn't Always On, then it isn't FFA PvP. It's something else.
If the Devs say their game will have this feature, and someone who doesn't like it willingly plays the game anyway, they do not have the right to complain for the game to change according to their liking. Go find another game. I'm sorry, this isn't the game for you.
If the Devs do not offer special server rules from the outset, then it is obvious that they did not intend on providing an experience that does not offer FFA PvP. In which case, people who play the game wanting a different experience need to move along and stop trying to change the game that goes against what the Devs designed it to do. Or, they can stay... and try to enjoy the experience.
The issue about different server rules was something I never addressed directly, specifically because I figured that it was self-explanatory in what I already stated. "If the Devs say this and you don't like it - move along." Why would this statement not apply to anything the Devs say? I was speaking specifically about FFA PvP when I addressed the issue, because the thread isn't about crafting, in-game weddings, or fishing. Sorry... I wasn't thinking about those things because I was trying to answer his question.
You seem like a smart person, so I will assume that you would suspect that they would offer different server rules. I'm a smart person, and I assume that they will too. In which case, your questions for me are irrelevant since if we are both aware of the possibility, then we must be aware of what that would mean for servers that are not FFA PvP enabled... they won't have FFA PvP. In which case, you should refer to what I said to people who want to change a game that was never promised to be what they want, "If the Devs said it and you don't like it - move along."
The reason I did not get as specific into this as I am now, is because we don't know what EQN will offer. The Devs have said NOTHING. By this logic, I default to the defensive. If the Devs say FFA PvP with no option of different servers - move along. This is not the game for you - don't try to change it.
But, again, because you and I are smart people... we both know that that is a ludicrous insinuation, even if it must be said in defense of what is right and just. EverQuest has historically been a PvE focussed game. They would never not have the optional server for a disabled FFA PvP game experience. If they did... I'd be the first to be surprised.
HOWEVER...
As for my personal opinion on why there should NOT be optional servers if the game allows for FFA PvP:
When I played SWTOR back when it was launched, I played on a PvP-RP server. Basically, that means that people who enjoy FFA PvP as equally as PvE content, should play on a PvP-RP server. I like both equally, thus I play on that server. Other players who specifically enjoy PvP and could care less for PvE typically play on the PvP servers. PvE players play on the PvE servers. You know how this works... because you're smart.
Now, what I experienced in this game changed my attitude about this issue entirely.
Two weeks after Launch, Bioware goes into heavy class Nerfing. Why? Because of PvP imbalances. Now, I could write a novel on how much of a bonehead move they made in how they went about these nerfs, but whatever. They did some hardcore nerfing, specifically because some classes were owning total face in PvP.
These nerfs did not just affect the PvP balance. They affecting the balance of everything - including people who play on PvE servers who have no care in the world for PvP. And even worse, there was absolutely no issues whatsoever with the class balance in PvE. This is the making for a gigantic shit-storm. It would be just as bad if it were the other way around.
So, as cruel and unfair as it sounds to say optional servers should not be available - I have to stand by my original statement when it pertains to ANY game, including EQN. "If the Devs say there is FFA PvP, and you don't like it.... Move along." You will be doing yourself a favor, because you won't have to go through the trouble of experiencing nerf after nerf after nerf of your character whom you only use for PvE purposes.
I think it might be because most FPS lacks customization and individualization options - they are too simplistic.
MMO PvPers generally like playing MMO I think because they liked to be recognised and be able to be notorious. The problem with just FPS is they usually lack deep, diversity and a sense of individually. I would say developers are partly to blame for that (ie. they automatically assumed that FPS players don't care about individually and looks, so just give them kill kill kill gameplay).
Which is I think part of the reason why games like GTA and Saint Row becomes quite successful - there are some depth and customization in their kill kill kill-ness.
... What are you even talking about?
Well, for myself specifically:
I like PvP in my PvE MMO, especially FFA Open World PvP, because I enjoy the idea of... you know... Role Playing in an alternate world that is only cool because it borrows from real world scenarios.
Take Star Wars The Old Republic, for instance. I played a Smuggler. I like the idea that there is another Player Bounty Hunter out there somewhere trying to capture me. You know... like Han Solo and Boba Fett. Since the game doesn't technicaly have such an intricate design element in is such as actual Bounty Hunting.... I have to use my imagination.
WHOA - WHAT? PVPERS HAVE THAT?
Yes, we do. So since I am using my imagination, I pretend that that enemy Bounty Hunter I just saw zoom past me on a Speeder Bike is out to get me, especially since I am in my Faction's questing zone and I am the only person around here. Maybe I live. Maybe I die. I don't know. But I am one hell of a Smuggler who somehow always finds himself in trouble and must escape danger somehow.
Sorry pal... I don't mean to destroy your make believe image of all players who like PvP. Some of us enjoy the thrill it adds to our imagination that a purely PvE experience doesn't provide. Why? Well... because there is no guesswork against leveling PvE mobs. I'm going to win.
What you said is basically the same as what I have said - individualization and customization are all part of role play.
Is it not?
Customization is irrelevant to my liking PvP, though like FFA PvP in particular, it is highly relevant to me having another layer for experiencing my character's exploits in my imagination. The cooler he looks, the richer my imagination becomes. But it's not like I am a "PvPer". I don't even like to PvP. I just like FFA PvP in the game. It gives me that additional layer that otherwise would not exist. I don't like Customization because my FPS doesn't offer it. I'm not missing it from one place and compensating in another. Not all PvPer's are die hard Call of Duty fanatics - which is a false presumption people tend to make.
Individuality in the sense that you described (notoriety or popularity) is irrelevant to my liking PvP. It's not even the competition or the challenge of something harder than trash mobs. And I especially detest grinding for PvP gear in arenas. I would RATHER it be FFA PvP with NO arenas.
It's an additional layer of visceral experience that increases the potential ceiling for emotional response with the imagination I have invested in my character. It's not for anyone else. It's just for me. No one else cares about my pretend heroics. The game doesn't even acknowledge them in the way I imagine it.
In my imagination, my guy lives in a believable world that has danger at every corner. People might chase after him for some reason or another. He is a Smuggler after all. This world would be dull if the other people in it could not execute my demise at their convenient discretion - I would fight back of course. FFA PvP facilitates my needs for a believable world. Regardless of what world or character I am playing. I'm only famous in my imagination. I could care less if other players actually know who I am. And typically they don't... dude I suck at PvP. But I love it.
thank you, my imagination agrees with yours!
Herald of innovation, Vanquisher of the old! - Awake a few hours almost everyday!
Well.. not a lot of answers to your question. Some tried to explain, but did not really a good job withit.
So i will give it a try to explain you what i think is the answer to your question.
First of all it is not about FFA PvP alone, or PvP in that sense especially not PvP a lot of players think of. PvP in the sense of one player is attacking another player.
It is gameplay offered in EvE or was partially offered in old UO, and with that i will take those two to explain it.
One gameplay option, one role so to say in such a game is that of a trader, or transporter or gatherer. Lets take at first the transporter.
In EvE you transport goods from A to B. You either get paid for the transportation itself, or you make profit because goods you buy in A you can sell to with a much higher price in B. The reason why it is like that may be because in A is a rare resource near by and in B is a weapon factory in need of that rare resource. A is in null sec and b is in high sec or safe zone so to say.
For traveling you have to travel through null sec. And withit comes the danger and the challenge. You may have some escorts to look ahead the traveling route to check out if any pirates or enemy players are around, which may attack you. So it is about planning, it is about finding a secure route and it is about defending your goods, if you get actually attacked.
And it is a lot of fun to play.. at least for some. And you play pvp but without incentive to actually fight.. well you even try to avoid any fight.
Similar scenarios will apply to traders, to gatherer, to salvager... all of them don't look for a pvp fight, but the gameplay is depending on it.
And exactly the same is true for their counterparts, pirates, highwaymen(in a fantasy setting), bandits, with the difference that those guys look for a fight, but even more look for the profit to make with that fight.
So what happens to those gameplay style when you mix pve safe zones with the exact same resources into a game. And this applied to UO as the introduced trammel. They copied 1:1 felucca with pvp deaktivated, with all resources exactly the same.
Rather simple.. those gameplay options die out. Of course now you gather resources from the safe spot, because there is no risk involved. Transportation is not requested, because everyone can do it, because no danger no risk is involved. And as another result prices for high value resources go down dramatically, because it is a lot easier and not dangerous to get those resources.. and after some time, realizing you don't have any fun with resource gathering, transportation you quit the game.(because it became a grind and not an adventure it was originally) Exactly that happened to me in UO after the introduction of Trammel. Not even neccessary to talk about the inflation of the economy because of abuntant supply.
To compare it in PvE language. Think about a world boss, instance or raid. You have two versions of them.. they are exactly the same, with the difference one drops a lot of loot and the other one nothing. Which one will be farmed? Or which instance will be used? And which one will be rather abandoned?
Or a better comparsion. You have a rather easy world boss and a extremely difficult world boss. But both drop the exact same stuff. Which one will be farmed?
With other words you have destroyed different kinds of playstyles by introducing a pve zone with the exact same resources.
But that is it not alone. The same is true for the conquering game. Why you should take the trouble, the resources, the investment to conquer a territory, when there is a safe territory with the exact same resources and rewards? As often said, in such a game it is not only about the fight, it is about risk vs. reward, it is about meaning of pvp engangement.
If you take out any meaning from pvp it becomes rather dull for a lot of players.
But does that mean you can't have any safe/pve zones in such a world? No. You just have to balance it, you have to have those different playstyle in mind. As it is in EvE they do it with resource distribution.. the more valuable resources are in null sec. and therefore all those playstyles stay intact, and the same is for the conquer game or territory control. Balance of risk vs. reward.
You could add the exact same valuable resources in a pve zone, too. But then it have to be balanced difficult to get those resources, to not interfere or destroy those playstyles. Point is, not one game did it up to now in a satisfied way. Hell.. even in a ffa environment there is more or less just EvE, which get those economic playstyles right. Because it is not just ffa pvp, you need a lot of other mechanics, too, to support that kind of gameplay. (which is also often refered as part of the sandbox experience, although it alone does not define a sandbox)
In the end, it is not because of the pvp fight. The fight alone could be done in a lot of ways without the need of a world, without the need of persistence, massivness, economy and all those things found in MMORPGs or EvE. If it would only be about the pvp fight alone we could easily play Battlefield, DoTA or any similar game.
I hope you understand it now.
PS: And not everyone have to take part in pvp fights in such a world, but everyone is part of equation. Like some crafter or trader may never leave the safe zone, but hire people, which take part in it, and do jobs for them.
Edit/PPS:
Some games try to mimic the transporter/trader vs. pirates relation like Arche Age. There you craft/buy transportation goods you can sell at liberty island with a high reward. The way in between is pvp, and pirates or any enemy player can attack you and take the goods from you to sell it themselves.
Asheron's call 2 had different pvp zones and one main pvp zone but most where always abandon.
Pve mixed with free for all zones don't work at all.
I realy don't see why its a problem when a game have pve servers and a free for all full loot server?
Why would someone play a game where free for all are rule set and then start whining about ?
I kinda miss the bit of i guess you can say runescape for simplicity sake,
that you can go into a pvp area and gradually increases in level zone, like.. first few steps are pvp1 , then pvp+2. each step deeper means a higher level can attack you etc but increased rewards / resource node.
capped at +50 orso BUT at +50 deep zone, the rewards would be.. immense as is the danger.
where is the good old time where guilds fought over resources, with an entire guild surround a resource and let their miners or harvesters get the max resources they can all carry and then get the heck out, as theres a massive horde of allied guilds coming to try and take it back.
those were fun, its also a reason I still love the game Tibia. you die.. you loose your shit and possibly a level.
the threat of the unknown is a bit of a rush. every turn could be something deadly that will swallow you whole.
I'm not really looking at people who are for or against FFA or Always On PvP. We know there are people who like it and people who don't, with reasons for their points of view.
Another example of what I'm talking about.
There are periodically calls for Darkfall to have a PvE server, with a PvE rule set and where the PvP would optional. There are people who like the mob AI and the sandbox style world, but who just don't want to deal with the PvP aspect of the game.
There are people who are categorically against having a PvE server for Darkfall, on what seems to be ascetic reasons. It would just be "wrong". However, there was actually a legitimate reason to not do this, other than just not liking it. It would dilute developer resources because they would have to focus on making the PvE game a good game without the PvP aspects at the same time they were working on the PvP side of the game which included the PvE aspects. Too many spices in the soup kind of thing.
You've raised another good point I think with Asheron's Call. If you have safe zones and unsafe zones, unless there's a good reason for people to head into the unsafe zones, it's likely they won't travel to those zones. Eve is an example of this too. A very large portion of Eve's population don't go into the low sec space. They have everything they want or need in high sec space.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
As said elsewhere the EV E card has been played over and over again. What is left out is the large number of MMORPG players who have tried EVE and did not like it because of the FFA PvP and the even larger number of players that did not try it at all for a variety of reasons. The thing about EVE is that there is only one server so the option of having two rule sets disappears it was also designed from the ground up to be a PvP game. It suceeds in this well (perhaps even very well). But the option still exists for games with multiple servers to have multiple rule sets. While Apraxis does not state that he is opposed to have multiple servers with different rule sets many have using much the same examples that he does.
I do not dispute that providing a place for people to go who do not want to PvP in any way shape or form may make PvP dull for a lot of players, but not providing this option alienates another large group of players.
In addition creating ghetto zones for people who do not want to PvP is not a good solution socially, it discriminates against those players and encourages PvP players to start using terms like NOOB and Carebear. As to having to wait for a group of PvP players to "escort" me anywhere that is just contemptible.
If you want an OW FFA Pvp game they are out there: Darkfall:UW, EVE, Defiance, the upcoming Camelot Unchained. Even Archage looks to be largely OW FFA PvP. But to provide options for those that do not want OW FFA PvP other games need to be released that do encourage a PvE only play style. Hopefully Everquest Next will be one of these.
I am not argueing if one game or the other should support or offer that experience or not. Some like that kind of game, and others like another kind of game. And i am completely ok with it.. for everyone their cup of tea.
I was just trying to answer the OPs question, why in certain games full PvE Zones and PvP Zones don't fit as easily together. The very same is true for different ruleset servers.
It isn't just enough to switch the pvp toggle on or off to deliver a good game, be it a good PvE game with switching pvp toggle off, or delivering a good pvp game with switching the pvp toggle on. Finally it is up to the designer and developers what kind of game they want, what audience they target. And the same is true for EQN.. i don't know what it will deliver, and we all have to wait another month to get any information about it.
As example. Darkfall would be a miserable pve game with just switching the pvp toggle off. And as much as most themepark mostly PvE games are miserable pvp games with a ffa ruleset server with just switching the pvp toggle on. Nevertheless a lot of developer do this, or have done it in the past, but it is always a very easy and cheap solution.
All those talk about pvp and EQN just appeared, because Smedly preannounced it as the greatest sandbox ever, and also made some comparsion to EvE. Do i think EQN will be a pvp game like EvE in a fantasy setting? Most probably not. I am not even sure if it will be a sandbox at all. Up to now it is just big talk from Smedly. The most i expect at the moment is more or less another EQ game with a few sandbox tools, and i don't know if that one will really work out that good.
But finally we all have to wait and see it first, before we can discuss about it seriously.
Asheron's call 1&2 it worked perfectly you had many pve servers few Kingdom vs Kingdom servers and one free for all pvp server called Darktide.
Im possitive developers can easly release game that have pve servers and FFA PVP servers.
I do not dispute that providing a place for people to go who do not want to PvP in any way shape or form may make PvP dull for a lot of players, but not providing this option alienates another large group of players.
In addition creating ghetto zones for people who do not want to PvP is not a good solution socially, it discriminates against those players and encourages PvP players to start using terms like NOOB and Carebear. As to having to wait for a group of PvP players to "escort" me anywhere that is just contemptible.
If you want an OW FFA Pvp game they are out there: Darkfall:UW, EVE, Defiance, the upcoming Camelot Unchained. Even Archage looks to be largely OW FFA PvP. But to provide options for those that do not want OW FFA PvP other games need to be released that do encourage a PvE only play style. Hopefully Everquest Next will be one of these.
I don't have any qualitative arguments with Eve, I think they've got their system setup well, and it works. Better than most FFA, Always On PvP systems I can think of.
The only thing I would say is that the effects of PvP in Eve can be done with PvE, without using the PvP mechanic. To me, that means the reasons listed for requiring PvP for all players* are not good ones. They are good reasons for a Risk vs Reward system, and for having both high and low sec space, but not for PvP to be the particular solution. It's not a reason against PvP as the solution in the Risk vs Reward system either.
* Eve does allow PvP everywhere, but the split between high and low sec space gives players a nearly 100% chance of avoiding PvP if they want to avoid it. Even in low sec space, with a little forethought players can avoid PvP there too, but with a lower chance of success.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
if he wanted to pvp in peace he wouldnt be in a ffa pvp game