It is not about power differences .. it is about those who just want to pve cannot do it in peace.
If i don't want to fight some dude, and just want to down a boss, no amount of tweaking power differences will make FFA open world pvp work.
It is just a preference. You cannot design away what people like.
cant you find a few mercenary players and pay to cover you while you fight the boss ?
You really don't get it? Is it that difficult to understand?
Why don't you try explaining it to him rather than making out like he is an idiot. Presumably you come here to discuss things rather than attempt to make people feel stupid so why not explain it to him?
I just did. However, i am quite puzzled how he cannot understand a simple point .... why would anyone do anything they don't like in a game that is meant to entertain?
Sure people *can* survive (or at least try) but why should they? It is only entertainment.
Well thank you firstly.
I cannot speak for him but I think it's possible he was just trying to entice someone over to play something. Ever had someone insist that you taste something that your pretty sure you'll hate? Sometimes, even when tasting something you've previously disliked, you'll discover that it can grow on you. That's just a guess though.
Originally posted by ozmono For some reason it would seem alot of people can accept being beaten by a machine or developer easier than by another person on an equal playing field. Maybe it doesn't hurt their ego so much. Whatever the reason many of these same PVE people complain that games are too easy because mobs are not challenging, that death penalties are too weak and even some have the hide to malign an entire group of players whilst simultaneously claiming their communities are crap. It doesn't appear the people I refer to are all adverse to risk, many cry for it, they just don't want it from another player.
But you're assuming people who hate the atmosphere of FOPs don't like to PvP...and you're wrong.
There's nothing wrong with PvP. Yes it is a greater challenge and that makes it fun. But no, I'm not in the mood for it every minute I want to play an MMO.
The best type of MMO is one where the PvP happens in a huge persistent zone and also has non-PvP zones to chill in when you want to do that. If the PVP zone is big enough, there's very little difference between that and having it everywhere. I question the motives of people who can't be satisfied with that compromise. I think most who don't like that type of MMO just can't stand the thought of not being able to gank unsuspecting low-level prey...and there is something very wrong with that.
This is similar to the line of discussion I just responded too but backwards(prehaps reverse would be better). People have just argued in the said line of discussion that as PVEers they shouldn't have to compromise and if that is considered true than I don't see why the same argument couldn't be applied to FFA PVPers with the possible exception that we are the minority.
Originally posted by ozmono For some reason it would seem alot of people can accept being beaten by a machine or developer easier than by another person on an equal playing field. Maybe it doesn't hurt their ego so much. Whatever the reason many of these same PVE people complain that games are too easy because mobs are not challenging, that death penalties are too weak and even some have the hide to malign an entire group of players whilst simultaneously claiming their communities are crap. It doesn't appear the people I refer to are all adverse to risk, many cry for it, they just don't want it from another player.
But you're assuming people who hate the atmosphere of FOPs don't like to PvP...and you're wrong.
There's nothing wrong with PvP. Yes it is a greater challenge and that makes it fun. But no, I'm not in the mood for it every minute I want to play an MMO.
The best type of MMO is one where the PvP happens in a huge persistent zone and also has non-PvP zones to chill in when you want to do that. If the PVP zone is big enough, there's very little difference between that and having it everywhere. I question the motives of people who can't be satisfied with that compromise. I think most who don't like that type of MMO just can't stand the thought of not being able to gank unsuspecting low-level prey...and there is something very wrong with that.
This is similar to the line of discussion I just responded too but backwards(prehaps reverse would be better). People have just argued in the said line of discussion that as PVEers they shouldn't have to compromise and if that is considered true than I don't see why the same argument couldn't be applied to FFA PVPers with the possible exception that we are the minority.
Well if you think every game has to be identical that's a different problem.
I'm simply calling you on your assumption that if you like PvP then you like FFA OW PVP. That's a hell of a stretch. I've been PvPing in MMOs since the days of Asheron's Call and I like it. But the best system I ever played in was Dark Age of Camelot as you might have guessed from my description.
The game wasn't exclusive to hard core. Many people came to it never having PVPd at all, tried it and like it. You never get that with the PVP everywhere 24/7 games. Not only that, but people who want to do different things in their MMO at different times don't bother either.
They're not only niche, they have no growth potential because many potential new PVPers are turned off enough not to bother.
Anyone who actually likes PVP and wants to show others how much fun it is, is just wasting breath promoting the DFUWs of the world. You'd be much better off promoting the segregated system of DAoC, GW2, TESO and other games that give you both.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by ozmono For some reason it would seem alot of people can accept being beaten by a machine or developer easier than by another person on an equal playing field. Maybe it doesn't hurt their ego so much. Whatever the reason many of these same PVE people complain that games are too easy because mobs are not challenging, that death penalties are too weak and even some have the hide to malign an entire group of players whilst simultaneously claiming their communities are crap. It doesn't appear the people I refer to are all adverse to risk, many cry for it, they just don't want it from another player.
But you're assuming people who hate the atmosphere of FOPs don't like to PvP...and you're wrong.
There's nothing wrong with PvP. Yes it is a greater challenge and that makes it fun. But no, I'm not in the mood for it every minute I want to play an MMO.
The best type of MMO is one where the PvP happens in a huge persistent zone and also has non-PvP zones to chill in when you want to do that. If the PVP zone is big enough, there's very little difference between that and having it everywhere. I question the motives of people who can't be satisfied with that compromise. I think most who don't like that type of MMO just can't stand the thought of not being able to gank unsuspecting low-level prey...and there is something very wrong with that.
This is similar to the line of discussion I just responded too but backwards(prehaps reverse would be better). People have just argued in the said line of discussion that as PVEers they shouldn't have to compromise and if that is considered true than I don't see why the same argument couldn't be applied to FFA PVPers with the possible exception that we are the minority.
Well if you think every game has to be identical that's a different problem.
I'm simply calling you on your assumption that if you like PvP then you like FFA OW PVP. That's a hell of a stretch. I've been PvPing in MMOs since the days of Asheron's Call and I like it. But the best system I ever played in was Dark Age of Camelot as you might have guessed from my description.
The game wasn't exclusive to hard core. Many people came to it never having PVPd at all, tried it and like it. You never get that with the PVP everywhere 24/7 games. Not only that, but people who want to do different things in their MMO at different times don't bother either.
They're not only niche, they have no growth potential because many potential new PVPers are turned off enough not to bother.
Anyone who actually likes PVP and wants to show others how much fun it is, is just wasting breath promoting the DFUWs of the world. You'd be much better off promoting the segregated system of DAoC, GW2, TESO and other games that give you both.
Well I realize there are more than one type of player and I didn't mean to suggest anything other than observations and what appeared to me based on what was written in this thread, from people I know and what was written in other threads I have read prior to my first post in this thread. I'm sure there are PVEers who don't like PVP. I know some, I never said it was everyone who like to play against the environment or anything of that nature. Nothing that you've supposedly called me on changes anything I wrote in that original post.
Originally posted by ozmono For some reason it would seem alot of people can accept being beaten by a machine or developer easier than by another person on an equal playing field. Maybe it doesn't hurt their ego so much. Whatever the reason many of these same PVE people complain that games are too easy because mobs are not challenging, that death penalties are too weak and even some have the hide to malign an entire group of players whilst simultaneously claiming their communities are crap. It doesn't appear the people I refer to are all adverse to risk, many cry for it, they just don't want it from another player.
But you're assuming people who hate the atmosphere of FOPs don't like to PvP...and you're wrong.
There's nothing wrong with PvP. Yes it is a greater challenge and that makes it fun. But no, I'm not in the mood for it every minute I want to play an MMO.
The best type of MMO is one where the PvP happens in a huge persistent zone and also has non-PvP zones to chill in when you want to do that. If the PVP zone is big enough, there's very little difference between that and having it everywhere. I question the motives of people who can't be satisfied with that compromise. I think most who don't like that type of MMO just can't stand the thought of not being able to gank unsuspecting low-level prey...and there is something very wrong with that.
This is similar to the line of discussion I just responded too but backwards(prehaps reverse would be better). People have just argued in the said line of discussion that as PVEers they shouldn't have to compromise and if that is considered true than I don't see why the same argument couldn't be applied to FFA PVPers with the possible exception that we are the minority.
Well if you think every game has to be identical that's a different problem.
I'm simply calling you on your assumption that if you like PvP then you like FFA OW PVP. That's a hell of a stretch. I've been PvPing in MMOs since the days of Asheron's Call and I like it. But the best system I ever played in was Dark Age of Camelot as you might have guessed from my description.
The game wasn't exclusive to hard core. Many people came to it never having PVPd at all, tried it and like it. You never get that with the PVP everywhere 24/7 games. Not only that, but people who want to do different things in their MMO at different times don't bother either.
They're not only niche, they have no growth potential because many potential new PVPers are turned off enough not to bother.
Anyone who actually likes PVP and wants to show others how much fun it is, is just wasting breath promoting the DFUWs of the world. You'd be much better off promoting the segregated system of DAoC, GW2, TESO and other games that give you both.
I think this is a very valid point.
I think most people do enjoy PvP, but I would argue that most of the player base is not keen on openworld PvP. There's far to many area's where gear/level descrepincy as well as numbers can simply abuse a system for many others. This, I feel, ultimately turns off a lot of players.
If a game were to be tailored to address these issues, then:
Gear would have to have less impact than it currently does in most MMORPG's
Level has to have less impact than it currently does in MMORPG's (D2 did this pretty well)
There's no real solution for the number of players. You can't really just stunt a games group potential, so thats going to have to be a necessary evil.
Originally posted by ozmono For some reason it would seem alot of people can accept being beaten by a machine or developer easier than by another person on an equal playing field. Maybe it doesn't hurt their ego so much. Whatever the reason many of these same PVE people complain that games are too easy because mobs are not challenging, that death penalties are too weak and even some have the hide to malign an entire group of players whilst simultaneously claiming their communities are crap. It doesn't appear the people I refer to are all adverse to risk, many cry for it, they just don't want it from another player.
But you're assuming people who hate the atmosphere of FOPs don't like to PvP...and you're wrong.
There's nothing wrong with PvP. Yes it is a greater challenge and that makes it fun. But no, I'm not in the mood for it every minute I want to play an MMO.
The best type of MMO is one where the PvP happens in a huge persistent zone and also has non-PvP zones to chill in when you want to do that. If the PVP zone is big enough, there's very little difference between that and having it everywhere. I question the motives of people who can't be satisfied with that compromise. I think most who don't like that type of MMO just can't stand the thought of not being able to gank unsuspecting low-level prey...and there is something very wrong with that.
This is similar to the line of discussion I just responded too but backwards(prehaps reverse would be better). People have just argued in the said line of discussion that as PVEers they shouldn't have to compromise and if that is considered true than I don't see why the same argument couldn't be applied to FFA PVPers with the possible exception that we are the minority.
Well if you think every game has to be identical that's a different problem.
I'm simply calling you on your assumption that if you like PvP then you like FFA OW PVP. That's a hell of a stretch. I've been PvPing in MMOs since the days of Asheron's Call and I like it. But the best system I ever played in was Dark Age of Camelot as you might have guessed from my description.
The game wasn't exclusive to hard core. Many people came to it never having PVPd at all, tried it and like it. You never get that with the PVP everywhere 24/7 games. Not only that, but people who want to do different things in their MMO at different times don't bother either.
They're not only niche, they have no growth potential because many potential new PVPers are turned off enough not to bother.
Anyone who actually likes PVP and wants to show others how much fun it is, is just wasting breath promoting the DFUWs of the world. You'd be much better off promoting the segregated system of DAoC, GW2, TESO and other games that give you both.
I think this is a very valid point.
I think most people do enjoy PvP, but I would argue that most of the player base is not keen on openworld PvP. There's far to many area's where gear/level descrepincy as well as numbers can simply abuse a system for many others. This, I feel, ultimately turns off a lot of players.
If a game were to be tailored to address these issues, then:
Gear would have to have less impact than it currently does in most MMORPG's
Level has to have less impact than it currently does in MMORPG's (D2 did this pretty well)
There's no real solution for the number of players. You can't really just stunt a games group potential, so thats going to have to be a necessary evil.
For what it's worth I think it's a very valid point too. I was too distracted defending my original post that was in question to say as much but other than standing by my original post and therefore denying that I said anything of this nature "that if you like PvP then you like FFA OW PVP. ", it was a good post.
How about we just stop labeling things? In the days of UO there was no such thing as "Open world pvp FFA loot". It existed, but the terminology did not. When you label something - it's easy to say "Oh I don't like that" or "This is my favorite, and all I want is this from now on." At this point introducing something can easily become a giant hurdle.
Ultima online was a world. A world comprised with tools to allow the players to shape it, within the boundaries that the developers set. So to get to the OPs statement. It can be done right. It hasn't (imo) in a very, very long time, but it can be done. It just needs more depth than the the games we receive today. Depth does not equal flashy. Bells and whistles aren't needed. They get your attention, but don't hold it. Smooth game mechanics and game play coupled with a vast array of options/choices are all you really need.
Part of the problem is that incorporating classes into a sandbox style game sort of goes against the grain. A class is a predefined template that typically does not allow you to stray away. You're confined to what skills your specific template has been provided. (Of course there are exceptions.. FFXIV has a twist on it as well as others that allow you to multi-class). A sandbox on the other hand is *supposed* to allow you (the players) to create, live, and share the 'world'. It's supposed to allow you to create and share your experiences with others. I could literally write a book (if my grammar wasn't so terrible) about all of the amazing experiences I had in UO.
Another point people are making is that they don't want to lose their hard earned gear. Understandable. However, in a number of 'open world ffa pvp loot' systems; crafters have a real purpose. I bet there are even people here on this forum that could easily tell you the name of some of the crafters they have come across in these types of games, and how important they were to them.
These types of games (if made correctly) will show you what the fuss is all about if you invest time into them. They will teach you life lessons. You will be helped by someone who saves you from being killed by a pk. You will help others. You will most likely become the PK. You may even feel bad, and befriend the person you just killed. These are some of the experiences that will help shape the love of a game for you. Not from games where there is no risk vs reward. Not from games that hold your hand from start to finish.
These types of games (if made correctly) will show you what the fuss is all about if you invest time into them. They will teach you life lessons. You will be helped by someone who saves you from being killed by a pk. You will help others. You will most likely become the PK. You may even feel bad, and befriend the person you just killed. These are some of the experiences that will help shape the love of a game for you. Not from games where there is no risk vs reward. Not from games that hold your hand from start to finish.
These things are niche though. People who like OW PVP are willing to accept the short comings, and people who don't like OW PVP dislike it for those very short comings. A lot of people quickly and consciously can go through all of the reasons why they wont like an OW PVP system, and that really boils down to 1 thing: "I don't want to be ganked by a demi god while I'm doing things".
All the other things are irrelevant when you come down to that very conclusion. A lot of people don't like being ganked. Any other bells and whistles to eleviate that is not likely to stray them away.
Also, I love the rhetoric of PvE being "no risk vs reward" and "a game that holds your hand from start to finish". It's like the rhetoric of PvP games being nothing more than picking on people grossly below your gear/skill level.
Also, I love the rhetoric of PvE being "no risk vs reward" and "a game that holds your hand from start to finish". It's like the rhetoric of PvP games being nothing more than picking on people grossly below your gear/skill level.
I hope your not referring to me. I've already been accused of making three assumptions total, two of which I didn't make. One of them was this PvE no risk thing, I certainly didn't say that and I don't recall anyone else in this thread saying as much either. Did I miss something?
Also, I love the rhetoric of PvE being "no risk vs reward" and "a game that holds your hand from start to finish". It's like the rhetoric of PvP games being nothing more than picking on people grossly below your gear/skill level.
I hope your not referring to me. I've already been accused of making three assumptions total, two of which I didn't make. One of them was this PvE no risk thing, I certainly didn't say that and I don't recall anyone else in this thread saying as much either. Did I miss something?
oh no, not you. It was the person I directly quoted. The last line of the quote was using the terms
These types of games (if made correctly) will show you what the fuss is all about if you invest time into them. They will teach you life lessons. You will be helped by someone who saves you from being killed by a pk. You will help others. You will most likely become the PK. You may even feel bad, and befriend the person you just killed. These are some of the experiences that will help shape the love of a game for you. Not from games where there is no risk vs reward. Not from games that hold your hand from start to finish.
These things are niche though. People who like OW PVP are willing to accept the short comings, and people who don't like OW PVP dislike it for those very short comings. A lot of people quickly and consciously can go through all of the reasons why they wont like an OW PVP system, and that really boils down to 1 thing: "I don't want to be ganked by a demi god while I'm doing things".
All the other things are irrelevant when you come down to that very conclusion. A lot of people don't like being ganked. Any other bells and whistles to eleviate that is not likely to stray them away.
Also, I love the rhetoric of PvE being "no risk vs reward" and "a game that holds your hand from start to finish". It's like the rhetoric of PvP games being nothing more than picking on people grossly below your gear/skill level.
It's fine if you disagree. No problem there, but I think you misunderstood some of what I stated. Firstly, I never mentioned anything about PVE being no risk vs reward. I'm talking about game design here, not PvP vs PvE. As in the example I used with UO - PvE was challenging and risky. To me the problem isn't that these things are niche. Because the game type I am referring to has PvE, PvP, exploration, an open world, and is challenging.
As far as being attacked by a 'demi-god'.. again that does not exist in the game I am talking about. If you take a skill based progression system (i.e. UO) a player with the skill of 80 can defeat a player with the skill of 100. This is possible because of things like spell fizzles, and for melee combat - skills such as parrying. The themepark design has taught us that when we use a skill it does not fail. Failure is necessary to create success. Even at 100 skill a spell can still fail. While much less likely - still possible. There are ways to design and balance these systems. The problem is we haven't seen very many good sandbox games come out in a long time. 2013-2014 look promising though.
Also, I love the rhetoric of PvE being "no risk vs reward" and "a game that holds your hand from start to finish". It's like the rhetoric of PvP games being nothing more than picking on people grossly below your gear/skill level.
I hope your not referring to me. I've already been accused of making three assumptions total, two of which I didn't make. One of them was this PvE no risk thing, I certainly didn't say that and I don't recall anyone else in this thread saying as much either. Did I miss something?
oh no, not you. It was the person I directly quoted. The last line of the quote was using the terms
Okay cool. Must be time for me to go lay down I think. I know I've been spending too much time on these forums when I start to see enemies everywhere and start to sympathize with politicians.
These types of games (if made correctly) will show you what the fuss is all about if you invest time into them. They will teach you life lessons. You will be helped by someone who saves you from being killed by a pk. You will help others. You will most likely become the PK. You may even feel bad, and befriend the person you just killed. These are some of the experiences that will help shape the love of a game for you. Not from games where there is no risk vs reward. Not from games that hold your hand from start to finish.
These things are niche though. People who like OW PVP are willing to accept the short comings, and people who don't like OW PVP dislike it for those very short comings. A lot of people quickly and consciously can go through all of the reasons why they wont like an OW PVP system, and that really boils down to 1 thing: "I don't want to be ganked by a demi god while I'm doing things".
All the other things are irrelevant when you come down to that very conclusion. A lot of people don't like being ganked. Any other bells and whistles to eleviate that is not likely to stray them away.
Also, I love the rhetoric of PvE being "no risk vs reward" and "a game that holds your hand from start to finish". It's like the rhetoric of PvP games being nothing more than picking on people grossly below your gear/skill level.
It's fine if you disagree. No problem there, but I think you misunderstood some of what I stated. Firstly, I never mentioned anything about PVE being no risk vs reward. I'm talking about game design here, not PvP vs PvE. As in the example I used with UO - PvE was challenging and risky. To me the problem isn't that these things are niche. Because the game type I am referring to has PvE, PvP, exploration, an open world, and is challenging.
As far as being attacked by a 'demi-god'.. again that does not exist in the game I am talking about. If you take a skill based progression system (i.e. UO) a player with the skill of 80 can defeat a player with the skill of 100. This is possible because of things like spell fizzles, and for melee combat - skills such as parrying. The themepark design has taught us that when we use a skill it does not fail. Failure is necessary to create success. Even at 100 skill a spell can still fail. While much less likely - still possible. There are ways to design and balance these systems. The problem is we haven't seen very many good sandbox games come out in a long time. 2013-2014 look promising though.
Fair enough. My apologies for misunderstanding you. You are right and I keep forgetting there ARE PvE games where death is indeed risky (FFXI, D2, etc).
You are right, in a purely skill based or at least a skill oriented game, the 'demi-god' scenario wouldn't happen. I think I didn't make my point entirely well in this case. I think a good OW PvP game would never allow this to be a possibility, and a few posts back I mentioned that one of the things that would need to be the case in an OW PvP is that gear needs to not have such an obvious impact on your character. The problem with most MMORPG's regardless of OW PvP or not is that gear tends to have not only an obvious impact, but an absurd impact at that. When you have such a heavy reliance on gear, it makes it very easy to have one sided and thus unfair battles.
I sort of agree with your comment about skills not failing. I think a lot of that has to do with WoW and the mimicing thereof in that games allow you to have a 100% hit rate or don't introduce creative things like spell type resistances, hitting low numbers, etc. It's essentially dumbing down.
Originally posted by ozmono For some reason it would seem alot of people can accept being beaten by a machine or developer easier than by another person on an equal playing field. Maybe it doesn't hurt their ego so much. Whatever the reason many of these same PVE people complain that games are too easy because mobs are not challenging, that death penalties are too weak and even some have the hide to malign an entire group of players whilst simultaneously claiming their communities are crap. It doesn't appear the people I refer to are all adverse to risk, many cry for it, they just don't want it from another player.
But you're assuming people who hate the atmosphere of FOPs don't like to PvP...and you're wrong.
There's nothing wrong with PvP. Yes it is a greater challenge and that makes it fun. But no, I'm not in the mood for it every minute I want to play an MMO.
The best type of MMO is one where the PvP happens in a huge persistent zone and also has non-PvP zones to chill in when you want to do that. If the PVP zone is big enough, there's very little difference between that and having it everywhere. I question the motives of people who can't be satisfied with that compromise. I think most who don't like that type of MMO just can't stand the thought of not being able to gank unsuspecting low-level prey...and there is something very wrong with that.
This is similar to the line of discussion I just responded too but backwards(prehaps reverse would be better). People have just argued in the said line of discussion that as PVEers they shouldn't have to compromise and if that is considered true than I don't see why the same argument couldn't be applied to FFA PVPers with the possible exception that we are the minority.
Well if you think every game has to be identical that's a different problem.
I'm simply calling you on your assumption that if you like PvP then you like FFA OW PVP. That's a hell of a stretch. I've been PvPing in MMOs since the days of Asheron's Call and I like it. But the best system I ever played in was Dark Age of Camelot as you might have guessed from my description.
The game wasn't exclusive to hard core. Many people came to it never having PVPd at all, tried it and like it. You never get that with the PVP everywhere 24/7 games. Not only that, but people who want to do different things in their MMO at different times don't bother either.
They're not only niche, they have no growth potential because many potential new PVPers are turned off enough not to bother.
Anyone who actually likes PVP and wants to show others how much fun it is, is just wasting breath promoting the DFUWs of the world. You'd be much better off promoting the segregated system of DAoC, GW2, TESO and other games that give you both.
I think this is a very valid point.
I think most people do enjoy PvP, but I would argue that most of the player base is not keen on openworld PvP. There's far to many area's where gear/level descrepincy as well as numbers can simply abuse a system for many others. This, I feel, ultimately turns off a lot of players.
If a game were to be tailored to address these issues, then:
Gear would have to have less impact than it currently does in most MMORPG's
Level has to have less impact than it currently does in MMORPG's (D2 did this pretty well)
There's no real solution for the number of players. You can't really just stunt a games group potential, so thats going to have to be a necessary evil.
Yeap, for me in a open world ffa pvp game you have to have a decreased power gap (UO, EvE come to mind) and the same is true for gear, and both is even more true when full loot/item destruction is involved.
In EvE you can theoretically beat with a small T1 frigatte(newbie ship) beat a lot higher ship, altough you should have at least a more or less appropriate fitting (equipment of the ship), but those can be gained within a few weeks (skilling time in eve is over time).
And there is a solution for the superior numbers of players. Retreat. The problem is just, that in a lot of modern games it is just not possible to retreat at all. And in my mind it have to be possible in a open world ffa pvp game.
As i and a lot of other players more leant to pvp have said severall times, a mmorpg with open world ffa pvp have to be made around those specific mechanic, or it will easily exploited, griefed and abused.
Problem is, a lot of games just open up a ffa server without recognizing any of those issues, and then it really is no surprise a lot of people talk about ffa pvp as a gank fest, as low lvl bashing and all that kind, although it is rather impossible to lowlevel gank in eve as example.
And about the Quote within the Quote, or just about other kind of pvp setups. I have played DAoC myself, and i have to agree that apart from some good made ffa open world pvp games (EvE, UO) was fun to play.
In my humble opinion purpose, meaning is one of the most importan aspects of mmorpg pvp, and DAoC got some meaning to it. But not roughly as much as in EvE as comparsion. In DAoC you got the Relic raids, but this was more or less a server event and everyone had to be more or less involved to be successful, And to take a Relic had attached meaning, as to open up Darkness Falls, to raiding keep had attached meaning. But not a lot beside of it. There was no economical influence from pvp, there was no influence in smaller scale pvp encounters. But overall at least i am prefer games like EvE or UO, maybe because i like to craft, gather, trade or overall play the economic game, with more impact on different levels and scale.
GW2 WvW on the other hand failed somehow to give me the feeling of any meaning at all. At least i got bored rather fast from it.
Yeap, for me in a open world ffa pvp game you have to have a decreased power gap (UO, EvE come to mind) and the same is true for gear, and both is even more true when full loot/item destruction is involved.
In EvE you can theoretically beat with a small T1 frigatte(newbie ship) beat a lot higher ship, altough you should have at least a more or less appropriate fitting (equipment of the ship), but those can be gained within a few weeks (skilling time in eve is over time).
And there is a solution for the superior numbers of players. Retreat. The problem is just, that in a lot of modern games it is just not possible to retreat at all. And in my mind it have to be possible in a open world ffa pvp game.
As i and a lot of other players more leant to pvp have said severall times, a mmorpg with open world ffa pvp have to be made around those specific mechanic, or it will easily exploited, griefed and abused.
Problem is, a lot of games just open up a ffa server without recognizing any of those issues, and then it really is no surprise a lot of people talk about ffa pvp as a gank fest, as low lvl bashing and all that kind, although it is rather impossible to lowlevel gank in eve as example.
And about the Quote within the Quote, or just about other kind of pvp setups. I have played DAoC myself, and i have to agree that apart from some good made ffa open world pvp games (EvE, UO) was fun to play.
In my humble opinion purpose, meaning is one of the most importan aspects of mmorpg pvp, and DAoC got some meaning to it. But not roughly as much as in EvE as comparsion. In DAoC you got the Relic raids, but this was more or less a server event and everyone had to be more or less involved to be successful, And to take a Relic had attached meaning, as to open up Darkness Falls, to raiding keep had attached meaning. But not a lot beside of it. There was no economical influence from pvp, there was no influence in smaller scale pvp encounters. But overall at least i am prefer games like EvE or UO, maybe because i like to craft, gather, trade or overall play the economic game, with more impact on different levels and scale.
GW2 WvW on the other hand failed somehow to give me the feeling of any meaning at all. At least i got bored rather fast from it.
I think the trickiest part would be trying to balance gear/level in a game that is both pvp and pve.
When you have gear that is only marginally better in a pvp game, that lends more to do with skill, which is absolutely a good thing. However, when you do it in a pve game, you have people going to great lengths to get gear thats typically less than 3% better than what they are replacing it with. This ultimately leads to people becoming jaded that their efforts are almost fruitless, and you wind up with people who run raids more for prestige and less about the gear, which results in less people seeing content because there's little point to it.
The best solution I could think of is WoW, where PvP gear has a critical stat that you cannot live without. You could make the PvP gear not so hugely disproportionate, but also a requirement. This way, PvE does not suffer because the PvE gear can scale wildly, and PvP does not scale to such levels that it causes a discrepency.
The level difference is tricky as well. If you are doing a skill tree system, then you'd have to have stat points provide so negligable a difference that you could make a very clear argument that someone who was say level 90 was not much better than a level 80. If you had a system where people didn't level up abilities or anything, you'd have to bombard players with MOST of the important abilities very early on so that higher levels become meaningless. Furthermore, you'd have to allow people to get some paramount gear early on and tailor the game to make this possible.
FFXI did this very well for the gear and the skill provision outside of a talent tree, and Diablo 2 did this very well in terms of leveling with stat trees.
You are absolutely right though. When a game that is almost primarily PvE based just tacks on a FFA server, it's quite obvious why there are massive problems within said server.
I'd be OK with FFA PVP if you didn't drop everything on you....Equipment should be bind on equip in those games because its a pain the ass to constantly have to get gear, even if the gear is easy to get too......I'm jsut not a fan of the whole format to be honest....I'm playing Mortal Online atm and games like that just draw in the wrong crowd.....Theres too many jerks whose only enjoyment in life is ruining others enjoyment.....The only way I would do ffa pvp is if there is a race that you could play that has no interest in pvp where you don't attack or get attacked by other players.
Originally posted by Theocritus I'd be OK with FFA PVP if you didn't drop everything on you....Equipment should be bind on equip in those games because its a pain the ass to constantly have to get gear, even if the gear is easy to get too......I'm jsut not a fan of the whole format to be honest....I'm playing Mortal Online atm and games like that just draw in the wrong crowd.....Theres too many jerks whose only enjoyment in life is ruining others enjoyment.....The only way I would do ffa pvp is if there is a race that you could play that has no interest in pvp where you don't attack or get attacked by other players.
Why would I bother attacking someone if i can't loot their stuff?
I would of been happy in vanilla and tbc wow (well when world pvp was active more or less) if u could drop a random item when you die in world pvp unless there is huge level difference, I enjoyed world pvp in wow early days.
Originally posted by Tyrantas I would of been happy in vanilla and tbc wow (well when world pvp was active more or less) if u could drop a random item when you die in world pvp unless there is huge level difference, I enjoyed world pvp in wow early days.
I'm an advocate of full loot games, but I wouldn't want it in a game like WOW personally. Some of those items are irreplaceable. Not to mention it doesn't really help the economy out since pretty much everything was generated by a loot table and not a crafter.
Not that its a bad idea, maybe it would be great. I'd be apprehensive to play something like that though if I were into that type of game.
Originally posted by Theocritus I'd be OK with FFA PVP if you didn't drop everything on you....Equipment should be bind on equip in those games because its a pain the ass to constantly have to get gear, even if the gear is easy to get too......I'm jsut not a fan of the whole format to be honest....I'm playing Mortal Online atm and games like that just draw in the wrong crowd.....Theres too many jerks whose only enjoyment in life is ruining others enjoyment.....The only way I would do ffa pvp is if there is a race that you could play that has no interest in pvp where you don't attack or get attacked by other players.
Why would I bother attacking someone if i can't loot their stuff?
For fun, showcasing ur skill and proving that you are better. Stuff like gear drop and some kind of honor points/monetary reward should be just an extra, mmorpg players are too much about stuff and farming, why do you even need ur stuff if u never engage in real fun, it's like stock pilling money and never spending it. So much carebears... If u don't like pvp well there is plenty of pve games where you can farm ur stuff so u can farm better stuff till ur eyes bleed.
For fun, showcasing ur skill and proving that you are better. Stuff like gear drop and some kind of honor points/monetary reward should be just an extra, mmorpg players are too much about stuff and farming, why do you even need ur stuff if u never engage in real fun, it's like stock pilling money and never spending it. So much carebears... If u don't like pvp well there is plenty of pve games where you can farm ur stuff so u can farm better stuff till ur eyes bleed.
Theres some pvp games where you can farm stuff too.
There is room enough in the world for those of us who like to farm stuff and fight in pvp.
That whole fighting for "fun" thing can be fun for a couple of months for me in a new and fresh game, but for the most part I stopped liking it a long time ago. After a while I just start to say to myself, "there goes that guy I killed a while ago.. maybe i'll go kill him again for no reason.. eh.. why bother.. Its not fun any more and i'm not really risking anything by doing it anyways.."
and after a few weeks of that i'll just stop logging in.
Its why in the end I even gave up on Guild Wars.. I can only take a tower so many times with no risk or reward other than a job well done before the internal reward just stops happening.
I'm not the only one like that, and more importantly -- i'm not saying everyone is like me or should be... but it is what it is.
Originally posted by craftseeker If you watch the players in a battleground or in something like 'Conquest' in Rift you will see the same behaviors over and over again, the same casting order the same pathing etc. People are actually fairly predictable.
People are predictable, but a person is not as predictable.In for instance, a WOW battleground, you will in fact see many many normal (normal being a key word) predictable people. Then there is that one person who is a few standard deviations out that will have a 20:1 kill/death ratio and won't play quite like you expected. That one challenging individual who seems to "know what he/she is doing." Those are the encounters that I will get a loss from when I am expecting them to be just another scrub and they catch me off guard. Those are the fights that I remember and enjoy that keep me playing the game.That is the thing you don't find in PVE in any MMO i've ever played. You find that elite monster that has more hp and hits harder than the other mobs, but you don't find any real variance in behavior or skill level of monsters like you do players.But ya, for the most part people are predictable. But you model the skill level of people with a curve that has many many average players in the center and on the far outside of that curve there are the individuals that make the PVP fun and unlike any PVE encounter. PVE mobs are typically created in a way such that much less variance in behavior is present.
The first time or two you meet a computer controlled opponent, it is unpredictable. After a few fights, you learn what it does and when. Same with player controlled characters. It may take more than a few fights, but eventually you get their style.
Unfortunately, there is only a handful (maybe hundreds if you're lucky) of differing NPCs compared to thousands of other players. Even then, the abilities of the players is not that varied, but a few will make the most of the abilities and skills they have to keep it interesting.
In the same vein that you won't expect a wolf to throw a fireball at you, you won't expect a warrior to do so, either.
After awhile, there really is not a lot of variation in player characters vs NPC opponents. How many PvP players have specific "vs Class" builds, like an anti-rogue set up?
As for the OP, "FFA Open World PvP done right" is an oxymoron to me. I know there are some who do enjoy this playstyle, but nothing you can do to "tweak" the system will make it a fun game for me.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
The problem with world PvP is that it's forced gameplay and no one likes forced gameplay! If someone attacks you, you have to stop what you where doing and fight back. Just imagine there was forced Roleplaying. If someone wants to RP with you you have to roleplay with him for 10 minutes. And with PvP it is even worse because it is forced competition. Most people don't like to compete with someone else if they did not choose to and are unprepared. And if there is FFA PvP other players can not only cause you inconvenience, they can also ruin all the progress you made.
Unlike most other genres MMORPGs have more then one activity for the player, you can PvE, PvP, explore, craft, RP, do mini games . If you are only interested in PvP and never do anything else, this might be great, but as soon as you what to take a brake from PvP it becomes a problem. I guess forcing thair will onto other players is where the fun is for some people.
There is no game in know of that has forced PvE, you can always pick your fights. There are no monsters that spawn in front of you randomly and you can't avoid to fight them.
In world PvP there are almost never fair fights. 99% of the time its just ganking because most people will only attack if they are expect to win. The attacker has all the advantages because he can pick the battle.
We've seen an awful lot of titles chasing the will-o-wisp of "open world done Right".
Not a lot could be considered 'wins'.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
The problem for me is not that it's not done right, but it can't be done right because it's antithetical to the genre. MMORPG's are supposed to be world simulators, and it just makes no sense at all to have FFA OW PvP. It needs to be in context, there needs to be control, and there consequences. Otherwise the mmorpg ends up functioning merely as a giant deathmatch map.
Comments
Well thank you firstly.
I cannot speak for him but I think it's possible he was just trying to entice someone over to play something. Ever had someone insist that you taste something that your pretty sure you'll hate? Sometimes, even when tasting something you've previously disliked, you'll discover that it can grow on you. That's just a guess though.
This is similar to the line of discussion I just responded too but backwards(prehaps reverse would be better). People have just argued in the said line of discussion that as PVEers they shouldn't have to compromise and if that is considered true than I don't see why the same argument couldn't be applied to FFA PVPers with the possible exception that we are the minority.
Well if you think every game has to be identical that's a different problem.
I'm simply calling you on your assumption that if you like PvP then you like FFA OW PVP. That's a hell of a stretch. I've been PvPing in MMOs since the days of Asheron's Call and I like it. But the best system I ever played in was Dark Age of Camelot as you might have guessed from my description.
The game wasn't exclusive to hard core. Many people came to it never having PVPd at all, tried it and like it. You never get that with the PVP everywhere 24/7 games. Not only that, but people who want to do different things in their MMO at different times don't bother either.
They're not only niche, they have no growth potential because many potential new PVPers are turned off enough not to bother.
Anyone who actually likes PVP and wants to show others how much fun it is, is just wasting breath promoting the DFUWs of the world. You'd be much better off promoting the segregated system of DAoC, GW2, TESO and other games that give you both.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Well I realize there are more than one type of player and I didn't mean to suggest anything other than observations and what appeared to me based on what was written in this thread, from people I know and what was written in other threads I have read prior to my first post in this thread. I'm sure there are PVEers who don't like PVP. I know some, I never said it was everyone who like to play against the environment or anything of that nature. Nothing that you've supposedly called me on changes anything I wrote in that original post.
I think this is a very valid point.
I think most people do enjoy PvP, but I would argue that most of the player base is not keen on openworld PvP. There's far to many area's where gear/level descrepincy as well as numbers can simply abuse a system for many others. This, I feel, ultimately turns off a lot of players.
If a game were to be tailored to address these issues, then:
Gear would have to have less impact than it currently does in most MMORPG's
Level has to have less impact than it currently does in MMORPG's (D2 did this pretty well)
There's no real solution for the number of players. You can't really just stunt a games group potential, so thats going to have to be a necessary evil.
For what it's worth I think it's a very valid point too. I was too distracted defending my original post that was in question to say as much but other than standing by my original post and therefore denying that I said anything of this nature "that if you like PvP then you like FFA OW PVP. ", it was a good post.
How about we just stop labeling things? In the days of UO there was no such thing as "Open world pvp FFA loot". It existed, but the terminology did not. When you label something - it's easy to say "Oh I don't like that" or "This is my favorite, and all I want is this from now on." At this point introducing something can easily become a giant hurdle.
Ultima online was a world. A world comprised with tools to allow the players to shape it, within the boundaries that the developers set. So to get to the OPs statement. It can be done right. It hasn't (imo) in a very, very long time, but it can be done. It just needs more depth than the the games we receive today. Depth does not equal flashy. Bells and whistles aren't needed. They get your attention, but don't hold it. Smooth game mechanics and game play coupled with a vast array of options/choices are all you really need.
Part of the problem is that incorporating classes into a sandbox style game sort of goes against the grain. A class is a predefined template that typically does not allow you to stray away. You're confined to what skills your specific template has been provided. (Of course there are exceptions.. FFXIV has a twist on it as well as others that allow you to multi-class). A sandbox on the other hand is *supposed* to allow you (the players) to create, live, and share the 'world'. It's supposed to allow you to create and share your experiences with others. I could literally write a book (if my grammar wasn't so terrible) about all of the amazing experiences I had in UO.
Another point people are making is that they don't want to lose their hard earned gear. Understandable. However, in a number of 'open world ffa pvp loot' systems; crafters have a real purpose. I bet there are even people here on this forum that could easily tell you the name of some of the crafters they have come across in these types of games, and how important they were to them.
These types of games (if made correctly) will show you what the fuss is all about if you invest time into them. They will teach you life lessons. You will be helped by someone who saves you from being killed by a pk. You will help others. You will most likely become the PK. You may even feel bad, and befriend the person you just killed. These are some of the experiences that will help shape the love of a game for you. Not from games where there is no risk vs reward. Not from games that hold your hand from start to finish.
These things are niche though. People who like OW PVP are willing to accept the short comings, and people who don't like OW PVP dislike it for those very short comings. A lot of people quickly and consciously can go through all of the reasons why they wont like an OW PVP system, and that really boils down to 1 thing: "I don't want to be ganked by a demi god while I'm doing things".
All the other things are irrelevant when you come down to that very conclusion. A lot of people don't like being ganked. Any other bells and whistles to eleviate that is not likely to stray them away.
Also, I love the rhetoric of PvE being "no risk vs reward" and "a game that holds your hand from start to finish". It's like the rhetoric of PvP games being nothing more than picking on people grossly below your gear/skill level.
I hope your not referring to me. I've already been accused of making three assumptions total, two of which I didn't make. One of them was this PvE no risk thing, I certainly didn't say that and I don't recall anyone else in this thread saying as much either. Did I miss something?
oh no, not you. It was the person I directly quoted. The last line of the quote was using the terms
It's fine if you disagree. No problem there, but I think you misunderstood some of what I stated. Firstly, I never mentioned anything about PVE being no risk vs reward. I'm talking about game design here, not PvP vs PvE. As in the example I used with UO - PvE was challenging and risky. To me the problem isn't that these things are niche. Because the game type I am referring to has PvE, PvP, exploration, an open world, and is challenging.
As far as being attacked by a 'demi-god'.. again that does not exist in the game I am talking about. If you take a skill based progression system (i.e. UO) a player with the skill of 80 can defeat a player with the skill of 100. This is possible because of things like spell fizzles, and for melee combat - skills such as parrying. The themepark design has taught us that when we use a skill it does not fail. Failure is necessary to create success. Even at 100 skill a spell can still fail. While much less likely - still possible. There are ways to design and balance these systems. The problem is we haven't seen very many good sandbox games come out in a long time. 2013-2014 look promising though.
Okay cool. Must be time for me to go lay down I think. I know I've been spending too much time on these forums when I start to see enemies everywhere and start to sympathize with politicians.
Fair enough. My apologies for misunderstanding you. You are right and I keep forgetting there ARE PvE games where death is indeed risky (FFXI, D2, etc).
You are right, in a purely skill based or at least a skill oriented game, the 'demi-god' scenario wouldn't happen. I think I didn't make my point entirely well in this case. I think a good OW PvP game would never allow this to be a possibility, and a few posts back I mentioned that one of the things that would need to be the case in an OW PvP is that gear needs to not have such an obvious impact on your character. The problem with most MMORPG's regardless of OW PvP or not is that gear tends to have not only an obvious impact, but an absurd impact at that. When you have such a heavy reliance on gear, it makes it very easy to have one sided and thus unfair battles.
I sort of agree with your comment about skills not failing. I think a lot of that has to do with WoW and the mimicing thereof in that games allow you to have a 100% hit rate or don't introduce creative things like spell type resistances, hitting low numbers, etc. It's essentially dumbing down.
Yeap, for me in a open world ffa pvp game you have to have a decreased power gap (UO, EvE come to mind) and the same is true for gear, and both is even more true when full loot/item destruction is involved.
In EvE you can theoretically beat with a small T1 frigatte(newbie ship) beat a lot higher ship, altough you should have at least a more or less appropriate fitting (equipment of the ship), but those can be gained within a few weeks (skilling time in eve is over time).
And there is a solution for the superior numbers of players. Retreat. The problem is just, that in a lot of modern games it is just not possible to retreat at all. And in my mind it have to be possible in a open world ffa pvp game.
As i and a lot of other players more leant to pvp have said severall times, a mmorpg with open world ffa pvp have to be made around those specific mechanic, or it will easily exploited, griefed and abused.
Problem is, a lot of games just open up a ffa server without recognizing any of those issues, and then it really is no surprise a lot of people talk about ffa pvp as a gank fest, as low lvl bashing and all that kind, although it is rather impossible to lowlevel gank in eve as example.
And about the Quote within the Quote, or just about other kind of pvp setups. I have played DAoC myself, and i have to agree that apart from some good made ffa open world pvp games (EvE, UO) was fun to play.
In my humble opinion purpose, meaning is one of the most importan aspects of mmorpg pvp, and DAoC got some meaning to it. But not roughly as much as in EvE as comparsion. In DAoC you got the Relic raids, but this was more or less a server event and everyone had to be more or less involved to be successful, And to take a Relic had attached meaning, as to open up Darkness Falls, to raiding keep had attached meaning. But not a lot beside of it. There was no economical influence from pvp, there was no influence in smaller scale pvp encounters. But overall at least i am prefer games like EvE or UO, maybe because i like to craft, gather, trade or overall play the economic game, with more impact on different levels and scale.
GW2 WvW on the other hand failed somehow to give me the feeling of any meaning at all. At least i got bored rather fast from it.
I think the trickiest part would be trying to balance gear/level in a game that is both pvp and pve.
When you have gear that is only marginally better in a pvp game, that lends more to do with skill, which is absolutely a good thing. However, when you do it in a pve game, you have people going to great lengths to get gear thats typically less than 3% better than what they are replacing it with. This ultimately leads to people becoming jaded that their efforts are almost fruitless, and you wind up with people who run raids more for prestige and less about the gear, which results in less people seeing content because there's little point to it.
The best solution I could think of is WoW, where PvP gear has a critical stat that you cannot live without. You could make the PvP gear not so hugely disproportionate, but also a requirement. This way, PvE does not suffer because the PvE gear can scale wildly, and PvP does not scale to such levels that it causes a discrepency.
The level difference is tricky as well. If you are doing a skill tree system, then you'd have to have stat points provide so negligable a difference that you could make a very clear argument that someone who was say level 90 was not much better than a level 80. If you had a system where people didn't level up abilities or anything, you'd have to bombard players with MOST of the important abilities very early on so that higher levels become meaningless. Furthermore, you'd have to allow people to get some paramount gear early on and tailor the game to make this possible.
FFXI did this very well for the gear and the skill provision outside of a talent tree, and Diablo 2 did this very well in terms of leveling with stat trees.
You are absolutely right though. When a game that is almost primarily PvE based just tacks on a FFA server, it's quite obvious why there are massive problems within said server.
Why would I bother attacking someone if i can't loot their stuff?
I'm an advocate of full loot games, but I wouldn't want it in a game like WOW personally. Some of those items are irreplaceable. Not to mention it doesn't really help the economy out since pretty much everything was generated by a loot table and not a crafter.
Not that its a bad idea, maybe it would be great. I'd be apprehensive to play something like that though if I were into that type of game.
For fun, showcasing ur skill and proving that you are better. Stuff like gear drop and some kind of honor points/monetary reward should be just an extra, mmorpg players are too much about stuff and farming, why do you even need ur stuff if u never engage in real fun, it's like stock pilling money and never spending it. So much carebears... If u don't like pvp well there is plenty of pve games where you can farm ur stuff so u can farm better stuff till ur eyes bleed.
Theres some pvp games where you can farm stuff too.
There is room enough in the world for those of us who like to farm stuff and fight in pvp.
That whole fighting for "fun" thing can be fun for a couple of months for me in a new and fresh game, but for the most part I stopped liking it a long time ago. After a while I just start to say to myself, "there goes that guy I killed a while ago.. maybe i'll go kill him again for no reason.. eh.. why bother.. Its not fun any more and i'm not really risking anything by doing it anyways.."
and after a few weeks of that i'll just stop logging in.
Its why in the end I even gave up on Guild Wars.. I can only take a tower so many times with no risk or reward other than a job well done before the internal reward just stops happening.
I'm not the only one like that, and more importantly -- i'm not saying everyone is like me or should be... but it is what it is.
Unfortunately, there is only a handful (maybe hundreds if you're lucky) of differing NPCs compared to thousands of other players. Even then, the abilities of the players is not that varied, but a few will make the most of the abilities and skills they have to keep it interesting.
In the same vein that you won't expect a wolf to throw a fireball at you, you won't expect a warrior to do so, either.
After awhile, there really is not a lot of variation in player characters vs NPC opponents. How many PvP players have specific "vs Class" builds, like an anti-rogue set up?
As for the OP, "FFA Open World PvP done right" is an oxymoron to me. I know there are some who do enjoy this playstyle, but nothing you can do to "tweak" the system will make it a fun game for me.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
If someone attacks you, you have to stop what you where doing and fight back. Just imagine there was forced Roleplaying. If someone wants to RP with you you have to roleplay with him for 10 minutes.
And with PvP it is even worse because it is forced competition. Most people don't like to compete with someone else if they did not choose to and are unprepared.
And if there is FFA PvP other players can not only cause you inconvenience, they can also ruin all the progress you made.
Unlike most other genres MMORPGs have more then one activity for the player, you can PvE, PvP, explore, craft, RP, do mini games . If you are only interested in PvP and never do anything else, this might be great, but as soon as you what to take a brake from PvP it becomes a problem. I guess forcing thair will onto other players is where the fun is for some people.
There is no game in know of that has forced PvE, you can always pick your fights. There are no monsters that spawn in front of you randomly and you can't avoid to fight them.
In world PvP there are almost never fair fights. 99% of the time its just ganking because most people will only attack if they are expect to win. The attacker has all the advantages because he can pick the battle.
A time ago I made a thread about how to take the element of surprise out of PvP. But the problem of forced gameplay can't be solved I guess.
We've seen an awful lot of titles chasing the will-o-wisp of "open world done Right".
Not a lot could be considered 'wins'.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
The problem for me is not that it's not done right, but it can't be done right because it's antithetical to the genre. MMORPG's are supposed to be world simulators, and it just makes no sense at all to have FFA OW PvP. It needs to be in context, there needs to be control, and there consequences. Otherwise the mmorpg ends up functioning merely as a giant deathmatch map.