Originally posted by Ramanadjinn Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by KBishop
Totally disagree. All you need is a strong pvp environment that is fair and balanced, and to periodically introduce good raids for people. I know it sounds easier said than done, but its nowhere near impossible.Don't sound like your "disagreement" actually matters. There is no such game.The only full pvp games are pvp-only games like MOBAs, and WoT.
By certain logic, airplanes are impossible.
Humans lived on the earth for a great many years unable to fly. Many even thought human flight impossible. They may have used the fact that no human was flying as a proof.
They were in error.
There's a difference between people lacking the appropriate physics knowledge and powerful enough thrusters to enable flight, and developers who have twenty years of history to look at concerning MMORPGs and what people like in those games.
MMORPGs that are primarily PvE based are more popular. Games that offer both PvE and PvP servers will have more PvE servers and more players on PvE servers. People who enjoy PvP tend to be more into PvP games rather than MMORPGs with PvP, as evidenced by the popularity of LoL, DOTA2 and CoD.
That's just information that's easily available. There are a lot of people who aren't interested in OW/FFA PvP, and a lot of people who are really interested in PvP, but not in their MMORPG. The smallest group is the people who are into OW/FFA PvP in their MMORPG. It doesn't matter that they exist. We know they exist. It only matters how many of them there are, and whether they are willing to pay enough money for a game to get made and thrive.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
There's a difference between people lacking the appropriate physics knowledge and powerful enough thrusters to enable flight, and developers who have twenty years of history to look at concerning MMORPGs and what people like in those games.
Ya I was talking about the possibility of a certain pvp game existing and not at all about whether developers would make it or not, but mostly I had misunderstood something someone said so my statement wasn't really relevant.
I am not aware of the arguments for any company (SOE included) would believe that OW PvP would be a good business decision. I've not seen these presented in any of the numerous PvP threads on this site. I've voiced several of the arguments on the 'Against' side. Perhaps you would let us know why this environment would be a good thing from a business perspective?
I don't mind at all. I've seen one user use the car market as an example.. I think pointing out that lamborghini does not make family cars or commonly affordable cars, even though the largest group of car buyers wants affordable family cars. They found a bit of a sub-market that they can tap into and make money from while ignoring the larger market where their competition may be a lot more harsh.
This in no way is intended to discredit the "against" arguments as wrong, only as possibly one perspective. My overall point being that saying something like "Most people want X, so X will gather the most profit" is NOT a guarantee for the most success, even if you are delivering X to their specifications.
Thank you. I had missed that.
Your car analogy is correct only at a certain level. The niche market (Lamborghini) spends 5 times as much on their niche product (or more) as the average auto consumer. The percentages of the auto niche marketplace might be similar to the percentage of gaming niche marketplace. I don't have any data to support this, but I suspect the PvP niche crowd wouldn't be willing to spend the amount necessary to make this a viable business strategy. A niche product works when the price is $387,000-$441,000 (2013 Lamborghini Aventador) on an estimated production cost of $125,000 (with an anticipated repurchase in 5-7 years), but it doesn't appear to scale to a $15/month product (historic subscription rate) with no up front cost (free-to-play, no box cost) and a nominal monthly cost of $5-9 (network and operational costs). In both cases (auto and game), the cost of development and research would be spread over all the customer base.
To extend the niche car analogy, the PvP player is asking for a niche product, but is expecting to pay for an economical car. A Lamborghini for VW prices. That certainly doesn't appear to constitute a viable business strategy, sorry.
The business reality is that for a niche product to be financially successful, it must be priced accordingly to account for the smaller niche market size. A game maker shooting for the niche market must make the cost to play higher. I suspect this is a prime reason why so many AAA MMORPG developers have shied away from the OW PvP model.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Well, the WoW-type vs non-WoW-type is a different argument altogether, so to keep on topic we could talk about FFA PvP only games vs traditional PvE with PvP option games. There was a poll recently that had something of the order of like 20% wanted a pvp only game where the rest wanted PvE/PvP of some sort. This more or less makes PvP only a niche. We'd then have to figure out how many want FFA-PvP vs controlled PvP which would only make these types of games even MORE niche.
Sometimes you guys focus too much on the wrong details of an example. It is probably my fault for saying the W word.
I'm going to break it down again without saying the W word.
Imagine if there were 2 games and only 2 games that could be made:
A game that had FFA PVP that 20% of the people would prefer to play.
A game that had NO PvP that 80% of the people would prefer to play.
Now imagine there are 5,000 games out with NO PVP and 0 games out with FFA PVP. Now imagine you are going to make a game, which one has more players ready to play it?
From much of the logic i see, the NO PVP game because.. 80% of the players polled would prefer it.
Now, speaking of the really real world we live in, if you feel the market is still such that there are more AVAILABLE players ready to go on a non-FFA PvP game than there are on a PvP game then I won't disagree with you. I can't argue that. I can only say that what I have outlined above is a valid argument from my perspective on why some developers -might possibly- disagree that the ffa-pvp playerbase is or is not more of a niche.
Its just an opinion on one way to look at it, i'm not asking anyone to start preaching that FFA PVP is going to make some company rich.
Those are very valid points you make and I don't disagree with them.
If those were the the bare factors, then yes it would absolutely make more sense to make a niche game if there is none available for the niche market. I don't know why developers DON'T, but I think it falls down to either that they don't feel like the game will return enough, or that the reward for making a successful PvE game is far greater than making a PvP game.
We all know what FFA PvP entails. We all understand what the design is about.
We don't like it.
It sucks.
The glorious beacon of FFA PvP.
EVE Online
Wipe out Sec, make it all null. Watch CCP bankrupt in a year. You know it, I know it, they know it.
FFA does not work. It allows RMT to control the game world and yes, it will be the full time MMO community, the RMT community that will run the game.
Sorry. That's the facts.
No, those aren't facts. That is only the oppinion of someone that doesen't even know how the game he/she uses in his/her own example works, and what the term "ffa pvp" game actually means, despite saying he does. It also offers nothing substantial to the debate. You are right, though, no myths were dispelled because your head is apparently full of them still
All the people that can only quote a one liner with no real evidence and expect to be taken seriously are close to cringe worthy as well
Yes, they are the facts.
People can invent little choreographed arguments with choreographed 'myth busting' all they want.
The fact? People don't play FFA games and the reasons are always the same.
It isn't a case of I never did it, 10 million other people never did it and went with some fable. We have all been there. We know what happens when you put the game in the hands of the players. The myth is the myth. Every person who refuses to play FFA games because they did and they know better.
"It will be different this time"
"Our FFA Game won't be like that".
But it never is. The only myth? Is the myth.
FFA is about Have's and Have Not's and 95% of the population in an FFA game will be a Have not. Nobody plays an online game to be a have not. We can deal with that in day to day life with our crappy ass 9-5 jobs and commutes to work while hollywood shows us the lifestyles of the rich and famous.
Don't want to burst your bubble. But EvE Online is FFA. And to have different security zones does not change anything on that. In fact, a lot of ffa pvp players prefering some kind of MMO build around PvP with a system like EvE. A PvP system with different security levels, with different consequences for different kind of pvp interaction, with a balanced Risk vs. Reward agenda.
But as usual most people like you argue about some kind of pvp game noone ever wants. We don't want your PvE game with a PvP always on mechanismn, because such a game will not work, is not fun, and most pvp players are not interested in it.
But it is just a waste of time to argue about this topic. Because usually a bunch of people join/derail any thread like that, which are not in any way, shape or form intereted in pvp at all. They just can't (for whatever reason) stand the idea that some are interested in such a game, and actually like to talk about it. And look actually for ways/mechansimn that a system some of us imagine could work in a game. Which of course will most probable be a game with pvp in mind.
It is like some RTS player comes into a FPS thread offend every FPS player as skillless, dumb, cheating bastards, and that only RTS games are the only right game, and every FPS gamer is just the dregs of society.
PS: Not everything was particulary meant to the one i quoted.. especially not the second part of my post.
And you are mincing words.
I've played EVE for 8 years. I know what EVE is. Your problem is you assume everyone who doesn't find FFA appealing is a sore loser and couldn't/ can't win in the system. I did win, I lost and I won again and that's all FFA will ever amount to. Build it up, blow it up, build it up, blow it up. It's just a different kind of grind. Popping player ships in EVE is no more exciting, no more difficult or no more rewarding than farming cows in LotRO for most people. The only difference is you didn't piss in someones cornflakes when you killed 500 cows. You didn't grief someone.
Except that this approach would only support the notion of a niche market. I don't think anyone would disagree that owners of lamborghini's are certainly a niche group among car owners.
Sorry to bring this one up from earlier but theres a problem with this argument that's been floating around recently.
Lamborghini's dont cost 50M-200M to make. Each Lamborghini is priced to cover the cost of it and make profits, so any time the company gets an order, they are gaurunteed to make a profit. Games spend their money FIRST and go off of a gamble that they will see a return.
In short, Lamborghini's can afford to be niche because their business model is designed around it. Games can't afford that luxury.
Ok, I see where you are coming from. What they can afford.
So companies should release with one full pvp with looting server. If after a specific time period where it can't sustain a certain level of activity, it is comsidered a failed experiement and closed down. If each game came out with such a server and they are failing, a lesson might be learned....
The full loot pvpers can't afford this happening. It will expose all their beliefs.
Well I think any PvE game should at least TRY to have dedicated servers to address the PvP crowd in a much better manner than they are doing now. Currently a lot of games aren't really doing that, so whether the lack of popularity is due to bad balance or inherent nature of FFA-PvP remains to be unseen. One thing I do know is that a lot of people that I have personally talked to have said that the issues have never been about things in regards to balancing, but simply that they preffered controlled PvP
Except that this approach would only support the notion of a niche market. I don't think anyone would disagree that owners of lamborghini's are certainly a niche group among car owners.
Sorry to bring this one up from earlier but theres a problem with this argument that's been floating around recently.
Lamborghini's dont cost 50M-200M to make. Each Lamborghini is priced to cover the cost of it and make profits, so any time the company gets an order, they are gaurunteed to make a profit. Games spend their money FIRST and go off of a gamble that they will see a return.
In short, Lamborghini's can afford to be niche because their business model is designed around it. Games can't afford that luxury.
Ok, I see where you are coming from. What they can afford.
So companies should release with one full pvp with looting server. If after a specific time period where it can't sustain a certain level of activity, it is comsidered a failed experiement and closed down. If each game came out with such a server and they are failing, a lesson might be learned....
The full loot pvpers can't afford this happening. It will expose all their beliefs.
Well I think any PvE game should at least TRY to have dedicated servers to address the PvP crowd in a much better manner than they are doing now. Currently a lot of games aren't really doing that, so whether the lack of popularity is due to bad balance or inherent nature of FFA-PvP remains to be unseen. One thing I do know is that a lot of people that I have personally talked to have said that the issues have never been about things in regards to balancing, but simply that they preffered controlled PvP
Again, I am saying a full loot open world pvp server not PVP server. Sorry if that is too subtle a difference and that I wasn't giving a 100% clear wording that I meant it. It might be better to offer the FULL LOOT OPENWORLD PVP SERVER and PVP SERVERS to also demonstrate to the world that FULL LOOTER PVP SERVERS won't last in the long run. That is the test. IF they can support it over the long run, they prove their point. I believe the sheep won't join it or will quickly quit and the full looters won't like it. It is an experiment.
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?"
Well I think any PvE game should at least TRY to have dedicated servers to address the PvP crowd in a much better manner than they are doing now. Currently a lot of games aren't really doing that, so whether the lack of popularity is due to bad balance or inherent nature of FFA-PvP remains to be unseen. One thing I do know is that a lot of people that I have personally talked to have said that the issues have never been about things in regards to balancing, but simply that they preffered controlled PvP
There have been quite a few PvP advocates on these forums screaming that dedicated, separate PvP and PvE servers are an abomination, and won't work, so it isn't a valid compromise. Companies have supplied PvP and PvE environments, and simply the PvP servers have struggled with keeping a consistent player base. Sony, in particular, has had 14 years of history with separate servers. Are you suggesting that Sony should simply ignore their historic experiences?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Well I think any PvE game should at least TRY to have dedicated servers to address the PvP crowd in a much better manner than they are doing now. Currently a lot of games aren't really doing that, so whether the lack of popularity is due to bad balance or inherent nature of FFA-PvP remains to be unseen. One thing I do know is that a lot of people that I have personally talked to have said that the issues have never been about things in regards to balancing, but simply that they preffered controlled PvP
There have been quite a few PvP advocates on these forums screaming that dedicated, separate PvP and PvE servers are an abomination, and won't work, so it isn't a valid compromise. Companies have supplied PvP and PvE environments, and simply the PvP servers have struggled with keeping a consistent player base. Sony, in particular, has had 14 years of history with separate servers. Are you suggesting that Sony should simply ignore their historic experiences?
Thats a valid argument to an extent, but you'd have to factor in how much it would even cost to keep the pvp servers running versus how many people they'd lose. Sony isn't stupid. They keep the servers up for a reason. If they had evidence to support that the cost of maintaining pvp servers that are struggling is dwarfed by the return of the playerbase that plays them, then they'd keep them running no matter how hard of a time the servers had. If they found they were LOSING money, then they' stop.
Same goes for every other MMORPG company with separate servers
Well I think any PvE game should at least TRY to have dedicated servers to address the PvP crowd in a much better manner than they are doing now. Currently a lot of games aren't really doing that, so whether the lack of popularity is due to bad balance or inherent nature of FFA-PvP remains to be unseen. One thing I do know is that a lot of people that I have personally talked to have said that the issues have never been about things in regards to balancing, but simply that they preffered controlled PvP
There have been quite a few PvP advocates on these forums screaming that dedicated, separate PvP and PvE servers are an abomination, and won't work, so it isn't a valid compromise. Companies have supplied PvP and PvE environments, and simply the PvP servers have struggled with keeping a consistent player base. Sony, in particular, has had 14 years of history with separate servers. Are you suggesting that Sony should simply ignore their historic experiences?
Thats a valid argument to an extent, but you'd have to factor in how much it would even cost to keep the pvp servers running versus how many people they'd lose. Sony isn't stupid. They keep the servers up for a reason. If they had evidence to support that the cost of maintaining pvp servers that are struggling is dwarfed by the return of the playerbase that plays them, then they'd keep them running no matter how hard of a time the servers had. If they found they were LOSING money, then they' stop.
Same goes for every other MMORPG company with separate servers
Or the cost is so low that they'd rather absorb it so they can keep the brochure dot-point and just absorb the cost into the profitable servers. RP servers are the same situation.
Well I think any PvE game should at least TRY to have dedicated servers to address the PvP crowd in a much better manner than they are doing now. Currently a lot of games aren't really doing that, so whether the lack of popularity is due to bad balance or inherent nature of FFA-PvP remains to be unseen. One thing I do know is that a lot of people that I have personally talked to have said that the issues have never been about things in regards to balancing, but simply that they preffered controlled PvP
There have been quite a few PvP advocates on these forums screaming that dedicated, separate PvP and PvE servers are an abomination, and won't work, so it isn't a valid compromise. Companies have supplied PvP and PvE environments, and simply the PvP servers have struggled with keeping a consistent player base. Sony, in particular, has had 14 years of history with separate servers. Are you suggesting that Sony should simply ignore their historic experiences?
Thats a valid argument to an extent, but you'd have to factor in how much it would even cost to keep the pvp servers running versus how many people they'd lose. Sony isn't stupid. They keep the servers up for a reason. If they had evidence to support that the cost of maintaining pvp servers that are struggling is dwarfed by the return of the playerbase that plays them, then they'd keep them running no matter how hard of a time the servers had. If they found they were LOSING money, then they' stop.
Same goes for every other MMORPG company with separate servers
So, if a company has experience that says the niche market hasn't supported their product in the past, what is the company's incentive to develop a game designed for that specific niche market? Myself, I'd think that a company that did something like that would not re-coup their development cost, much less make a long-term successful game.
My suspicion is that the niche market will continue to be served by small, niche developer. It's just not a sustainable market where the AAA developers (those with stockholders) would choose to gamble.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If the punishments for being a PKer are too soft, the game turns into a gankfest, players complain, and the devs either pull a Trammel, or watch as players leave in droves. (An no, before you even say it, Trammel did NOT ruin UO. Trammel was released in 2000, the game peaked in July 2003.)
If the punishments for being a PKer are too harsh, the PKers complain that being a PKer isn't fun, they leave, the PK Hunters have no one to PvP against, and thus the whole system is rendered pointless.
I just don't see it happening. Oh, lest we forget that games that do focus on OWFFAPvP tend to have terrible communities.
So, OP, show me an MMO that has OWFFAPvP, that has a decent community, isn't a gankfest, and is actively being played by a decently sized playerbase. Do that, provide some objective evidence to back up your arguments, and then you can talk about dispelling myths.
Or the cost is so low that they'd rather absorb it so they can keep the brochure dot-point and just absorb the cost into the profitable servers. RP servers are the same situation.
Well Apparently dedicated servers aren't that much.
Well I think any PvE game should at least TRY to have dedicated servers to address the PvP crowd in a much better manner than they are doing now. Currently a lot of games aren't really doing that, so whether the lack of popularity is due to bad balance or inherent nature of FFA-PvP remains to be unseen. One thing I do know is that a lot of people that I have personally talked to have said that the issues have never been about things in regards to balancing, but simply that they preffered controlled PvP
There have been quite a few PvP advocates on these forums screaming that dedicated, separate PvP and PvE servers are an abomination, and won't work, so it isn't a valid compromise. Companies have supplied PvP and PvE environments, and simply the PvP servers have struggled with keeping a consistent player base. Sony, in particular, has had 14 years of history with separate servers. Are you suggesting that Sony should simply ignore their historic experiences?
Thats a valid argument to an extent, but you'd have to factor in how much it would even cost to keep the pvp servers running versus how many people they'd lose. Sony isn't stupid. They keep the servers up for a reason. If they had evidence to support that the cost of maintaining pvp servers that are struggling is dwarfed by the return of the playerbase that plays them, then they'd keep them running no matter how hard of a time the servers had. If they found they were LOSING money, then they' stop.
Same goes for every other MMORPG company with separate servers
So, if a company has experience that says the niche market hasn't supported their product in the past, what is the company's incentive to develop a game designed for that specific niche market? Myself, I'd think that a company that did something like that would not re-coup their development cost, much less make a long-term successful game.
My suspicion is that the niche market will continue to be served by small, niche developer. It's just not a sustainable market where the AAA developers (those with stockholders) would choose to gamble.
I think we're arguing two different things.
I'm saying if you have a PvE centric game, to have PvP servers with the BARE MINIMUM of fixes to accomidate that, such as having abilities scale differently when used on players as to prevent people being one shot. Thats a trivial development cost and is something that is also benificial to PvE servers with controlled PvP.. Currently a lot of game's aren't even doing that much.
I'm in agreement that a company shouldn't make a game dedicated to a niche because a lot of history and numbers would probably show that it would be a financial loss in the long run.
OP needs to be playing Darkfall UW. Its shockingly polished, fun and loaded with freedom. As a PvE person I'm having fun sneaking around and exploring along with crafting. Its amazing playing a game where crafting actually matters. Almost 100 percent open world in which you can really steep mountains and swim where you want.
Games that have pvp servers will never have the systems in place for a proper pvp/crafting game...too much work for the devs to have two entirely different games on different servers.
Originally posted by Mardukk OP needs to be playing Darkfall UW. Its shockingly polished, fun and loaded with freedom. As a PvE person I'm having fun sneaking around and exploring along with crafting. Its amazing playing a game where crafting actually matters. Almost 100 percent open world in which you can really steep mountains and swim where you want. Games that have pvp servers will never have the systems in place for a proper pvp/crafting game...too much work for the devs to have two entirely different games on different servers.
I have to admit I'm basing my opinion of DF on the classic version and what I've heard about UW. I haven't played UW yet because my computer isn't quite there. Not sure if I will upgrade the PC as it seems like MMOs are finally making their way to consoles in a big way.
Fact is I love the PvE-only guys, I love the PvAll guys but please dear PvE-only guys you could admit that you have been catered to with many, many.. many... MANY... M A N Y titles during the last decade.
Time for some love for us poor people who just like immersion and realism.. and to be scared of actual.. loss.. in an MMO, you know sandbox ... playstyle...
Hint: I am not a griefer but I want more emotional involvement in virtual worlds not just "meh.. safemode"
This is the possibly first time I don't agree with you... "it's our turn" isn't a good argument. We need to make financial sense for devs. I believe we do, but it's going to take a good game to rally all of the scattered PVPers. It's a risk for whatever company goes for it, unless they have really great business intelligence to suggest it will be profitable.. which they probably do.
But it's "our turn" in their best financial interest, if 99 titles ignore a certain playstyle and they all share the same players, good luck with making a profit. If I'd be an investor would I spend my money on another "mass market/lowest common denominator" game? HELL no. I'd pick my specific niche audience and please them 100% and give everyone else the boot. Don't like my game? okay go play something else. Easy.
I rather think it is time they throw us a bone BECAUSE we may be a much more defined target audience and more willing to pay since there is almost no competition.
Isn't it ridiculous that the only games available for us are only EvE and a small, not exactly polished indie title like DFUW? Oh and Mortal Online, okay.
Then you have Age of Conan on a single Blood and Glory server no one knows about, and that's about it for the industry.
Right now I am also having fun with Salem, but I'd just like to have one big developer finally taking a risk to be different, really different.
Fact is I love the PvE-only guys, I love the PvAll guys but please dear PvE-only guys you could admit that you have been catered to with many, many.. many... MANY... M A N Y titles during the last decade.
Time for some love for us poor people who just like immersion and realism.. and to be scared of actual.. loss.. in an MMO, you know sandbox ... playstyle...
Hint: I am not a griefer but I want more emotional involvement in virtual worlds not just "meh.. safemode"
This is the possibly first time I don't agree with you... "it's our turn" isn't a good argument. We need to make financial sense for devs. I believe we do, but it's going to take a good game to rally all of the scattered PVPers. It's a risk for whatever company goes for it, unless they have really great business intelligence to suggest it will be profitable.. which they probably do.
But it's "our turn" in their best financial interest, if 99 titles ignore a certain playstyle and they all share the same players, good luck with making a profit. If I'd be an investor would I spend my money on another "mass market/lowest common denominator" game? HELL no. I'd pick my specific niche audience and please them 100% and give everyone else the boot. Don't like my game? okay go play something else. Easy.
I rather think it is time they throw us a bone BECAUSE we may be a much more defined target audience and more willing to pay since there is almost no competition.
Isn't it ridiculous that the only games available for us are only EvE and a small, not exactly polished indie title like DFUW? Oh and Mortal Online, okay.
Then you have Age of Conan on a single Blood and Glory server no one knows about, and that's about it for the industry.
Right now I am also having fun with Salem, but I'd just like to have one big developer finally taking a risk to be different, really different.
Yeah you don't have to sell me. I'm just waiting patiently on the sidelines for a big, high-quality virtual world that does full PVP well. I agree with you completely that the market is now oversaturated and devs need to focus on getting as much share of niche audiences as they can. Then again I'm not convinced the PVP folks are niche - I think marketers have just failed to deliver the right product. (Waits for eyes to roll.)
Well I think any PvE game should at least TRY to have dedicated servers to address the PvP crowd in a much better manner than they are doing now. Currently a lot of games aren't really doing that, so whether the lack of popularity is due to bad balance or inherent nature of FFA-PvP remains to be unseen. One thing I do know is that a lot of people that I have personally talked to have said that the issues have never been about things in regards to balancing, but simply that they preffered controlled PvP
There have been quite a few PvP advocates on these forums screaming that dedicated, separate PvP and PvE servers are an abomination, and won't work, so it isn't a valid compromise. Companies have supplied PvP and PvE environments, and simply the PvP servers have struggled with keeping a consistent player base. Sony, in particular, has had 14 years of history with separate servers. Are you suggesting that Sony should simply ignore their historic experiences?
Thats a valid argument to an extent, but you'd have to factor in how much it would even cost to keep the pvp servers running versus how many people they'd lose. Sony isn't stupid. They keep the servers up for a reason. If they had evidence to support that the cost of maintaining pvp servers that are struggling is dwarfed by the return of the playerbase that plays them, then they'd keep them running no matter how hard of a time the servers had. If they found they were LOSING money, then they' stop.
Same goes for every other MMORPG company with separate servers
So, if a company has experience that says the niche market hasn't supported their product in the past, what is the company's incentive to develop a game designed for that specific niche market? Myself, I'd think that a company that did something like that would not re-coup their development cost, much less make a long-term successful game.
My suspicion is that the niche market will continue to be served by small, niche developer. It's just not a sustainable market where the AAA developers (those with stockholders) would choose to gamble.
I think we're arguing two different things.
I'm saying if you have a PvE centric game, to have PvP servers with the BARE MINIMUM of fixes to accomidate that, such as having abilities scale differently when used on players as to prevent people being one shot. Thats a trivial development cost and is something that is also benificial to PvE servers with controlled PvP.. Currently a lot of game's aren't even doing that much.
I'm in agreement that a company shouldn't make a game dedicated to a niche because a lot of history and numbers would probably show that it would be a financial loss in the long run.
Okay. I understand being one-shot (I played a Cabalist in the early days of DAoC). It's not pleasant.
I don't know if a game can exist that meets the criteria of PvE and PvP. My personal theory is that the basic RP convention of HPs is to blame. Mobs and players need to be balanced to provide a satisfying PvE environment, but that balance is destroyed when matching players against players. The developer's mechanism to provide PvE balance appears to be based on hit points versus offensive damage. And when a player is balanced against increasing difficult mobs (more HP), the balance in a PvP environment is skewed. I've played almost every PnP game system, and developed at least 8 or 9 combat systems over the past 30 years, but I'm not satisfied with any, yet. And almost all game systems fall back into the one-shot problem. The only way it works is to be able to one-shot mobs or players, and mobs or players are able to one-shot the player in return. And that doesn't make for a good game.
I think it will take a revolutionary change to some fundamental RP conventions. Hit points, hit point increases per level, hit point increases from gear, increased weapon damage, natural healing, magic healing, etc. It all needs to be changed in conjunction with one another. It's something I'm not entirely sure I will ever see a solution that is satisfying to both the PvE and PvP camps.
Again, there are any number of PvP enthusiasts on these forums that favor unrestricted PvP -- anything goes, anywhere. A max level can come into NewbieTown and lay waste. Any form of 'safe zone' is aberrant to them. They simply balk at anything that isn't their idea of unrestricted chaos. Then there are those PvP players that will accept restrictions -- danger areas and safe areas, PVP flags, etc. There even seems to be two divisions of this subset, those that will accept PVP instances and those that won't.
So, from a company's perspective is faced with two problems. First, it may be fundamentally impossible to make a satisfying game that satisfies the PvE and PvP crowds. It will probably require something original, and developing an original concept takes money to ensure it works and to educate the customer (change their expectations). Second, the PvP camp, that camp that has failed for the companies in the past, do not have a single point of view. Some want unrestricted conflict, others will accept varying levels of restrictions. Since the PvP servers haven't paid off in the past, and the balancing issue might require a lot of money to develop, there still isn't an overpowering reason why the developers should try to build a game to suit both markets.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I have looked at your arguments and I think you really should remove your first two points.
Originally posted by Bidwood
...
1. You just want to grief me.
This is the self-centered argument of someone who was scarred for life in Ultima Online a decade ago and can’t move on. We actually don’t care if you play the game. In fact, if you dislike full PVP then we hope you don’t play. ...
Ok, you called me "self-centered" and "scarred for life". Thank you for that. It is not really a good start to insult someone first if you want to convince him of something. I don't know if you want to grief ne, but I'm still sure I will run into some people that want to do nothing but grief in that game. Do you like to be griefed? And who exactly is "we" and who is "you"? I guess "we" actually means you and some people that share your opinion and "you" is everyone else. The problem is that unless you are programming the game yourself or are paying for its development, there is no reason why the developers should prefer your opinion to the one of anyone else. And I'm sure they hope that as many people as possible play their game.
Originally posted by Bidwood
...
2. “Why should I be forced to play your way? No one is forcing you to PVE.”
This makes it sound like you’re already a paying customer for a game and we’re pulling the rug out from under you. If a game is in development and you find out it has full PVP, you aren’t forced to do anything. You can simply play a different game. If you do play and get ganked, then you still made a conscious decision with regard to risk v.s. reward. And you lost. No one forced anything on you. ...
I don't know what way you want to play the game. But, you right I certainly don't want to be forced to do something by you. This has nothing to be with being subscribed to a game. But by the way, since we are talking about a hypothetical game that does not jet exist, you are not subscribed to it either. And yes it is everyones free decision to play the game or not. What exactly do you want to say with this.
-
I was ready to write off your entire post but on the other point I pretty much agree with you. I believe a sword an sorcery version of EVE could work. In EVE the World-PVP is only one aspect of the game and not the only feature like in Darkfall and Mortal Online. This is the kind of game I'm looking for too.
Fact is I love the PvE-only guys, I love the PvAll guys but please dear PvE-only guys you could admit that you have been catered to with many, many.. many... MANY... M A N Y titles during the last decade.
Time for some love for us poor people who just like immersion and realism.. and to be scared of actual.. loss.. in an MMO, you know sandbox ... playstyle...
Hint: I am not a griefer but I want more emotional involvement in virtual worlds not just "meh.. safemode"
Pray tell where this mysterious PvE sandbox is again? If anything it's the FFA PvP crowd who have been catered to. And how many PvE only Triple-A MMO's are there in existence? Sandbox or Themepark?
I'll be wait for an answer down
|
|
|
|
|
|
/
below
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Because this question has come up a lot, the purpose of the thread is not to convince anyone to play or support full PVP games. It's to raise awareness about what the people who want them are actually asking for, because it's clear from many counter-arguments in other threads that there is a lack of understanding and we are all lumped together into the "griefer" category.
I am a fan of FFA PVP and play several MMOs with it, and I disagree with almost everything you've written so far, so please don't pretend you speak for everyone.
To address each of your points:
1. You just want to grief me.
Most MMOs that have open world PVP have it poorly implemented. Take, for example AION, where players reach level 30 and then are subjected to pointless attacks from level 60s (outside of the Abyss) as they try to level. Saying this doesn't happen is just lying to yourself, because everyone else isn't buying it.
2. “Why should I be forced to play your way? No one is forcing you to PVE.”
This is something that a lot of PVPers like you will never figure out until the day you incur penalties for a defeat in combat that results from someone baking bread on the battlefield.
3. It’s PVP v.s. PVE and people who enjoy PVP are a niche.
In MMORPGs, the PVP crowd is a niche crowd. That's not a bad thing. Crafters are, too. So are raiders. In most MMORPGs, the majority do not participate in PVP.
4. Okay - but the majority of people want PVP on their terms.
That's not a myth. It's the truth. Open world PVP is usually an ongoing war. It is not a team-based match with a set start, confined arena, and 15 minute tiner. In any war you want to make sure the deck is stacked in your favor. If you don't, you're doing it wrong.
No idea why 5 and 6 are here as there is nothing myth or fact about them. They are proposed ideas. Padding?
7. Look around at the limited number of PVP servers on popular games. This is proof that the market for open-world PVP games is niche.
You say the issue there is that in all of those games the PVP is just tacked on. While I disagree in the case of GW2, AOC and several other MMOs, that's not even an issue really. Look at the subscriber based of most open world PVP MMOs in the Western market compared to the PVE ones. Here, your argument is going to be that most are poorly made, right?
So if the PvE gamers aren't playing the PVP MMORPGs and you contend that they have a low pop because the PVPers don't like what the PVP MMORPGs are offering, then are you really trying to 'dispel the myth' with your personal assumption that there is some silent majority that wants open world PVP in their MMORPG and is just waiting for the right one to come along?
You clearly didn't even read my post or just snipped the part that was convenient for you. I explitly acknowledged that griefers are part of the ecosystem in a full PVP game, but they're only part of it and it's not fair to accuse everyone who wants full PVP of living to harrass people who don't want any part of it.
It was a safe bet that you'd grab that one part, twist it, and respond to that only.
I never said they weren't just a part of it. The fact is that it does happen, and it happens often enough that it gives open world PVP a bad name in most games that have open world PVP.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Fact is I love the PvE-only guys, I love the PvAll guys but please dear PvE-only guys you could admit that you have been catered to with many, many.. many... MANY... M A N Y titles during the last decade.
Time for some love for us poor people who just like immersion and realism.. and to be scared of actual.. loss.. in an MMO, you know sandbox ... playstyle...
Hint: I am not a griefer but I want more emotional involvement in virtual worlds not just "meh.. safemode"
This is the possibly first time I don't agree with you... "it's our turn" isn't a good argument. We need to make financial sense for devs. I believe we do, but it's going to take a good game to rally all of the scattered PVPers. It's a risk for whatever company goes for it, unless they have really great business intelligence to suggest it will be profitable.. which they probably do.
But it's "our turn" in their best financial interest, if 99 titles ignore a certain playstyle and they all share the same players, good luck with making a profit. If I'd be an investor would I spend my money on another "mass market/lowest common denominator" game? HELL no. I'd pick my specific niche audience and please them 100% and give everyone else the boot. Don't like my game? okay go play something else. Easy.
I rather think it is time they throw us a bone BECAUSE we may be a much more defined target audience and more willing to pay since there is almost no competition.
Isn't it ridiculous that the only games available for us are only EvE and a small, not exactly polished indie title like DFUW? Oh and Mortal Online, okay.
Then you have Age of Conan on a single Blood and Glory server no one knows about, and that's about it for the industry.
Right now I am also having fun with Salem, but I'd just like to have one big developer finally taking a risk to be different, really different.
Yeah you don't have to sell me. I'm just waiting patiently on the sidelines for a big, high-quality virtual world that does full PVP well. I agree with you completely that the market is now oversaturated and devs need to focus on getting as much share of niche audiences as they can. Then again I'm not convinced the PVP folks are niche - I think marketers have just failed to deliver the right product. (Waits for eyes to roll.)
Great you won't be waiting long.
The Repopulation
Pathfinder Online
Black Desert
ArcheAge
Perpetuum
Star Citizen
Embers of Caerus
Origins of Malu
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Because this question has come up a lot, the purpose of the thread is not to convince anyone to play or support full PVP games. It's to raise awareness about what the people who want them are actually asking for, because it's clear from many counter-arguments in other threads that there is a lack of understanding and we are all lumped together into the "griefer" category.
I am a fan of FFA PVP and play several MMOs with it, and I disagree with almost everything you've written so far, so please don't pretend you speak for everyone.
To address each of your points:
1. You just want to grief me.
Most MMOs that have open world PVP have it poorly implemented. Take, for example AION, where players reach level 30 and then are subjected to pointless attacks from level 60s (outside of the Abyss) as they try to level. Saying this doesn't happen is just lying to yourself, because everyone else isn't buying it.
2. “Why should I be forced to play your way? No one is forcing you to PVE.”
This is something that a lot of PVPers like you will never figure out until the day you incur penalties for a defeat in combat that results from someone baking bread on the battlefield.
3. It’s PVP v.s. PVE and people who enjoy PVP are a niche.
In MMORPGs, the PVP crowd is a niche crowd. That's not a bad thing. Crafters are, too. So are raiders. In most MMORPGs, the majority do not participate in PVP.
4. Okay - but the majority of people want PVP on their terms.
That's not a myth. It's the truth. Open world PVP is usually an ongoing war. It is not a team-based match with a set start, confined arena, and 15 minute tiner. In any war you want to make sure the deck is stacked in your favor. If you don't, you're doing it wrong.
No idea why 5 and 6 are here as there is nothing myth or fact about them. They are proposed ideas. Padding?
7. Look around at the limited number of PVP servers on popular games. This is proof that the market for open-world PVP games is niche.
You say the issue there is that in all of those games the PVP is just tacked on. While I disagree in the case of GW2, AOC and several other MMOs, that's not even an issue really. Look at the subscriber based of most open world PVP MMOs in the Western market compared to the PVE ones. Here, your argument is going to be that most are poorly made, right?
So if the PvE gamers aren't playing the PVP MMORPGs and you contend that they have a low pop because the PVPers don't like what the PVP MMORPGs are offering, then are you really trying to 'dispel the myth' with your personal assumption that there is some silent majority that wants open world PVP in their MMORPG and is just waiting for the right one to come along?
You clearly didn't even read my post or just snipped the part that was convenient for you. I explitly acknowledged that griefers are part of the ecosystem in a full PVP game, but they're only part of it and it's not fair to accuse everyone who wants full PVP of living to harrass people who don't want any part of it.
It was a safe bet that you'd grab that one part, twist it, and respond to that only.
I never said they weren't just a part of it. The fact is that it does happen, and it happens often enough that it gives open world PVP a bad name in most games that have open world PVP.
I've tried just about every major sandbox game released over the last 10 years and not only does it happen. It happens quite frequently, so frequent enough that the majority of those FFA Games have zero growth and rely exclusively on player retention. A couple guys from my Old DAoC Guild decided to quit Rift a few years back and try there hand out in the Original Darkfall, none of them lasted longer then a 3 days due to the amount of sheer griefing that went on.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
But it's "our turn" in their best financial interest, if 99 titles ignore a certain playstyle and they all share the same players, good luck with making a profit. If I'd be an investor would I spend my money on another "mass market/lowest common denominator" game? HELL no. I'd pick my specific niche audience and please them 100% and give everyone else the boot. Don't like my game? okay go play something else. Easy.
The market apparently is big enough for a lot of titles. TOR, DDO, STO, DCUO ... are all adding content. I don't think they need any luck. They just need good market research.
Actually Darkfall is trying to please that niche, and Tales of the desert trying for another niche .. and they remain niche since the niche is small.
And yeah, i won't play your game. I have 99 titles (probably more) to choose from. There is plenty of fun to go around.
Comments
Don't sound like your "disagreement" actually matters. There is no such game. The only full pvp games are pvp-only games like MOBAs, and WoT.
By certain logic, airplanes are impossible.
Humans lived on the earth for a great many years unable to fly. Many even thought human flight impossible. They may have used the fact that no human was flying as a proof.
They were in error.
There's a difference between people lacking the appropriate physics knowledge and powerful enough thrusters to enable flight, and developers who have twenty years of history to look at concerning MMORPGs and what people like in those games.
MMORPGs that are primarily PvE based are more popular. Games that offer both PvE and PvP servers will have more PvE servers and more players on PvE servers. People who enjoy PvP tend to be more into PvP games rather than MMORPGs with PvP, as evidenced by the popularity of LoL, DOTA2 and CoD.
That's just information that's easily available. There are a lot of people who aren't interested in OW/FFA PvP, and a lot of people who are really interested in PvP, but not in their MMORPG. The smallest group is the people who are into OW/FFA PvP in their MMORPG. It doesn't matter that they exist. We know they exist. It only matters how many of them there are, and whether they are willing to pay enough money for a game to get made and thrive.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Ya I was talking about the possibility of a certain pvp game existing and not at all about whether developers would make it or not, but mostly I had misunderstood something someone said so my statement wasn't really relevant.
Thank you. I had missed that.
Your car analogy is correct only at a certain level. The niche market (Lamborghini) spends 5 times as much on their niche product (or more) as the average auto consumer. The percentages of the auto niche marketplace might be similar to the percentage of gaming niche marketplace. I don't have any data to support this, but I suspect the PvP niche crowd wouldn't be willing to spend the amount necessary to make this a viable business strategy. A niche product works when the price is $387,000-$441,000 (2013 Lamborghini Aventador) on an estimated production cost of $125,000 (with an anticipated repurchase in 5-7 years), but it doesn't appear to scale to a $15/month product (historic subscription rate) with no up front cost (free-to-play, no box cost) and a nominal monthly cost of $5-9 (network and operational costs). In both cases (auto and game), the cost of development and research would be spread over all the customer base.
To extend the niche car analogy, the PvP player is asking for a niche product, but is expecting to pay for an economical car. A Lamborghini for VW prices. That certainly doesn't appear to constitute a viable business strategy, sorry.
The business reality is that for a niche product to be financially successful, it must be priced accordingly to account for the smaller niche market size. A game maker shooting for the niche market must make the cost to play higher. I suspect this is a prime reason why so many AAA MMORPG developers have shied away from the OW PvP model.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Those are very valid points you make and I don't disagree with them.
If those were the the bare factors, then yes it would absolutely make more sense to make a niche game if there is none available for the niche market. I don't know why developers DON'T, but I think it falls down to either that they don't feel like the game will return enough, or that the reward for making a successful PvE game is far greater than making a PvP game.
And you are mincing words.
I've played EVE for 8 years. I know what EVE is. Your problem is you assume everyone who doesn't find FFA appealing is a sore loser and couldn't/ can't win in the system. I did win, I lost and I won again and that's all FFA will ever amount to. Build it up, blow it up, build it up, blow it up. It's just a different kind of grind. Popping player ships in EVE is no more exciting, no more difficult or no more rewarding than farming cows in LotRO for most people. The only difference is you didn't piss in someones cornflakes when you killed 500 cows. You didn't grief someone.
Well I think any PvE game should at least TRY to have dedicated servers to address the PvP crowd in a much better manner than they are doing now. Currently a lot of games aren't really doing that, so whether the lack of popularity is due to bad balance or inherent nature of FFA-PvP remains to be unseen. One thing I do know is that a lot of people that I have personally talked to have said that the issues have never been about things in regards to balancing, but simply that they preffered controlled PvP
Again, I am saying a full loot open world pvp server not PVP server. Sorry if that is too subtle a difference and that I wasn't giving a 100% clear wording that I meant it. It might be better to offer the FULL LOOT OPENWORLD PVP SERVER and PVP SERVERS to also demonstrate to the world that FULL LOOTER PVP SERVERS won't last in the long run. That is the test. IF they can support it over the long run, they prove their point. I believe the sheep won't join it or will quickly quit and the full looters won't like it. It is an experiment.
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?"
There have been quite a few PvP advocates on these forums screaming that dedicated, separate PvP and PvE servers are an abomination, and won't work, so it isn't a valid compromise. Companies have supplied PvP and PvE environments, and simply the PvP servers have struggled with keeping a consistent player base. Sony, in particular, has had 14 years of history with separate servers. Are you suggesting that Sony should simply ignore their historic experiences?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Thats a valid argument to an extent, but you'd have to factor in how much it would even cost to keep the pvp servers running versus how many people they'd lose. Sony isn't stupid. They keep the servers up for a reason. If they had evidence to support that the cost of maintaining pvp servers that are struggling is dwarfed by the return of the playerbase that plays them, then they'd keep them running no matter how hard of a time the servers had. If they found they were LOSING money, then they' stop.
Same goes for every other MMORPG company with separate servers
Or the cost is so low that they'd rather absorb it so they can keep the brochure dot-point and just absorb the cost into the profitable servers. RP servers are the same situation.
So, if a company has experience that says the niche market hasn't supported their product in the past, what is the company's incentive to develop a game designed for that specific niche market? Myself, I'd think that a company that did something like that would not re-coup their development cost, much less make a long-term successful game.
My suspicion is that the niche market will continue to be served by small, niche developer. It's just not a sustainable market where the AAA developers (those with stockholders) would choose to gamble.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I have yet to see a OWFFAPvP system that works.
If the punishments for being a PKer are too soft, the game turns into a gankfest, players complain, and the devs either pull a Trammel, or watch as players leave in droves. (An no, before you even say it, Trammel did NOT ruin UO. Trammel was released in 2000, the game peaked in July 2003.)
If the punishments for being a PKer are too harsh, the PKers complain that being a PKer isn't fun, they leave, the PK Hunters have no one to PvP against, and thus the whole system is rendered pointless.
I just don't see it happening. Oh, lest we forget that games that do focus on OWFFAPvP tend to have terrible communities.
So, OP, show me an MMO that has OWFFAPvP, that has a decent community, isn't a gankfest, and is actively being played by a decently sized playerbase. Do that, provide some objective evidence to back up your arguments, and then you can talk about dispelling myths.
Well Apparently dedicated servers aren't that much.
http://www.nfoservers.com/order-dedicated-server.php the most expensive server is under 900 a month for 1600 people. If your game has a $15 sub fee then thats 60 people to cover the cost.
I think we're arguing two different things.
I'm saying if you have a PvE centric game, to have PvP servers with the BARE MINIMUM of fixes to accomidate that, such as having abilities scale differently when used on players as to prevent people being one shot. Thats a trivial development cost and is something that is also benificial to PvE servers with controlled PvP.. Currently a lot of game's aren't even doing that much.
I'm in agreement that a company shouldn't make a game dedicated to a niche because a lot of history and numbers would probably show that it would be a financial loss in the long run.
Games that have pvp servers will never have the systems in place for a proper pvp/crafting game...too much work for the devs to have two entirely different games on different servers.
I have to admit I'm basing my opinion of DF on the classic version and what I've heard about UW. I haven't played UW yet because my computer isn't quite there. Not sure if I will upgrade the PC as it seems like MMOs are finally making their way to consoles in a big way.
But it's "our turn" in their best financial interest, if 99 titles ignore a certain playstyle and they all share the same players, good luck with making a profit. If I'd be an investor would I spend my money on another "mass market/lowest common denominator" game? HELL no. I'd pick my specific niche audience and please them 100% and give everyone else the boot. Don't like my game? okay go play something else. Easy.
I rather think it is time they throw us a bone BECAUSE we may be a much more defined target audience and more willing to pay since there is almost no competition.
Isn't it ridiculous that the only games available for us are only EvE and a small, not exactly polished indie title like DFUW? Oh and Mortal Online, okay.
Then you have Age of Conan on a single Blood and Glory server no one knows about, and that's about it for the industry.
Right now I am also having fun with Salem, but I'd just like to have one big developer finally taking a risk to be different, really different.
Yeah you don't have to sell me. I'm just waiting patiently on the sidelines for a big, high-quality virtual world that does full PVP well. I agree with you completely that the market is now oversaturated and devs need to focus on getting as much share of niche audiences as they can. Then again I'm not convinced the PVP folks are niche - I think marketers have just failed to deliver the right product. (Waits for eyes to roll.)
Okay. I understand being one-shot (I played a Cabalist in the early days of DAoC). It's not pleasant.
I don't know if a game can exist that meets the criteria of PvE and PvP. My personal theory is that the basic RP convention of HPs is to blame. Mobs and players need to be balanced to provide a satisfying PvE environment, but that balance is destroyed when matching players against players. The developer's mechanism to provide PvE balance appears to be based on hit points versus offensive damage. And when a player is balanced against increasing difficult mobs (more HP), the balance in a PvP environment is skewed. I've played almost every PnP game system, and developed at least 8 or 9 combat systems over the past 30 years, but I'm not satisfied with any, yet. And almost all game systems fall back into the one-shot problem. The only way it works is to be able to one-shot mobs or players, and mobs or players are able to one-shot the player in return. And that doesn't make for a good game.
I think it will take a revolutionary change to some fundamental RP conventions. Hit points, hit point increases per level, hit point increases from gear, increased weapon damage, natural healing, magic healing, etc. It all needs to be changed in conjunction with one another. It's something I'm not entirely sure I will ever see a solution that is satisfying to both the PvE and PvP camps.
Again, there are any number of PvP enthusiasts on these forums that favor unrestricted PvP -- anything goes, anywhere. A max level can come into NewbieTown and lay waste. Any form of 'safe zone' is aberrant to them. They simply balk at anything that isn't their idea of unrestricted chaos. Then there are those PvP players that will accept restrictions -- danger areas and safe areas, PVP flags, etc. There even seems to be two divisions of this subset, those that will accept PVP instances and those that won't.
So, from a company's perspective is faced with two problems. First, it may be fundamentally impossible to make a satisfying game that satisfies the PvE and PvP crowds. It will probably require something original, and developing an original concept takes money to ensure it works and to educate the customer (change their expectations). Second, the PvP camp, that camp that has failed for the companies in the past, do not have a single point of view. Some want unrestricted conflict, others will accept varying levels of restrictions. Since the PvP servers haven't paid off in the past, and the balancing issue might require a lot of money to develop, there still isn't an overpowering reason why the developers should try to build a game to suit both markets.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
And who exactly is "we" and who is "you"? I guess "we" actually means you and some people that share your opinion and "you" is everyone else. The problem is that unless you are programming the game yourself or are paying for its development, there is no reason why the developers should prefer your opinion to the one of anyone else. And I'm sure they hope that as many people as possible play their game.
I don't know what way you want to play the game. But, you right I certainly don't want to be forced to do something by you. This has nothing to be with being subscribed to a game. But by the way, since we are talking about a hypothetical game that does not jet exist, you are not subscribed to it either. And yes it is everyones free decision to play the game or not. What exactly do you want to say with this.
-
I was ready to write off your entire post but on the other point I pretty much agree with you. I believe a sword an sorcery version of EVE could work. In EVE the World-PVP is only one aspect of the game and not the only feature like in Darkfall and Mortal Online. This is the kind of game I'm looking for too.
Pray tell where this mysterious PvE sandbox is again? If anything it's the FFA PvP crowd who have been catered to. And how many PvE only Triple-A MMO's are there in existence? Sandbox or Themepark?
I'll be wait for an answer down
|
|
|
|
|
|
/
below
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
It was a safe bet that you'd grab that one part, twist it, and respond to that only.
I never said they weren't just a part of it. The fact is that it does happen, and it happens often enough that it gives open world PVP a bad name in most games that have open world PVP.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Great you won't be waiting long.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I've tried just about every major sandbox game released over the last 10 years and not only does it happen. It happens quite frequently, so frequent enough that the majority of those FFA Games have zero growth and rely exclusively on player retention. A couple guys from my Old DAoC Guild decided to quit Rift a few years back and try there hand out in the Original Darkfall, none of them lasted longer then a 3 days due to the amount of sheer griefing that went on.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
The market apparently is big enough for a lot of titles. TOR, DDO, STO, DCUO ... are all adding content. I don't think they need any luck. They just need good market research.
Actually Darkfall is trying to please that niche, and Tales of the desert trying for another niche .. and they remain niche since the niche is small.
And yeah, i won't play your game. I have 99 titles (probably more) to choose from. There is plenty of fun to go around.