The big pro-PvP folks are just butthurt because there are a LOT more games that are not PvP-only, and the ones that are PvP-only have tended (besides EvE, which is a wierd pseudo pvp/pve mix kind of) have been really low budget indie games.
I understand their frustration, but you don't add choice by taking away other choices.
I hope there are some good PvP games made for ya'll in the future.
But don't take away game styles that are obviously popular.
Not taking issue with anything you've said, i'd just like to add:
One of the points some of us more PvP oriented folks are trying to drive home is that we are after those "wierd pseudo pvp/pve mix kind of" games.
Not so we can gank lowbies or so maybe people who hate PvP will come play with us but the notion that we are a binary group and want to either PvE OR PvP when some of us actually want to PvP AND PvE is what i'd like to see less of.
If I just wanted a fantasy PvP sandbox i'd go play Darkfall.
One of the points some of us more PvP oriented folks are trying to drive home is that we are after those "wierd pseudo pvp/pve mix kind of" games.
Sure. It is your prerogative to play whatever games you desire.
Note that no one owes you such a game. The market decides what to produce. And from where i am sitting, there is little demand for what you want. There are lots of demand for pve only, separate pve/pvp, and even pvp-only games.
One of the points some of us more PvP oriented folks are trying to drive home is that we are after those "wierd pseudo pvp/pve mix kind of" games.
Sure. It is your prerogative to play whatever games you desire.
Note that no one owes you such a game. The market decides what to produce. And from where i am sitting, there is little demand for what you want. There are lots of demand for pve only, separate pve/pvp, and even pvp-only games.
Common sense would probably agree with you.
Did it sound as if I was claiming some game company owes me something? I never intended to do so.
Originally posted by madazz Originally posted by BidwoodOriginally posted by azzamasinI am not going to go into some long diatribe about why you are wrong because you're probably not interested in reading my rebuttal anyway so all I am going to say is I disagree with every point in your post because I have 14+ years of experience that prove otherwise. So quit trying to pass your preferred and biased playstyle off on someone like me who doesn't want it.
"TL; DR"? Admit it...He didn't read it at all. There are some points you CANNOT disagree with because there is nothing to disagree with. Such as a new PvP game coming not taking anything away from you.
And seeing as he points out his longevity in the genre, I'd like to point out that I have 15+ years of experience to prove contrary to his beliefs as well.
Not sure why the PvE crowed wants all the games to be the same yet is tired of all the current games... No logic at all.
Wanting something new and not being into "Full PvP" are not mutually exclusive things.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
One of the points some of us more PvP oriented folks are trying to drive home is that we are after those "wierd pseudo pvp/pve mix kind of" games.
Sure. It is your prerogative to play whatever games you desire.
Note that no one owes you such a game. The market decides what to produce. And from where i am sitting, there is little demand for what you want. There are lots of demand for pve only, separate pve/pvp, and even pvp-only games.
Common sense would probably agree with you.
Did it sound as if I was claiming some game company owes me something? I never intended to do so.
No. You did not. I am just augmenting the argument to point out the reality of the market place.
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
nope, the choice is made at the shelve of your local Gamestop, or before you hit "download"
I want a game with a specific target audience.
So sick of the "please everyone" trash MMOs.
So since there are already several sandbox ffapvp game guess it is time for a pve sandbox.
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
nope, the choice is made at the shelve of your local Gamestop, or before you hit "download"
I want a game with a specific target audience.
So sick of the "please everyone" trash MMOs.
So since there are already several sandbox ffapvp game guess it is time for a pve sandbox.
Sure. But, as nariussesomething said, dont' assume devs owe you one.
Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
One of the points some of us more PvP oriented folks are trying to drive home is that we are after those "wierd pseudo pvp/pve mix kind of" games.
Sure. It is your prerogative to play whatever games you desire.
Note that no one owes you such a game. The market decides what to produce. And from where i am sitting, there is little demand for what you want. There are lots of demand for pve only, separate pve/pvp, and even pvp-only games.
Common sense would probably agree with you.
Did it sound as if I was claiming some game company owes me something? I never intended to do so.
How do you stay so tactful?????
Originally posted by DocBrody
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
nope, the choice is made at the shelve of your local Gamestop, or before you hit "download"
I want a game with a specific target audience.
So sick of the "please everyone" trash MMOs.
Yes - that's basically it. "I want a game with a specific target audience". And then people are like "But I don't want that!" Then you go "Ok... so I'm talking about something over there that is for me but not you" and they scream "Griefer!!!!!!!!!!!! You're just butthurt go play Darkfall. MOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are my cheetos?!!!" :S
Originally posted by madazz
Originally posted by Bidwood
Originally posted by azzamasin
I am not going to go into some long diatribe about why you are wrong because you're probably not interested in reading my rebuttal anyway so all I am going to say is I disagree with every point in your post because I have 14+ years of experience that prove otherwise. So quit trying to pass your preferred and biased playstyle off on someone like me who doesn't want it.
"TL; DR"? Admit it...
He didn't read it at all. There are some points you CANNOT disagree with because there is nothing to disagree with. Such as a new PvP game coming not taking anything away from you.
And seeing as he points out his longevity in the genre, I'd like to point out that I have 15+ years of experience to prove contrary to his beliefs as well.
Not sure why the PvE crowed wants all the games to be the same yet is tired of all the current games... No logic at all.
I'm glad you saw the "TL;DR" too as people in the first two pages slammed me for saying it. His guild?
Originally posted by Arkade99
Originally posted by Bidwood
It involves risk v.s. reward in a big way.
What's the risk for high level players ganking low level players? What's the risk for a group running around griefing solo players?
Their risk comes from good game design. The developers can't be lazy here. They need to design the game around limiting grieifing. Stuff like making repeat PKs murderers who can't access major towns - healing or assisting them makes you a criminal, etc. That was Ultima Online. Many years have gone by since then and I'm sure some creative minds can do better. BUT as a "survivor" type player, I don't want the risks to completely eliminate PK. I want there to be areas of the game where I have to be on guard because a player might come collect my head.
Originally posted by Benedikt OP: problem is not that i (aka person who dont like pvp, especially the ffa kind) am saying "you cannt have ffa pvp game" or "we want you to play our way." problem is, that it is you (aka ffa pvp fans) who insist that every sandbox mmorpg HAS TO HAVE ffa pvp and as a result we have now already 10+ existing or in-development ffa pvp sandbox games, and not a single one which would be pve focused. I want to have at least 1 sandbox game i can play without having to pvp.
For me, full PVP is part of the definition of a sandbox. I'm not going to pretend otherwise as some silly concession in this thread. I feel like you're trying to draw parallels, but there wouldn't be one unless I was saying "Those nasty non-PVPers just want a sandbox so they can grief me! They should settle [insert something that doesn't really meet your requirements]."
I have no problem with you wanting a sandbox without PVP. I don't think it will work very well or be fun, but I'm not going to call you names.
Originally posted by lafaiel
Originally posted by AtmaDarkwolf
But in the end, if you do NOT support the idea of a full pvp game, why the heck do you bother to come to this thread? The only reason you do is to tell 'those nasty gankers' how you want THEIR game to be YOUR game.
Its only fair, they do it to us often enough.
Wow... you just admitted you're trolling.
Originally posted by lafaiel
Originally posted by Bidwood Rinna... Sorry if it was unclear somehow. I don't care if you want to play the same kind of game as me. I'm just hoping you will see what I actually want, which is probably something separate that doesn't affect people who feel the way you do. A separate game for PVPers. I don't want to grief you, but I do want griefers in my game. Because they make it more fun for me.
See what I mean? Not trying to force anything on anyone or convince people to like it, or convince people to make room for it in their game. I'm talking about a hypothetical future game that probably isn't your cup of tea and that is okay.
You are trying to force your playstyle on everyone, its why you made this whole thread in the first place, its why you made that OP with every one of your "facts" which is total bull and false.
We know people like you don't care if we don't want to play the same kind of game as you, you just want us in so you can gank people, its why you destroy every game you come across, I'll say this again, there are games with full pvp out there, why aren't you playing them? I'll tell you why, because you won't be happy till you destroy the games other people like to play.
OW/FFA PvP advocates would be well advised to quit creating these types of threads. They only serve to illustrate to prospective future developers how unpopular FFA PvP really is within the MMORPG community. Yes, FFA PvP is popular in FPS and MOBAs, but it does not translate well to MMORPGs.
As Ive mentioned several times, the only reason designers even attempt to tack on semblances of FFA PvP (Ie., FFA PvP servers) in MMORPGs is to maximize profits. This should be obvious to all when taking into consideration the manner in which FFA PvP is consistently a tacked on "afterthought" in MMORPGs. The unfortunate part in all of this is that the FFA PvP crowd's naivete in what constitutes a successful MMORPG only serves to advance their skewed belief that they are being seriously considered when designing MMORPGs, when in fact their only purpose in the endeavor is to "contribute" to company profits.
Whether you want to believe it or not, the fact of the matter is that designers are very much aware that the notion of an OW/FFA PvP MMORPG is a losing venture. Which is why it has never happened in a AAA title, and never will. Yes, EVE has managed to experience a measure of success with their little "spaceship" game, but their 500K player base is as much of an anomaly as WOWs 13Mil player base was at the height of its popularity. They are both games that benefited by being in the right place at the right time in the evolution of the MMO development spectrum. Neither accomplishment will be easily duplicated again.
Perpetuating the belief that a AAA developer would ever consider developing a AAA FFA PvP MMORPG will only ensure that the PVE/"consensual PvP MMORPG genre continues to line its pockets with your generous "donations," and I assure you your "donations" will go to a worthy cause in that they will continue to advance the PvE/"consensual PvP MMORPG genre you so ardently abhor.
Gotta give Bid credit-his OP's always seem to have 30+ pages of good debate, thats what these forums are for. As to the debate it seems like most people want alittle of both pvp and pve without the extremes. FFA pvp seems to have a small but vocal following and sandbox PvE only has one too, but it seems like most want both but with limits and some systems to tie them together without forcing on anyone. Pvpers can level mostly with pvp but want to have it mean something RvR, land control, guild v guild, etc. And pve players want to have a choice. Not sure what EQN is doing yet, but if they want to make more money it seems like they will meet somewhere in the middle. Peace!
And since when sandbox == ffa pvp? Nobody is implying that but you. This topic is (barring a few pointless anecdotes) is strictly about ffa pvp games. You do not enter one of those games unless you're looking for PVP, does that make sense to you?
Nobody is implying a sucessful sandbox game NEEDS FFA PVP. It is merely an option that can be present in some games. This is exactly the kind of myth people can't get outside their heads, and the grand majority of gibberish that results from this thread comes fromt the inability of reading the OP. Hint: it's not enforcing any playstyle on anyone, and it's definetly not saying FFA PVP is something you randomly throw at every mmo in existance and expect it to become good.
What's the logical fallacy where someone fixates on a completely irrelevant point someone made and turns it into their entire argument, rather than addressing the actual points at hand?
His point remains:
PVP is considered non-consensual in games where entire sessions can be spent not PVPing.
PVP is not considered non-consensual when PVP is an unavoidable part of the experience, and the core premise of the game.
I've left out references to sandbox, to help you stay focused on the discussion at hand :P
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What's the logical fallacy where someone fixates on a completely irrelevant point someone made and turns it into their entire argument, rather than addressing the actual points at hand?
-What is a red herring?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
nope, the choice is made at the shelve of your local Gamestop, or before you hit "download"
I want a game with a specific target audience.
So sick of the "please everyone" trash MMOs.
So since there are already several sandbox ffapvp game guess it is time for a pve sandbox.
Sure. But, as nariussesomething said, dont' assume devs owe you one.
Plus, the existence of several sandbox ffapvp game is not a reason for a pve sandbox or anything. The market does not "take turns" to produce all possible products and cover all playstyle.
It reacts to money. Sometimes some dev will do an experiment (like the first EQ, or now the new Destiny) but don't assume they do it just because some type of game does not exist. They probably have done in-depth market research, if millions and millions of dollars are at stake.
Originally posted by Venger All this proves is that there should be pvp and pve servers. Arguing whoms preference are more right then the next person is silly, give the consumer a choice.
nope, the choice is made at the shelve of your local Gamestop, or before you hit "download"
I want a game with a specific target audience.
So sick of the "please everyone" trash MMOs.
So since there are already several sandbox ffapvp game guess it is time for a pve sandbox.
Sure. But, as nariussesomething said, dont' assume devs owe you one.
Plus, the existence of several sandbox ffapvp game is not a reason for a pve sandbox or anything. The market does not "take turns" to produce all possible products and cover all playstyle.
It reacts to money. Sometimes some dev will do an experiment (like the first EQ, or now the new Destiny) but don't assume they do it just because some type of game does not exist. They probably have done in-depth market research, if millions and millions of dollars are at stake.
Sorry I was on vacation and didn't see the newer posts.
You make a good point. It suggests if big developers pour money into triple-A games with design decisions that legacy players don't agree with, they probably have a pretty good reason. Look at EverQuest Next for example.. forum rage over the lack of the tank-DPS-healer trinity, horizontal rather than vertical progression, art style, limited UI/action combat etc. The company is making a ton of decisions that are unpopular among forum-folk but are guaranteed to make money.
I'm still waiting for that game to dispell some of the PVP myths and announce open-world PVP.
You make a good point. It suggests if big developers pour money into triple-A games with design decisions that legacy players don't agree with, they probably have a pretty good reason. Look at EverQuest Next for example.. forum rage over the lack of the tank-DPS-healer trinity, horizontal rather than vertical progression, art style, limited UI/action combat etc. The company is making a ton of decisions that are unpopular among forum-folk but are guaranteed to make money.
Yes, just like all the MOBAs, Destiny, Division, online ARPGs ... devs are trying different online games, or games with some MMO features.
Some will succeed, some will fail. Time will tell.
It should not only be Risk vs Reward, but Risk vs. Reward vs. Consequence for your actions. I guess this would open such a game to a wider audience, since griefing would have consequences for the griefer.
Consequences (harsh death penalties, full loot, Law / Criminal system (like UO), Reptation / Karma system (like UO), item decay / degradation, etc.) should be part of the "Risk".
If Consequence is not part of the Risk than that is a design flaw and the game wasn't built from the ground up with PvP in mind. Or that is how I feel about it at least.
If it is built properly with these things in mind it should be part of the Risk, this is where the disconnect is a lot of the times and why a lot of these MMOs with "supposed" FFA or OW PvP fail so hard and feel like they were a complete "after thought" and completely "tacked on" to the game after the fact to extend the gameplay and increase the replayability.
Like Ramanadjinn, whisperwynd, and others have said in this thread, there hasn't really been a game that has built from the ground up with OW / FFA PvP and Full Looting and things like that in mind. These games don't integrate and intertwine these systems into the "Core" of the game to make them a integrable and essential part of the game.
If these games were built properly with PvP in mind from the start of development then PvP should be so important to the game to the point that if you were to "turn it off" or remove it, it would totally destroy the game and make it completely dysfunctional.
Not having PvP (or full looting, or whatever) should literally break the game, and that is something Hardcore PvP people are missing and wishing a Developer would come a long and fill that niche.
These things can really improve games, PvE, communities, roleplaying, ingame economies, sandboxes, etc. etc.
Metagaming, Min / Maxing, Buffboting, Multiboxing, etc; are all examples of things PvE players and Raiders incorporated into MMOs. With your DPS meters and gear scores, and all these other crazy UIs and mods needed to play the PvE / Raiding game. That and Gold sellers / Leveling services / Boting / etc. etc.
Most MMOs aren't made with PvP in mind (it is a tacked on after thought) and if you remove PvP completely it wouldn't really damage or change the game much, especially for PvEers. Where as if you remove PvE from Most MMOs you have nothing but a shallow battleground (instanced BG / Arena) game, with maybe some OW PvP but not what you would get / want / or expect from a game built from the ground up with PvP in mind, as a foundation that can't be removed.
Of course this is all my opinion but I think most of it holds true, I was a anti-PK my whole time in UO and it was great fun till it got "ruined", I enjoyed the sense of danger and adventure around every turn. I miss the full looting, nothing in the game was irreplaceable and it did nothing but help feed and sustain the crafters and the player run economy and allowed for people to live out non-combat and RP lives within the game world of the MMO.
The people should be able to defend and police themselves, that was part of the fun and function of my Guild (or at least the "Paladin" Division I was apart of). They just need to be given the tools.
I think that is what the OP and the PvP supporters of this thread are striving for and I am right with them in that regard. I agree with the OP for the most part, I am part of the PvP "camp" with Bidwood, Ramanadjinn, Holophonist, CactusJack, Apraxis, and company.
I can't wait to play a MMO with good PvP again. DAoC was great back in the day as well, I also enjoyed Warhammer for a short time as well. The list of MMOs with actual good PvP isn't very long unforunately, it is all "tacked on" and BG / Area (instanced) stuff.
#1 reason full pvp sucks....the community, or rather the cesspool it creates. I enjoy the competition of pvp, but I loathe with a hatred beyond comprehension this attitude that it now breeds in the so called community. Even the pvp in pve games like Rift has so many **********'s playing it is difficult to stomach. I should not have to turn off my warfront chat just to not have to deal with the tons of jerks spewing their crap in it every match. It has gotten so old I have nearly given up the genre. I enjoy the pvp aspect of MMO's, HATE the pvp community with a passion. I can barely stomach to be around these people anymore.
The op mentioned people scarred from UO, well I sir had a different experience. Guild vs. Guild on UO was awesome fun, and people did not need to act like total jackarses to have that fun. Daoc was great as well, where open chat was not filled with trolls and elitists, but rather a realm trying to work together to take out the enemies. Not saying there were never any jerks or spats in chat, but they were no where near what it is today. Old school pvp was fun, today it is a bunch of mental midgets who get off on being the internet bully because they obviously would get their face punched in if they did it in real life.
This is why I will never play a full pvp game again. Dealing with a minority of them in a pve game...whatever. Dealing with a server full? No thanks.
Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by AxehiltWhat's the logical fallacy where someone fixates on a completely irrelevant point someone made and turns it into their entire argument, rather than addressing the actual points at hand?
-What is a red herring?
And how much did you wager?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have played DAOC a three faction realm vs realm game of 24/7 conflict on and off(currently on :-) ) for 11+ years.Nothing compares despite numerous pretenders.
Originally posted by Bidwood So what is full PVP? Here are some of the defining characteristics:
PVP is on throughout the entire world. (No place is 100 per cent safe, although there can be some areas with strong protection like hi-sec in EVE.)
It's integrated with the other mature game systems in a meaningful way -- like the economy -- where everything from crafting to territory control are designed with PVP in mind. (Integration with other well-developed systems is where a lot of the indies fall short and why we need a triple-A title.)
It involves risk v.s. reward in a big way. Getting the best resources means venturing into unsafe/contested territories.
What's missing for me here is for example the definition of "mature game system", since your whole argument seems to revolve around it and without a definiton you can use the easy way out (as was done) by saying something like "this example does not count, it's not a mature game system".
But ok, let's assume that your goal is indeed NOT to gank me: You claim that i can leave anytime, that you'd even prefer if i did. What does that lead to? right: rather empty games, as can be seen all around. Fact is: PvP (full or not) invites, even encourages, people to gank others - sometimes that's the only way to "win" (or in your words: survive) someone else.
What's worse though: PvP invites people to look for exploits and cheats and using them! "You didn't know that i become invincible when i open open the menu, press xyz and do a little dance? well too bad for you, you should've been better informed!" "What do you mean, shooting through walls is an exploit? - you can do it only if... and that is a game mechanic, completely allowed and there for the knoweledgeable to use. too bad you're such a noob!"
These might seem off-topic and far-fetched, but aren't. it's stuff i have experienced and why i claim that "full PvP" does not work for a marketable, profitable MMO.
The core issue, from my point of view, isn't "PvP not not" or "full PvP or PvP only in some places" or somesuch.
The core issue is that MMO's are by nature things that go on whether the player is online or not. And that players, if they invest time, want to be certain that their "achievements" are still there if they log in a day, week month or year later. A not to be neglected reason for EQ's longlivety for example is that you can return years later and all your stuff - while most proably devalued by now - is still THERE. something that's simply not possible with "full PvP".
Personally, i do not "mind" playing in a full PvP environment, but i am the builder/economist type pf player and simply haven't seen a game mechanic that works to balance online and offline time.
Even lockout timers like they're used in EVE - and which look like a viable counter on the surface - only lead to "spawncamping", with the advantage given to those who can be online the most/longest/first.
As a player, i want the EFFORT (as measured in "productive online time") i put in a game to count for something. That is easy enough for the PvP'er who grabs some cheap armor, some gun and goes out to a hunt - easy and quick "satisfaction", countable and all too. For me as a builder or trader though, it means protecting my assets until i can log in again - login times are dictated by my RL schedule and NOT by a game! - which in turn means i HAVE to be able to make use of NPCs, in effect turning the game into a PvE game for most.
That's why i think that "full PvP" as you defined it, only works for multiplayergames where it's ensured that everyone is online at the same time. By "works" i mean that ofc it can be done in a MMO too, but such MMOs won't ever become much successful, simply because "time-challenged players", which are the majority, won't be able to "compete" on an even level, ever.
Originally posted by azzamasin I am not going to go into some long diatribe about why you are wrong because you're probably not interested in reading my rebuttal anyway so all I am going to say is I disagree with every point in your post because I have 14+ years of experience that prove otherwise. So quit trying to pass your preferred and biased playstyle off on someone like me who doesn't want it.
This is a forum, people share oppinions here, if you're going to post back the post up with related information, dont just claim you dont want to write the details.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here.... just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio. Thank you for your patience.
Comments
Not taking issue with anything you've said, i'd just like to add:
One of the points some of us more PvP oriented folks are trying to drive home is that we are after those "wierd pseudo pvp/pve mix kind of" games.
Not so we can gank lowbies or so maybe people who hate PvP will come play with us but the notion that we are a binary group and want to either PvE OR PvP when some of us actually want to PvP AND PvE is what i'd like to see less of.
If I just wanted a fantasy PvP sandbox i'd go play Darkfall.
Sure. It is your prerogative to play whatever games you desire.
Note that no one owes you such a game. The market decides what to produce. And from where i am sitting, there is little demand for what you want. There are lots of demand for pve only, separate pve/pvp, and even pvp-only games.
Common sense would probably agree with you.
Did it sound as if I was claiming some game company owes me something? I never intended to do so.
He didn't read it at all. There are some points you CANNOT disagree with because there is nothing to disagree with. Such as a new PvP game coming not taking anything away from you.
And seeing as he points out his longevity in the genre, I'd like to point out that I have 15+ years of experience to prove contrary to his beliefs as well.
Not sure why the PvE crowed wants all the games to be the same yet is tired of all the current games... No logic at all.
Wanting something new and not being into "Full PvP" are not mutually exclusive things.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No. You did not. I am just augmenting the argument to point out the reality of the market place.
TL:DR > Some like FFA PvP, some don't
So since there are already several sandbox ffapvp game guess it is time for a pve sandbox.
Sure. But, as nariussesomething said, dont' assume devs owe you one.
How do you stay so tactful?????
Yes - that's basically it. "I want a game with a specific target audience". And then people are like "But I don't want that!" Then you go "Ok... so I'm talking about something over there that is for me but not you" and they scream "Griefer!!!!!!!!!!!! You're just butthurt go play Darkfall. MOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are my cheetos?!!!" :S
I'm glad you saw the "TL;DR" too as people in the first two pages slammed me for saying it. His guild?
Their risk comes from good game design. The developers can't be lazy here. They need to design the game around limiting grieifing. Stuff like making repeat PKs murderers who can't access major towns - healing or assisting them makes you a criminal, etc. That was Ultima Online. Many years have gone by since then and I'm sure some creative minds can do better. BUT as a "survivor" type player, I don't want the risks to completely eliminate PK. I want there to be areas of the game where I have to be on guard because a player might come collect my head.
For me, full PVP is part of the definition of a sandbox. I'm not going to pretend otherwise as some silly concession in this thread. I feel like you're trying to draw parallels, but there wouldn't be one unless I was saying "Those nasty non-PVPers just want a sandbox so they can grief me! They should settle [insert something that doesn't really meet your requirements]."
I have no problem with you wanting a sandbox without PVP. I don't think it will work very well or be fun, but I'm not going to call you names.
Wow... you just admitted you're trolling.
Great example of myth #1.
Good work,. Ilafail.
OW/FFA PvP advocates would be well advised to quit creating these types of threads. They only serve to illustrate to prospective future developers how unpopular FFA PvP really is within the MMORPG community. Yes, FFA PvP is popular in FPS and MOBAs, but it does not translate well to MMORPGs.
As Ive mentioned several times, the only reason designers even attempt to tack on semblances of FFA PvP (Ie., FFA PvP servers) in MMORPGs is to maximize profits. This should be obvious to all when taking into consideration the manner in which FFA PvP is consistently a tacked on "afterthought" in MMORPGs. The unfortunate part in all of this is that the FFA PvP crowd's naivete in what constitutes a successful MMORPG only serves to advance their skewed belief that they are being seriously considered when designing MMORPGs, when in fact their only purpose in the endeavor is to "contribute" to company profits.
Whether you want to believe it or not, the fact of the matter is that designers are very much aware that the notion of an OW/FFA PvP MMORPG is a losing venture. Which is why it has never happened in a AAA title, and never will. Yes, EVE has managed to experience a measure of success with their little "spaceship" game, but their 500K player base is as much of an anomaly as WOWs 13Mil player base was at the height of its popularity. They are both games that benefited by being in the right place at the right time in the evolution of the MMO development spectrum. Neither accomplishment will be easily duplicated again.
Perpetuating the belief that a AAA developer would ever consider developing a AAA FFA PvP MMORPG will only ensure that the PVE/"consensual PvP MMORPG genre continues to line its pockets with your generous "donations," and I assure you your "donations" will go to a worthy cause in that they will continue to advance the PvE/"consensual PvP MMORPG genre you so ardently abhor.
What's the logical fallacy where someone fixates on a completely irrelevant point someone made and turns it into their entire argument, rather than addressing the actual points at hand?
His point remains:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
-What is a red herring?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Plus, the existence of several sandbox ffapvp game is not a reason for a pve sandbox or anything. The market does not "take turns" to produce all possible products and cover all playstyle.
It reacts to money. Sometimes some dev will do an experiment (like the first EQ, or now the new Destiny) but don't assume they do it just because some type of game does not exist. They probably have done in-depth market research, if millions and millions of dollars are at stake.
Sorry I was on vacation and didn't see the newer posts.
You make a good point. It suggests if big developers pour money into triple-A games with design decisions that legacy players don't agree with, they probably have a pretty good reason. Look at EverQuest Next for example.. forum rage over the lack of the tank-DPS-healer trinity, horizontal rather than vertical progression, art style, limited UI/action combat etc. The company is making a ton of decisions that are unpopular among forum-folk but are guaranteed to make money.
I'm still waiting for that game to dispell some of the PVP myths and announce open-world PVP.
Yes, just like all the MOBAs, Destiny, Division, online ARPGs ... devs are trying different online games, or games with some MMO features.
Some will succeed, some will fail. Time will tell.
http://www.twitter.com/PoIs0nMaN
http://www.facebook.com/PoIs0nMaN
http://www.youtube.com/PoIs0nMaN
http://steamcommunity.com/id/PoIsOnMaN
http://poisonman.wordpress.com/
#1 reason full pvp sucks....the community, or rather the cesspool it creates. I enjoy the competition of pvp, but I loathe with a hatred beyond comprehension this attitude that it now breeds in the so called community. Even the pvp in pve games like Rift has so many **********'s playing it is difficult to stomach. I should not have to turn off my warfront chat just to not have to deal with the tons of jerks spewing their crap in it every match. It has gotten so old I have nearly given up the genre. I enjoy the pvp aspect of MMO's, HATE the pvp community with a passion. I can barely stomach to be around these people anymore.
The op mentioned people scarred from UO, well I sir had a different experience. Guild vs. Guild on UO was awesome fun, and people did not need to act like total jackarses to have that fun. Daoc was great as well, where open chat was not filled with trolls and elitists, but rather a realm trying to work together to take out the enemies. Not saying there were never any jerks or spats in chat, but they were no where near what it is today. Old school pvp was fun, today it is a bunch of mental midgets who get off on being the internet bully because they obviously would get their face punched in if they did it in real life.
This is why I will never play a full pvp game again. Dealing with a minority of them in a pve game...whatever. Dealing with a server full? No thanks.
And how much did you wager?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I would never play ffa pvp.
I have played DAOC a three faction realm vs realm game of 24/7 conflict on and off(currently on :-) ) for 11+ years.Nothing compares despite numerous pretenders.
But ok, let's assume that your goal is indeed NOT to gank me:
You claim that i can leave anytime, that you'd even prefer if i did. What does that lead to? right: rather empty games, as can be seen all around. Fact is: PvP (full or not) invites, even encourages, people to gank others - sometimes that's the only way to "win" (or in your words: survive) someone else.
What's worse though:
PvP invites people to look for exploits and cheats and using them!
"You didn't know that i become invincible when i open open the menu, press xyz and do a little dance? well too bad for you, you should've been better informed!" "What do you mean, shooting through walls is an exploit? - you can do it only if... and that is a game mechanic, completely allowed and there for the knoweledgeable to use. too bad you're such a noob!"
These might seem off-topic and far-fetched, but aren't. it's stuff i have experienced and why i claim that "full PvP" does not work for a marketable, profitable MMO.
The core issue, from my point of view, isn't "PvP not not" or "full PvP or PvP only in some places" or somesuch.
The core issue is that MMO's are by nature things that go on whether the player is online or not. And that players, if they invest time, want to be certain that their "achievements" are still there if they log in a day, week month or year later. A not to be neglected reason for EQ's longlivety for example is that you can return years later and all your stuff - while most proably devalued by now - is still THERE. something that's simply not possible with "full PvP".
Personally, i do not "mind" playing in a full PvP environment, but i am the builder/economist type pf player and simply haven't seen a game mechanic that works to balance online and offline time.
Even lockout timers like they're used in EVE - and which look like a viable counter on the surface - only lead to "spawncamping", with the advantage given to those who can be online the most/longest/first.
As a player, i want the EFFORT (as measured in "productive online time") i put in a game to count for something.
That is easy enough for the PvP'er who grabs some cheap armor, some gun and goes out to a hunt - easy and quick "satisfaction", countable and all too.
For me as a builder or trader though, it means protecting my assets until i can log in again - login times are dictated by my RL schedule and NOT by a game! - which in turn means i HAVE to be able to make use of NPCs, in effect turning the game into a PvE game for most.
That's why i think that "full PvP" as you defined it, only works for multiplayergames where it's ensured that everyone is online at the same time. By "works" i mean that ofc it can be done in a MMO too, but such MMOs won't ever become much successful, simply because "time-challenged players", which are the majority, won't be able to "compete" on an even level, ever.
As a die hard PvPer, I disagree with the OP
MMOs must have balance. There is not one group large enough to support a AAA MMO.
The devs need to figure out how to balance it all.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here....
just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development
and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio.
Thank you for your patience.
Fine with me. I just won't play your game. Neither will most people. The game will fail and that will be that.
There are plenty of other games out there without "full PvP". I'll play those.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None