Originally posted by generals3 What you need to realize is that making the game full pvp unlocks a lot of gameplay possibilities.
What YOU apparently need to realize is that PvP, full or otherwise, LOCKS a lot of gameplay possibilities, for a number of players (on "the other end of the stick"). As, i might add, was nicely explained by Mendel.
Originally posted by generals3 Take EVE online, without full pvp and ships blowing up everywhere the economy would crash and industry/mining would crash as well.
This is baseless, not to say utter nonsense: "stuff" can be just as easily be taken out of a game by loosing it to NPCs, it NEED not be other players! But yes, "PvP" is the easiest way to faciliate that. Just not the only - let alone best - way.
Originally posted by generals3 On top of that full pvp makes things much spicier.
It makes things spicier for YOU, i don't argue that. That's not a reason to apply PvP to all though, much less to generalize/think that your opinion applies - or even just appeals - to all.
Originally posted by generals3 I live in low sec and the existence of constant threat makes PVE more exciting. "Will someone try to disrupt me while i'm clearing this complex? Will I be able to handle him? etc.".
All fine and dandy. You live in Low-Sec and therefore have taken a concious choice. However, If you think the "constant threat" that makes things spicey for you HAS to come from other players, you are thinking way too short! It's just YOUR preference, and that's probably why you seem to think it must be fun for everyone.
Originally posted by generals3 It adds a level of complexity and challenge.
Hell, no! Complexity has nothing to do with PvP at all. And challenge... well, YOUR challenge need not be MY challenge. If i am "ok" with being interrupted, i will TRAVEL to PvP areas should a game offer them. But in a full PvP game, there is no avoiding it, if i want it or not. I can't just log in for half an hour or an hour to mine asteroid without running the risk of someone jumping me and either extend that session (for a corpse run, recovery or whatever), cut it short or do something else meanwhile. None of these "consequences" of me being jumped has ANYTHING to do with me logging into the game that very evening in the first place, with the result of leaving me frustrated (from a GAME!!!) for sometime. That might be perfectly ok with you, but it's not what *i* expect from any game!
Yes, yes, now comes the old line "then play something else"... And i guarantee you, that as soon as a game offers what i want as the potential full PvP game we're meeting in, i will. Thing is: There are PvP games out there that i play not BECAUSE of the PvP, but DESPITE the PvP. Simply because it offers some feature(s) that appeal to me.
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.
lol. ok...
I am not going to discuss the points of your "non rebuttal" so all I am going to say is that I agree with the OP on every point. I see your 14+ years and up it to 17+ (Meridian 59, Bat MUD, Gemstone) years of proven experience playing and actually making PvP based Multiplayer games enjoyed by thousands of players. So quit trying to pass your preferred and biased playstyle off on someone like me who doesn't want it.
Originally posted by generals3 What you need to realize is that making the game full pvp unlocks a lot of gameplay possibilities.
What YOU apparently need to realize is that PvP, full or otherwise, LOCKS a lot of gameplay possibilities, for a number of players (on "the other end of the stick"). As, i might add, was nicely explained by Mendel.
Wrong. Everyone can do anything. Off course if you're not careful odds are you may end up interrupted or killed. But nothing is locked.
Originally posted by generals3 Take EVE online, without full pvp and ships blowing up everywhere the economy would crash and industry/mining would crash as well.
This is baseless, not to say utter nonsense: "stuff" can be just as easily be taken out of a game by loosing it to NPCs, it NEED not be other players! But yes, "PvP" is the easiest way to faciliate that. Just not the only - let alone best - way.
Actually losing it to npc's is much more difficult because they're scripted. You pretty much know what to expect and where. With players you don't; As such more losses occur. Now if you want to replicate player behavior through NPC's than sure. But than your precious PVE activities will still be interrupted just by an other type of enemy. And you will still blow up and rage. The only thing you would achieve is denying PVP'ers the ability to PVP.
Originally posted by generals3 On top of that full pvp makes things much spicier.
It makes things spicier for YOU, i don't argue that. That's not a reason to apply PvP to all though, much less to generalize/think that your opinion applies - or even just appeals - to all.
I've never said it does. I simply explained why people who like it may like it. Some people are hell bent on villifying pro PVP players based on assumptions and the ignorance of any other reason why they may like full PVP.
Originally posted by generals3 I live in low sec and the existence of constant threat makes PVE more exciting. "Will someone try to disrupt me while i'm clearing this complex? Will I be able to handle him? etc.".
All fine and dandy. You live in Low-Sec and therefore have taken a concious choice. However, If you think the "constant threat" that makes things spicey for you HAS to come from other players, you are thinking way too short! It's just YOUR preference, and that's probably why you seem to think it must be fun for everyone.
I have never said it was fun for everyone. Maybe i should have added "for me" after "exciting" but I thought that would have been pretty clear.
Originally posted by generals3 It adds a level of complexity and challenge.
Hell, no! Complexity has nothing to do with PvP at all. And challenge... well, YOUR challenge need not be MY challenge. If i am "ok" with being interrupted, i will TRAVEL to PvP areas should a game offer them. But in a full PvP game, there is no avoiding it, if i want it or not. I can't just log in for half an hour or an hour to mine asteroid without running the risk of someone jumping me and either extend that session (for a corpse run, recovery or whatever), cut it short or do something else meanwhile. None of these "consequences" of me being jumped has ANYTHING to do with me logging into the game that very evening in the first place, with the result of leaving me frustrated (from a GAME!!!) for sometime. That might be perfectly ok with you, but it's not what *i* expect from any game!
Yes, yes, now comes the old line "then play something else"... And i guarantee you, that as soon as a game offers what i want as the potential full PvP game we're meeting in, i will. Thing is: There are PvP games out there that i play not BECAUSE of the PvP, but DESPITE the PvP. Simply because it offers some feature(s) that appeal to me.
And I never said you expected that or should expect that from games. Everyone has his or her own tastes. You dislike full PVP games which is fine. But many others don't. And I gave my reasons why not. And it does add complexity. It makes many choices more meaningful and in the case of EVE it has created a 3D difficulty where difficulty is both determined by risk (linked to the area where the content is) and the difficulty of the content itself.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
And where did I say that enjoying PVP = being an anti-social asshat? I'm talking about a particular type of bottom-feeding scum who uses PVP games to be a bully, who is an asshat not because he PVPs but because he is. And he gets a free pass despite being the person who is giving PVP a bad name and preventing wider acceptance of it.
And you know damn well who they are, that they exists in numbers and that they only get slaps on the wrist. I and most PVPers want to enjoy a good fair PVP fight - win or lose.-- that's what it's all about. And most of us are also willing to forgive the occasional unfair gank.
I'm talking about banning the habitual dedicated ganker who gets his jollies out of repeatedly doing it. They are more harmful to games than gold sellers or botters. But they get a free pass out of some silly misguided sense that PVP should be either totally unregulated or just have some token half-assed regulation.
Your attitude of tolerance toward them is a typical example of why FFA PVP isn't mainstream. Unless they get serious about regulating it, it never will be.
My apologies i misunderstood.
And it's not a matter of tolerance it's a matter of preference towards methods to deal with it. I'd rather have a game where players police themselves when it comes to such things. As long as someone is not breaking the game (using bots, cheats, etc.) or resorting to out of game attacks it should be to the players to enforce their own rules. You don't like people who seem to enjoy only easy unfair fights and "bully"? Go do something about, go hunt him down, heck gather friends if needed. Give him some of his own medicine.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
And where did I say that enjoying PVP = being an anti-social asshat? I'm talking about a particular type of bottom-feeding scum who uses PVP games to be a bully, who is an asshat not because he PVPs but because he is. And he gets a free pass despite being the person who is giving PVP a bad name and preventing wider acceptance of it.
And you know damn well who they are, that they exists in numbers and that they only get slaps on the wrist. I and most PVPers want to enjoy a good fair PVP fight - win or lose.-- that's what it's all about. And most of us are also willing to forgive the occasional unfair gank.
I'm talking about banning the habitual dedicated ganker who gets his jollies out of repeatedly doing it. They are more harmful to games than gold sellers or botters. But they get a free pass out of some silly misguided sense that PVP should be either totally unregulated or just have some token half-assed regulation.
Your attitude of tolerance toward them is a typical example of why FFA PVP isn't mainstream. Unless they get serious about regulating it, it never will be.
My apologies i misunderstood.
And it's not a matter of tolerance it's a matter of preference towards methods to deal with it. I'd rather have a game where players police themselves when it comes to such things. As long as someone is not breaking the game (using bots, cheats, etc.) or resorting to out of game attacks it should be to the players to enforce their own rules. You don't like people who seem to enjoy only easy unfair fights and "bully"? Go do something about, go hunt him down, heck gather friends if needed. Give him some of his own medicine.
Yes. Like I already said "bullying the bully." It doesn't work because they will just do it again later to someone else and I would rather take my 50 friends and go against your 50 friends. Revenge hunts waste a lot of time and are not even all that much fun - except maybe for the original victim. It's about as much fun as running your level 15 friend through a dungeon when you're level 50 yourself: we all do it every now and then just to help out but it's not really why we play the game.
You're talking about anarchy. I'd rather have built-in "government" (i.e. developer) enforcement so I don't have to ever bother with them.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by generals3 Originally posted by lizardbonesIt's not semantics. Any game mechanics that work with PvP can be structured without PvP. PvP isn't necessary and it doesn't have some inherent quality that makes it 'good'. It just adds a type of game play that some people like and some people don't. It's only necessary for the people who like it. It is something that needs to be limited for people who do not like it. It doesn't matter what flowery language you try to throw in there, it's a preference, nothing more. If PvP had some inherent quality that made games better, then there would be more people playing OW PvP games, or there would be more people on OW PvP servers. There are fewer people playing OW PvP games than not, and there are far fewer people on OW PvP servers than on PvE servers. My comment on Eve was specifically about Eve. Eve was built from the beginning with PvP in mind. This could be said about the mechanics is most MMORPGs. Remove the primary mechanic of any game and the rest of the game will suffer. Removing the primary mechanic of Eve (OW PvP) would result in a game of lesser quality because the rest of the mechanics are built with the idea of that primary mechanic in mind. If OW PvP has some inherent quality that makes games 'better', then it should be possible to describe or quantify it in some way. If you can, describe the way that OW PvP makes a game better, without resorting to personal opinions. Also describe the way in which OW PvP differentiates itself from other challenges present in MMORPGs without resorting to personal opinions. If the description of OW PvP depends on personal opinions, then it's just a preference. Something that some people like and some people don't, but which doesn't have an inherently 'better' nature.
Maybe you need to read what i write. I never said PVP had an inherent quality. I said it opened doors. It allows gameplay which wouldn't work without it. If that were false than EVE would still work 100% fine if CCP removed PVP. Which i think you and i both know to be false.
Some people may not value that type of gameplay, sure. There is afteral no such thing as objectively better gameplay mechanics.
"Opening doors" would be an inherent quality. i.e. if you remove PvP those doors are shut. Describe the doors that are opened by PvP, that wouldn't otherwise be accessible. Would those door per chance lead to more PvP?
In Eve the role of other players could be replaced by NPCs. The players still have some risk, and possible rewards, they just wouldn't be fighting other players. You even have players in competition with each other, as rival corporations fight NPCs fielded by each corporation. The economy would move along the same way, without PvP. Whether or not it was as popular as Eve is would be determined by the preferences of the players. The only things that can't be done without PvP are PvP things.
Regarding your last sentence; if that is the case and what you believe, then what, exactly, are you arguing for?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by 123443211234 This right here, I can't remember the last AAA game that was designed around full pvp. [...] Give me territory and resource control, cities that can be sieged or destroyed, a meaningful death penalty (like full loot) and a game at its core designed around pvp.
Actually, no its not "at its core designed around pvp" if it covers all you listed. THAT only covers the "bully" side of PvP.
Now, how about adding some con-/re-straints? What mechanic is in place to "even the playfield" somewhat, so that noob_a can flee, let alone win against, bully_b? Can there be an even fight between bob_the_banker_with_two_online_hours_a_week vs. Clyde_the_unemployed? What happens to BoB's stuff when he's offline?
If i have somehow managed to acquire "property" (ships, stations, colonies...), am i truly expected to loose them to Ted_the_triggerhappy simply because he's online and i am not? What if we're both online, can he defeat me with something he's put in only a fraction of the effort i have?
Truly designing a game for "full PvP" takes a whole lot more than meets the eye. Especially more than meets YOUR eye, apparently.
And why, do you think, would anyone put that effort into a game that holds not TOO much appeal to the financially most profitable group: the "play_the_game_for_short_periods_of_time_per_month_but_for_years" group, you know, those that pay the same but do not "waste" CPU nor bandwidth much but log into (and fund) the game for years.
Originally posted by generals3 What you need to realize is that making the game full pvp unlocks a lot of gameplay possibilities.
What YOU apparently need to realize is that PvP, full or otherwise, LOCKS a lot of gameplay possibilities, for a number of players (on "the other end of the stick").
What exactly does full PvP lock out? Full PvP unlocks not being able to attack other people, it does not lock anything. Now if you are arguing that it makes some people not to want to do something because of the risk involved, well that is not locking as it is still possible.
Originally posted by generals3 Take EVE online, without full pvp and ships blowing up everywhere the economy would crash and industry/mining would crash as well.
This is baseless, not to say utter nonsense: "stuff" can be just as easily be taken out of a game by loosing it to NPCs, it NEED not be other players! But yes, "PvP" is the easiest way to faciliate that. Just not the only - let alone best - way.
I dont know about other games but PvP is by far the number one reason for getting blown up in Eve because people gate camp and gank you while PvE mobs are, by its nature and limitations, far less likely to kill you. And this is the way it is in most MMOs all the way back to EQ 1 or FF XI where you often could not get out of a bad fight. Modern MMOs allows you to be very selective about what mob you fight and as such far decrease the chance of you getting killed.
And where did I say that enjoying PVP = being an anti-social asshat? I'm talking about a particular type of bottom-feeding scum who uses PVP games to be a bully, who is an asshat not because he PVPs but because he is. And he gets a free pass despite being the person who is giving PVP a bad name and preventing wider acceptance of it.
And you know damn well who they are, that they exists in numbers and that they only get slaps on the wrist. I and most PVPers want to enjoy a good fair PVP fight - win or lose.-- that's what it's all about. And most of us are also willing to forgive the occasional unfair gank.
I'm talking about banning the habitual dedicated ganker who gets his jollies out of repeatedly doing it. They are more harmful to games than gold sellers or botters. But they get a free pass out of some silly misguided sense that PVP should be either totally unregulated or just have some token half-assed regulation.
Your attitude of tolerance toward them is a typical example of why FFA PVP isn't mainstream. Unless they get serious about regulating it, it never will be.
My apologies i misunderstood.
And it's not a matter of tolerance it's a matter of preference towards methods to deal with it. I'd rather have a game where players police themselves when it comes to such things. As long as someone is not breaking the game (using bots, cheats, etc.) or resorting to out of game attacks it should be to the players to enforce their own rules. You don't like people who seem to enjoy only easy unfair fights and "bully"? Go do something about, go hunt him down, heck gather friends if needed. Give him some of his own medicine.
Yes. Like I already said "bullying the bully." It doesn't work because they will just do it again later to someone else and I would rather take my 50 friends and go against your 50 friends. Revenge hunts waste a lot of time and are not even all that much fun - except maybe for the original victim. It's about as much fun as running your level 15 friend through a dungeon when you're level 50 yourself: we all do it every now and then just to help out but it's not really why we play the game.
You're talking about anarchy. I'd rather have built-in "government" (i.e. developer) enforcement so I don't have to ever bother with them.
Revenge hunts aren't all that fun for you perhaps. I've had some of the best times hunting someone down that ganked me or a friend earlier. It gives me incentive to become more powerful and adds something beyond just resource, pvp gear, and territory control. There are guilds in games dedicated to killing the habitual jerk. Also prevelant in this type of game are mercs which will exact the revenge for you for profit. Most bullies cannot take being the victim and will never go far due to their antisocial attitude and behavior. They are just speedbumps in my progression.
Most of the griefing in games that I have seen in a well designed FFA system are really a fight for territory or resources. If gatherers are stripping my territory, I want to be able to drive them out without a gamemaster smacking me on the hand and putting me in timeout. The gankees see me as a griefer, but I am really just protecting my area. Wrong place at the wrong time scenario.
I despise Pvp flagging immunity. So you can just type /pvpoff and continue to be a douche with no reprecussions? Not in my game!
Present: Current offerings are low quality or soloable
Past:AoC, DCUO, FFXI,FFXIV 1.0 and ARR,WoW,Fallen Earth, Tabula Rasa, TSW, SWTOR, Rift, Aion, WAR, Darkfall, STO, CoH/CoV, GW2, Diaspora, EQ2, DDO, and a bunch of forgettable ftp games
"Opening doors" would be an inherent quality. i.e. if you remove PvP those doors are shut. Describe the doors that are opened by PvP, that wouldn't otherwise be accessible. Would those door per chance lead to more PvP?
In Eve the role of other players could be replaced by NPCs. The players still have some risk, and possible rewards, they just wouldn't be fighting other players. You even have players in competition with each other, as rival corporations fight NPCs fielded by each corporation. The economy would move along the same way, without PvP. Whether or not it was as popular as Eve is would be determined by the preferences of the players. The only things that can't be done without PvP are PvP things.
Regarding your last sentence; if that is the case and what you believe, then what, exactly, are you arguing for?
What i'm arguing for is that PVP can bring things people like other than just PVP itself.
But off course if you go full ridiculous and think it is even possible to replace any player in the PVP role with NPC's than no PVP adds nothing more than just PVP. But why would anyone do that? Why would any dev spend thousands of hours making NPC's to do what the human players would do instead of just allowing the players to? And why would anyone even prefer that? Why would anyone think "I don't like to be ganked by real life players but NPC's is perfectly fine". All you managed to do is destroy the human interaction linked with all these things and waste thousands of hours of dev time. And that's why you'll never see an MMO with this.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
There are inevitable debates that pop up during the development of high-profile, triple-A MMOs.
This purpose of this thread is to dispel the myths about full PVP that grow back like weeds every time you cut them down. Hopefully this thread helps some folks see the point of view of those who are waiting patiently for a triple-A game with full PVP.
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.
I may need to expand on the defining characteristics after other folks weigh in.
The myths
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
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.
3. It’s PVP v.s. PVE and people who enjoy PVP are a niche.
This creates sort of a false dichotomy where you’re looking at a niche of gamers – those who only want to PVP – and ignoring the huge market of folks who want to PVP AND PVE. So the most passionate arguments are usually between those who want ONLY full PVP and those who want ONLY PVE. Both of these are arguably niche, but then again League of Legends is the most played game in the world with only PVP.
4. Okay - but the majority of people want PVP on their terms.
How many triple-A MMOs with full PVP have they even been able to try in the last 15 years? Who's to say they would find a triple-A game with full PVP distasteful? Games like Darkfall don't count, because they don't have mature systems to integrate with the PVP.
5. The answer is simple: Just let people flag themselves for PVP when they want to engage in it.
Things go wrong when you take a game designed for full PVP and let people opt in/out whenever they want. Take, for example, the risk v.s. reward characteristic. Human nature compels us to get rewards using the path that involves as little risk as possible. Even people who love risk would be stupid not to turn PVP off because it puts them at a distinct tactical disadvantage. This is like Game Geenie or any number of other hacks and it would break any game designed with full PVP.
6. The answer is simple: Just implement PVP and non-PVP servers.
You might as well have two different games, because full PVP requires a dedicated dev team to succeed. Remember, it’s not just the ability to attack people. It’s the integration of PVP with other game systems and risk v.s. reward. While a game with dedicated full-service dev teams for each server type would be great for players, it could also hurt publishers’ return on investment.
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.
The only thing this proves is that gamers don’t like a server where a core game mechanic has been merely “turned on” as an afterthought to the game’s design. The PVP is often meaningless in these games because it isn’t “full” PVP and is essentially in its own vaccuum.
Okay, so that’s what I was able to come up with so far. I’ll probably refine this and come up with a “v 2.0” after all of the arguments are made.
For the most part OP i agree with your well thought out and stated post.
I am a fan of full pvp games but not exclusively (look at my 2 games currently playing). I do have disagreements with you about two points though.
in point 1 you actually express the exact way i feel when i play PVP games. however we are not griefers. we are like the majority of pvp mmo players: we like PVP games so we play them. however you kinda make it seem like griefers aren't present in these games. They are. they are a pox on PVP mmo games for the reason that they cause players who might want to try a pvp game to get griefed and develop the mindset you mention in your point 1.
Again i admit they're a minority, but as the old adage goes, you put a spoonfull of sewage into a barrel of wine, you get sewage.
to me the best way to combat this is for the devs and the PVP players to have serious and continuing efforts to de-griefer their games. DF's banning of Hogg shortly after DFUW launch is a good start.
the only other point of contention I have is in your point 6. As someone who had EQ1 characters on both Xegony (normal) and one of the Zek servers, I thought the EQ folks did a really good job of making the game fun for both pvp and pve centric endeavours. It's certainly more work than just worrying about one type of play but it can be done for sure.
thanks again and I hope you enjoyed the feedback.
Itch
Da Skull
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Originally posted by generals3 Wrong. Everyone can do anything. Off course if you're not careful odds are you may end up interrupted or killed. But nothing is locked.
Meep. You really don't see it, do you? Nothing may be locked by game mechanisms, but much is locked by other players in a full PvP game. Unless i REact on the threat of said PvP'ers "the proper way". Which in itself means that another player can force HIS playstyle on me, even though i something completely different in mind when i logged on.
It can (is, really) undeniably be fun to force one's will onto another player. But it much less fun if you're the "forced" player, as Picard has tried in vain to point out.
Originally posted by generals3 Great way to destroy the trading profession and the dynamism off the economy. So yeah you just destroyed EVE. A static NPC driven market is not even remotely comparable to a player driven one.
Again, you manage to put many assumptions (false one too!) into a single paragraph. a) i don't care about EVE, it is - in MY eyes - not a "good game". it has it's upsides, yes. but too many downsides. b) whoever said that a NPC market needs to be "static"? c) a player-driven market only works if you already HAVE a certain number of players. d) even then, player-driven markets tend to be too volatile anyways, the more so the lower your game's population is. But yes, the two don't really "compare" as they have entirely different driving factors. But no, WoW never HAD anything like a market - not the way i was referring to. All you "loose" in WoW is some gold for repairs. Your answer tells me how little you understand of the core of my argument - please re-read with care, because my point has nothing to do with what you think about!
Originally posted by generals3 I've never said it does. I simply explained why people who like it may like it. Some people are hell bent on villifying pro PVP players based on assumptions and the ignorance of any other reason why they may like full PVP.
But you see, the whole point of this thread, as far as has been mentioned so far, was to promote "full PvP" for AAA-titles. In order to achieve that, it must appeal to "all", at least to enough of "all" to really make it profitable. And since you seem to like EVE, even that depends on "carebears" (i.e. the time-challenged players i mentioned above) to fund it. My point is, that unless you ALSO suggest ways to "meaningfully" integrate the PvE-crowd into your game, it's not going to happen because in the end the market's too small.
Originally posted by generals3 I have never said it was fun for everyone. Maybe i should have added "for me" after "exciting" but I thought that would have been pretty clear.
I got that you meant "for you", but you entirely missed my point: In order to market a game, one needs to take not only YOUR kind of fun into account, but also the next guy's (and thousands more of next guy's too).
You want full PvP games? Figure a way to address the points i made above instead of simply saying "thisorthat is fun to me!". I can assure you, that's not as easy as it sounds!
Originally posted by generals3 You dislike full PVP games which is fine. But many others don't. And I gave my reasons why not.
*sigh* I don't necessarily dislike full PvP games, i just haven't seen anyone yet that covers MY NEEDS as a player (i.e. making EFFORT put into the game count more than online time, protecting stuff while offline etc...). And i claim that the "many" you talk about that share your view, won't be "enough" to make "the ideal full PvP game" as you describe it profitable unless it INcludes the "can play two hours a week"-crowd in a meaningful and fun way.
Originally posted by generals3 And it does add complexity. It makes many choices more meaningful and in the case of EVE it has created a 3D difficulty where difficulty is both determined by risk (linked to the area where the content is) and the difficulty of the content itself.
Apparently we define "complexity" quite differently then, if complexity for you simply means "choices". EVE isn't the best of examples, but since you keep referring to it, there's NOTHING that EVE offers that PvE or consentual PvP couldn't also offer (and do it even better, in a more predictable and much more manageable way for both devs and players), if - in the OP's words - "done well".
Meep. You really don't see it, do you? Nothing may be locked by game mechanisms, but much is locked by other players in a full PvP game. Unless i REact on the threat of said PvP'ers "the proper way". Which in itself means that another player can force HIS playstyle on me, even though i something completely different in mind when i logged on.
It can (is, really) undeniably be fun to force one's will onto another player. But it much less fun if you're the "forced" player, as Picard has tried in vain to point out.
But that still doesn't mean being locked out of anything now does it. And while it may be less fund to be the forced player the idea one may be forced out at one point or an other may appeal to people. Does it to everyone? No. But than again nothing appeals to everyone.
But you see, the whole point of this thread, as far as has been mentioned so far, was to promote "full PvP" for AAA-titles. In order to achieve that, it must appeal to "all", at least to enough of "all" to really make it profitable. And since you seem to like EVE, even that depends on "carebears" (i.e. the time-challenged players i mentioned above) to fund it. My point is, that unless you ALSO suggest ways to "meaningfully" integrate the PvE-crowd into your game, it's not going to happen because in the end the market's too small.
Wasn't the purpose of the topic to dispell myths about full PVP? And a full PVP game done right does integrate the PVE crowd. The PVE crowd always has a role and the PVP aspect doesn't always hurt the PVE crowd. My PVE experience is better because of the PVP in EVE. Now off course some don't like it (because hey, opinions diverge) but the concept of integrating PVE with PVP has already been done.
I got that you meant "for you", but you entirely missed my point: In order to market a game, one needs to take not only YOUR kind of fun into account, but also the next guy's (and thousands more of next guy's too).
You want full PvP games? Figure a way to address the points i made above instead of simply saying "thisorthat is fun to me!". I can assure you, that's not as easy as it sounds!
I think it was already pretty well achieved in EVE. Heck EVE even balanced out the whole "time challenged" part by making skills something you learn through time and not playing. Can only play 2 hours a day? You'll still be able to skill up as much as someone who plays 24/7. You may have monetary issues, but the great thing is that the return on money invested is diminishing.
Originally posted by generals3 You dislike full PVP games which is fine. But many others don't. And I gave my reasons why not.
*sigh* I don't necessarily dislike full PvP games, i just haven't seen anyone yet that covers MY NEEDS as a player (i.e. making EFFORT put into the game count more than online time, protecting stuff while offline etc...). And i claim that the "many" you talk about that share your view, won't be "enough" to make "the ideal full PvP game" as you describe it profitable unless it INcludes the "can play two hours a week"-crowd in a meaningful and fun way.
Protecting stuff while offline: Guilds/clans/alliances. Or gameplay mechanics making it a hard endeavor to destroy it. To take EVE as example, blowing up a POS in wormholes (which are usually owned by one or a few persons) you'll meet quite a few logistical burdens making it in many cases unprofitable/not worth it for the potential attackers. And the whole effort vs. time issue is one pretty much universal to all MMO's...
Apparently we define "complexity" quite differently then, if complexity for you simply means "choices". EVE isn't the best of examples, but since you keep referring to it, there's NOTHING that EVE offers that PvE or consentual PvP couldn't also offer (and do it even better, in a more predictable and much more manageable way for both devs and players), if - in the OP's words - "done well".
Well yes. More meaningful choices adds more complexity. You have several types of complexities but usually the main one is whether or not there just one good way to do things. If there is the game becomes mind numbingly stupid and easy. All you need is to always replicate the "I Win" choice. And the idea that EVE doesn't offer anything consensual pvp or pve offers merely shows you've never played the game or stopped before the trial ran out. And predictability is actually what i believe to be the single greatest issue with games. I hate it because it's boring. When you know what's coming you can basically never lose unless you really messed up somewhere. That's why i play games multiplayer. AI's are too predictable and boring.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Originally posted by 123443211234 This right here, I can't remember the last AAA game that was designed around full pvp. [...] Give me territory and resource control, cities that can be sieged or destroyed, a meaningful death penalty (like full loot) and a game at its core designed around pvp.
Actually, no its not "at its core designed around pvp" if it covers all you listed. THAT only covers the "bully" side of PvP.
Look I wasn't trying to go too in depth obviously there can be even more additions to the world and game mechanics as long as it is built from the ground up to be based on ffa pvp.
Now, how about adding some con-/re-straints? What mechanic is in place to "even the playfield" somewhat, so that noob_a can flee, let alone win against, bully_b?
How about fps based targeting so you have to aim at what you want to hit? That right there is a massive gap closer or increaser both in literal gameplay movement terms and skill level terms.
Can there be an even fight between bob_the_banker_with_two_online_hours_a_week vs. Clyde_the_unemployed?
Nope, sorry pvp is competetive, I'm not going to forcibly dumb the game down to cater to the ultra casual crowd. The guy that plays 40 hours a week will always have some type of an advantage over the 2 hour a week guy, even if that advantage is just practicing and dueling a ton more so he's just plain better at the game.
What happens to BoB's stuff when he's offline?
Depends on the game design obviously some sort of protection would be desirable, but nothing permanent, nothing that doesn't expire within a week or two if he quits, and ideally nothing that cannot be forcibly taken ie. like sieging a player city or having a tax system on player housing.
If i have somehow managed to acquire "property" (ships, stations, colonies...), am i truly expected to loose them to Ted_the_triggerhappy simply because he's online and i am not?
Depends, read answer above again if confused.
What if we're both online, can he defeat me with something he's put in only a fraction of the effort i have?
It should depend on a number of factors including skill level, weapons/gear, amount of enemies/friendlies, terrain etc.... Ultimately it should come down to how well either of you is prepared.
Truly designing a game for "full PvP" takes a whole lot more than meets the eye. Especially more than meets YOUR eye, apparently.
Actually I have quite a large amount of pvp experience from a variety of games both AAA and indie titles. Enough to know what would actually make a full pvp game work.
And why, do you think, would anyone put that effort into a game that holds not TOO much appeal to the financially most profitable group:
Because it is the game the developers themselves would want to play. (like darkfall or even mortal online for instance both indie and lacking in key areas but not made for profit made for fun)
Ok, as a player of PvP and PvE games I wanted to put my 2 cents in.
Here's my beef, all of these PvE players here are like "Open PvP makes it so I can't play like I want". I want you to STOP and THINK. By making this statement you are, in fact, being horribly selfish hypocrites. Have you ever considered that your stopping PvPers from playing how THEY want? It's a double sided coin, so don't use that point in an argument like this.
My other beef is with the PvE players who think EVERY GAME should be PvE. Even if it was published elsewhere as a PvP. I'll give you an example.
A few months back there was an unnamed game being published by an unnamed company. The game in question was successful in eastern markets and they were brining it to the Americas and Europe. The original game was open world PvP. Now, as I'm sure fans of OPvP can expect by now, there was a vast outcry from PvE'ers. This, in the end, forced the publisher to demand the developers put in a flagged PvP system, the game did horribly right from launch. The PvPers wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole and the PvE'ers felt there was no content.
What I'm trying to get across is, PvE'ers you have your games. Don't try and convert other games because "ZOMG I DON'T LIKE PVP". It just ruins everything in the end.
Originally posted by generals3 Originally posted by lizardbones
"Opening doors" would be an inherent quality. i.e. if you remove PvP those doors are shut. Describe the doors that are opened by PvP, that wouldn't otherwise be accessible. Would those door per chance lead to more PvP? In Eve the role of other players could be replaced by NPCs. The players still have some risk, and possible rewards, they just wouldn't be fighting other players. You even have players in competition with each other, as rival corporations fight NPCs fielded by each corporation. The economy would move along the same way, without PvP. Whether or not it was as popular as Eve is would be determined by the preferences of the players. The only things that can't be done without PvP are PvP things. Regarding your last sentence; if that is the case and what you believe, then what, exactly, are you arguing for? What i'm arguing for is that PVP can bring things people like other than just PVP itself.
But off course if you go full ridiculous and think it is even possible to replace any player in the PVP role with NPC's than no PVP adds nothing more than just PVP. But why would anyone do that? Why would any dev spend thousands of hours making NPC's to do what the human players would do instead of just allowing the players to? And why would anyone even prefer that? Why would anyone think "I don't like to be ganked by real life players but NPC's is perfectly fine". All you managed to do is destroy the human interaction linked with all these things and waste thousands of hours of dev time. And that's why you'll never see an MMO with this.
?
I didn't say have the AI do exactly what other players do. I said implement mechanics that take the place of the PvP mechanics. NPCs can take the place of players, without acting like players. Why would a developer do this? Because there are more people who would rather fight an AI than fight other players.
Besides, you already see MMORPGs like this. Most MMORPGs are already like this. Full of NPCs for players to fight instead of other players. Most players are fighting the AI, not other players.
You never did say what PvP added to a game other than PvP. What game element does adding PvP allow, that isn't possible with a purely PvE mechanic or solution?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Love all the macho posturing on this. PvP imaginging themselves as "hard" as those that don't like it are ""care bears".
If we saw these hilarious buffoons who think one sort of gameplay is "Tougher and more Chuck Norris" than another - I bet it's the other way around and those who like to bully in full on PvP are substituting for being 8 stone weaklings IRL
Hate PvP. No reason proper crafting, professions and interaction should be limited to PvP at all. Hell Dwarf Fortress has the deepest crafting system I've ever played (and the toughest) and it's a single player game. Don't need PvP to make things meaningful and those that think so are just plain wrong.
Love all the macho posturing on this. PvP imaginging themselves as "hard" as those that don't like it are ""care bears".
If we saw these hilarious buffoons who think one sort of gameplay is "Tougher and more Chuck Norris" than another - I bet it's the other way around and those who like to bully in full on PvP are substituting for being 8 stone weaklings IRL
Lol - ok 18 stone weaklings - but the ideas the same
I played shadowbane for 4 years (open world no safe pvp, thieves can steal items off you etc) and all we did was grief. Why the hell would you fight someone that would win? 99% of full PVP is someone strong beating on someone much weaker, its just human nature. Clear out noob leveling areas, gank groups in high level areas during raids/group pulls. Siege peoples cities at odd hours so they can't fight back. This is exactly how eve and darkfall are too.
Absolutely nothing tough about playing more than someone and using it to waste their time/game experience. It used to make me feel good when I was younger, but now I'd much rather fight on even ground so I stick with mobas and MvC if I want to PvP.
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.
I have to agree. I commend the OP for the effort and well written post, but I can only agree with Azzamasin.
This thread is another good example of how "FFA PvP" proponents do not want any compromise, but want to force their play style on everyone else.
Exactly!!! 110% of the PvP crowd, and I hate to use this term because it makes it sound like there are camps. But the PvP crowd, namely the FFA PvP crowd will never settle, will never compromise and I do not understand how anyone can be so blinded and obtuse to an argument with opinionated fallacy.
I had to report this douchebag for trolling.
These trolls offer no rebuttal, they only lash out emotionally whenever a subject they disagree with comes up. Nobody forced them to click on this thread, yet they clicked on the thread and proceeded to add a worthless rant about it.
I played shadowbane for 4 years (open world no safe pvp, thieves can steal items off you etc) and all we did was grief. Why the hell would you fight someone that would win? 99% of full PVP is someone strong beating on someone much weaker, its just human nature. Clear out noob leveling areas, gank groups in high level areas during raids/group pulls. Siege peoples cities at odd hours so they can't fight back. This is exactly how eve and darkfall are too.
Absolutely nothing tough about playing more than someone and using it to waste their time/game experience. It used to make me feel good when I was younger, but now I'd much rather fight on even ground so I stick with mobas and MvC if I want to PvP.
That question is rather silly. Just look at RTS's online, many make "pro only" games, even for 1vs1's. Why? Because beating a tough guy is more challenging and fun for many than getting an easy win. Same goes with PVP in MMO's. I like even fights because there is more challenge and adrenaline involved and it feels much more satisfying when you win. And let's also not forget the boredom factor. I have heroed quite a few times in EVE because i just wanted to pewpew. I may have lost a ship but at least i got to lose while having fun. Not every PVP'er is a coward who doesn't dare engage in even fights.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
I didn't say have the AI do exactly what other players do. I said implement mechanics that take the place of the PvP mechanics. NPCs can take the place of players, without acting like players. Why would a developer do this? Because there are more people who would rather fight an AI than fight other players.
Besides, you already see MMORPGs like this. Most MMORPGs are already like this. Full of NPCs for players to fight instead of other players. Most players are fighting the AI, not other players.
You never did say what PvP added to a game other than PvP. What game element does adding PvP allow, that isn't possible with a purely PvE mechanic or solution?
Sure you did. You claimed that every type of content added by PVP could just be replaced with NPC's. That would mean that you'd need to have a buttload of NPC's doing all kinds of things. NPC's engaging in interdictions to disrupt certain mining processes which results in market price fluctuations (meaning that the NPC's buying on the market would also need to adapt their prices to NPC caused events such as this). In order to keep the 3D difficulty in EVE you'd also need to create NPC's which can pop-up and harass missioners/miners in low/null/WH's and these must be random off course (otherwise they become predictable and the risks can be easily countered).
And yes most MMO's are filled with NPC's. But these NPC's are simplistic and the content loses a lot of depth and inpredictability. I don't think there are many MMO's where NPC's are involved into political games like Nullsec alliances in EVE. There are also not many MMO's with NPC's which suddenly decide to go full berserk on people harvesting a certain resource in order to reduce the supply and make lots of profits. You also won't have many MMO's where you can "hire" NPC's to get rid of PVE'ers using resources you want to have. That's why FFA PVP opens a lot of doors. These things are never used in MMORPG's through NPC's because:
A) It would cost an insane amount of money/dev time
The impact of these things would be the same for those on the receiving end (being suicide ganked by an NPC has the same effect as being suicide ganked by a player) and consequently you'd just be removing the ability of players to be the ones on the dealing end and spending a buttload of time/money for the sake of restricting PVP?
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Comments
As, i might add, was nicely explained by Mendel. This is baseless, not to say utter nonsense:
"stuff" can be just as easily be taken out of a game by loosing it to NPCs, it NEED not be other players!
But yes, "PvP" is the easiest way to faciliate that.
Just not the only - let alone best - way. It makes things spicier for YOU, i don't argue that.
That's not a reason to apply PvP to all though, much less to generalize/think that your opinion applies - or even just appeals - to all. All fine and dandy.
You live in Low-Sec and therefore have taken a concious choice.
However, If you think the "constant threat" that makes things spicey for you HAS to come from other players, you are thinking way too short!
It's just YOUR preference, and that's probably why you seem to think it must be fun for everyone. Hell, no!
Complexity has nothing to do with PvP at all.
And challenge... well, YOUR challenge need not be MY challenge.
If i am "ok" with being interrupted, i will TRAVEL to PvP areas should a game offer them.
But in a full PvP game, there is no avoiding it, if i want it or not.
I can't just log in for half an hour or an hour to mine asteroid without running the risk of someone jumping me and either extend that session (for a corpse run, recovery or whatever), cut it short or do something else meanwhile.
None of these "consequences" of me being jumped has ANYTHING to do with me logging into the game that very evening in the first place, with the result of leaving me frustrated (from a GAME!!!) for sometime.
That might be perfectly ok with you, but it's not what *i* expect from any game!
Yes, yes, now comes the old line "then play something else"...
And i guarantee you, that as soon as a game offers what i want as the potential full PvP game we're meeting in, i will.
Thing is:
There are PvP games out there that i play not BECAUSE of the PvP, but DESPITE the PvP.
Simply because it offers some feature(s) that appeal to me.
lol. ok...
I am not going to discuss the points of your "non rebuttal" so all I am going to say is that I agree with the OP on every point. I see your 14+ years and up it to 17+ (Meridian 59, Bat MUD, Gemstone) years of proven experience playing and actually making PvP based Multiplayer games enjoyed by thousands of players. So quit trying to pass your preferred and biased playstyle off on someone like me who doesn't want it.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
My apologies i misunderstood.
And it's not a matter of tolerance it's a matter of preference towards methods to deal with it. I'd rather have a game where players police themselves when it comes to such things. As long as someone is not breaking the game (using bots, cheats, etc.) or resorting to out of game attacks it should be to the players to enforce their own rules. You don't like people who seem to enjoy only easy unfair fights and "bully"? Go do something about, go hunt him down, heck gather friends if needed. Give him some of his own medicine.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Yes. Like I already said "bullying the bully." It doesn't work because they will just do it again later to someone else and I would rather take my 50 friends and go against your 50 friends. Revenge hunts waste a lot of time and are not even all that much fun - except maybe for the original victim. It's about as much fun as running your level 15 friend through a dungeon when you're level 50 yourself: we all do it every now and then just to help out but it's not really why we play the game.
You're talking about anarchy. I'd rather have built-in "government" (i.e. developer) enforcement so I don't have to ever bother with them.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Some people may not value that type of gameplay, sure. There is afteral no such thing as objectively better gameplay mechanics.
"Opening doors" would be an inherent quality. i.e. if you remove PvP those doors are shut. Describe the doors that are opened by PvP, that wouldn't otherwise be accessible. Would those door per chance lead to more PvP?
In Eve the role of other players could be replaced by NPCs. The players still have some risk, and possible rewards, they just wouldn't be fighting other players. You even have players in competition with each other, as rival corporations fight NPCs fielded by each corporation. The economy would move along the same way, without PvP. Whether or not it was as popular as Eve is would be determined by the preferences of the players. The only things that can't be done without PvP are PvP things.
Regarding your last sentence; if that is the case and what you believe, then what, exactly, are you arguing for?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
My gaming blog
THAT only covers the "bully" side of PvP.
Now, how about adding some con-/re-straints?
What mechanic is in place to "even the playfield" somewhat, so that noob_a can flee, let alone win against, bully_b?
Can there be an even fight between bob_the_banker_with_two_online_hours_a_week vs. Clyde_the_unemployed?
What happens to BoB's stuff when he's offline?
If i have somehow managed to acquire "property" (ships, stations, colonies...), am i truly expected to loose them to Ted_the_triggerhappy simply because he's online and i am not?
What if we're both online, can he defeat me with something he's put in only a fraction of the effort i have?
Truly designing a game for "full PvP" takes a whole lot more than meets the eye.
Especially more than meets YOUR eye, apparently.
And why, do you think, would anyone put that effort into a game that holds not TOO much appeal to the financially most profitable group:
the "play_the_game_for_short_periods_of_time_per_month_but_for_years" group, you know, those that pay the same but do not "waste" CPU nor bandwidth much but log into (and fund) the game for years.
What exactly does full PvP lock out? Full PvP unlocks not being able to attack other people, it does not lock anything. Now if you are arguing that it makes some people not to want to do something because of the risk involved, well that is not locking as it is still possible.
I dont know about other games but PvP is by far the number one reason for getting blown up in Eve because people gate camp and gank you while PvE mobs are, by its nature and limitations, far less likely to kill you. And this is the way it is in most MMOs all the way back to EQ 1 or FF XI where you often could not get out of a bad fight. Modern MMOs allows you to be very selective about what mob you fight and as such far decrease the chance of you getting killed.
My gaming blog
Revenge hunts aren't all that fun for you perhaps. I've had some of the best times hunting someone down that ganked me or a friend earlier. It gives me incentive to become more powerful and adds something beyond just resource, pvp gear, and territory control. There are guilds in games dedicated to killing the habitual jerk. Also prevelant in this type of game are mercs which will exact the revenge for you for profit. Most bullies cannot take being the victim and will never go far due to their antisocial attitude and behavior. They are just speedbumps in my progression.
Most of the griefing in games that I have seen in a well designed FFA system are really a fight for territory or resources. If gatherers are stripping my territory, I want to be able to drive them out without a gamemaster smacking me on the hand and putting me in timeout. The gankees see me as a griefer, but I am really just protecting my area. Wrong place at the wrong time scenario.
I despise Pvp flagging immunity. So you can just type /pvpoff and continue to be a douche with no reprecussions? Not in my game!
Current PC Build
http://pcpartpicker.com/b/p8RBD3
Present: Current offerings are low quality or soloable
Past:AoC, DCUO, FFXI,FFXIV 1.0 and ARR,WoW,Fallen Earth, Tabula Rasa, TSW, SWTOR, Rift, Aion, WAR, Darkfall, STO, CoH/CoV, GW2, Diaspora, EQ2, DDO, and a bunch of forgettable ftp games
What i'm arguing for is that PVP can bring things people like other than just PVP itself.
But off course if you go full ridiculous and think it is even possible to replace any player in the PVP role with NPC's than no PVP adds nothing more than just PVP. But why would anyone do that? Why would any dev spend thousands of hours making NPC's to do what the human players would do instead of just allowing the players to? And why would anyone even prefer that? Why would anyone think "I don't like to be ganked by real life players but NPC's is perfectly fine". All you managed to do is destroy the human interaction linked with all these things and waste thousands of hours of dev time. And that's why you'll never see an MMO with this.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
For the most part OP i agree with your well thought out and stated post.
I am a fan of full pvp games but not exclusively (look at my 2 games currently playing). I do have disagreements with you about two points though.
in point 1 you actually express the exact way i feel when i play PVP games. however we are not griefers. we are like the majority of pvp mmo players: we like PVP games so we play them. however you kinda make it seem like griefers aren't present in these games. They are. they are a pox on PVP mmo games for the reason that they cause players who might want to try a pvp game to get griefed and develop the mindset you mention in your point 1.
Again i admit they're a minority, but as the old adage goes, you put a spoonfull of sewage into a barrel of wine, you get sewage.
to me the best way to combat this is for the devs and the PVP players to have serious and continuing efforts to de-griefer their games. DF's banning of Hogg shortly after DFUW launch is a good start.
the only other point of contention I have is in your point 6. As someone who had EQ1 characters on both Xegony (normal) and one of the Zek servers, I thought the EQ folks did a really good job of making the game fun for both pvp and pve centric endeavours. It's certainly more work than just worrying about one type of play but it can be done for sure.
thanks again and I hope you enjoyed the feedback.
Itch
Da Skull
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
You really don't see it, do you?
Nothing may be locked by game mechanisms, but much is locked by other players in a full PvP game.
Unless i REact on the threat of said PvP'ers "the proper way".
Which in itself means that another player can force HIS playstyle on me, even though i something completely different in mind when i logged on.
It can (is, really) undeniably be fun to force one's will onto another player.
But it much less fun if you're the "forced" player, as Picard has tried in vain to point out.
Again, you manage to put many assumptions (false one too!) into a single paragraph.a) i don't care about EVE, it is - in MY eyes - not a "good game". it has it's upsides, yes. but too many downsides.
b) whoever said that a NPC market needs to be "static"?
c) a player-driven market only works if you already HAVE a certain number of players.
d) even then, player-driven markets tend to be too volatile anyways, the more so the lower your game's population is.
But yes, the two don't really "compare" as they have entirely different driving factors.
But no, WoW never HAD anything like a market - not the way i was referring to. All you "loose" in WoW is some gold for repairs.
Your answer tells me how little you understand of the core of my argument - please re-read with care, because my point has nothing to do with what you think about!
But you see, the whole point of this thread, as far as has been mentioned so far, was to promote "full PvP" for AAA-titles.In order to achieve that, it must appeal to "all", at least to enough of "all" to really make it profitable.
And since you seem to like EVE, even that depends on "carebears" (i.e. the time-challenged players i mentioned above) to fund it.
My point is, that unless you ALSO suggest ways to "meaningfully" integrate the PvE-crowd into your game, it's not going to happen because in the end the market's too small.
I got that you meant "for you", but you entirely missed my point:In order to market a game, one needs to take not only YOUR kind of fun into account, but also the next guy's (and thousands more of next guy's too).
You want full PvP games?
Figure a way to address the points i made above instead of simply saying "thisorthat is fun to me!".
I can assure you, that's not as easy as it sounds!
*sigh*I don't necessarily dislike full PvP games, i just haven't seen anyone yet that covers MY NEEDS as a player (i.e. making EFFORT put into the game count more than online time, protecting stuff while offline etc...).
And i claim that the "many" you talk about that share your view, won't be "enough" to make "the ideal full PvP game" as you describe it profitable unless it INcludes the "can play two hours a week"-crowd in a meaningful and fun way. Apparently we define "complexity" quite differently then, if complexity for you simply means "choices".
EVE isn't the best of examples, but since you keep referring to it, there's NOTHING that EVE offers that PvE or consentual PvP couldn't also offer (and do it even better, in a more predictable and much more manageable way for both devs and players), if - in the OP's words - "done well".
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Ok, as a player of PvP and PvE games I wanted to put my 2 cents in.
Here's my beef, all of these PvE players here are like "Open PvP makes it so I can't play like I want". I want you to STOP and THINK. By making this statement you are, in fact, being horribly selfish hypocrites. Have you ever considered that your stopping PvPers from playing how THEY want? It's a double sided coin, so don't use that point in an argument like this.
My other beef is with the PvE players who think EVERY GAME should be PvE. Even if it was published elsewhere as a PvP. I'll give you an example.
A few months back there was an unnamed game being published by an unnamed company. The game in question was successful in eastern markets and they were brining it to the Americas and Europe. The original game was open world PvP. Now, as I'm sure fans of OPvP can expect by now, there was a vast outcry from PvE'ers. This, in the end, forced the publisher to demand the developers put in a flagged PvP system, the game did horribly right from launch. The PvPers wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole and the PvE'ers felt there was no content.
What I'm trying to get across is, PvE'ers you have your games. Don't try and convert other games because "ZOMG I DON'T LIKE PVP". It just ruins everything in the end.
What i'm arguing for is that PVP can bring things people like other than just PVP itself.
But off course if you go full ridiculous and think it is even possible to replace any player in the PVP role with NPC's than no PVP adds nothing more than just PVP. But why would anyone do that? Why would any dev spend thousands of hours making NPC's to do what the human players would do instead of just allowing the players to? And why would anyone even prefer that? Why would anyone think "I don't like to be ganked by real life players but NPC's is perfectly fine". All you managed to do is destroy the human interaction linked with all these things and waste thousands of hours of dev time. And that's why you'll never see an MMO with this.
?
I didn't say have the AI do exactly what other players do. I said implement mechanics that take the place of the PvP mechanics. NPCs can take the place of players, without acting like players. Why would a developer do this? Because there are more people who would rather fight an AI than fight other players.
Besides, you already see MMORPGs like this. Most MMORPGs are already like this. Full of NPCs for players to fight instead of other players. Most players are fighting the AI, not other players.
You never did say what PvP added to a game other than PvP. What game element does adding PvP allow, that isn't possible with a purely PvE mechanic or solution?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Love all the macho posturing on this. PvP imaginging themselves as "hard" as those that don't like it are ""care bears".
If we saw these hilarious buffoons who think one sort of gameplay is "Tougher and more Chuck Norris" than another - I bet it's the other way around and those who like to bully in full on PvP are substituting for being 8 stone weaklings IRL
Hate PvP. No reason proper crafting, professions and interaction should be limited to PvP at all. Hell Dwarf Fortress has the deepest crafting system I've ever played (and the toughest) and it's a single player game. Don't need PvP to make things meaningful and those that think so are just plain wrong.
Lol - ok 18 stone weaklings - but the ideas the same
I played shadowbane for 4 years (open world no safe pvp, thieves can steal items off you etc) and all we did was grief. Why the hell would you fight someone that would win? 99% of full PVP is someone strong beating on someone much weaker, its just human nature. Clear out noob leveling areas, gank groups in high level areas during raids/group pulls. Siege peoples cities at odd hours so they can't fight back. This is exactly how eve and darkfall are too.
Absolutely nothing tough about playing more than someone and using it to waste their time/game experience. It used to make me feel good when I was younger, but now I'd much rather fight on even ground so I stick with mobas and MvC if I want to PvP.
I had to report this douchebag for trolling.
These trolls offer no rebuttal, they only lash out emotionally whenever a subject they disagree with comes up. Nobody forced them to click on this thread, yet they clicked on the thread and proceeded to add a worthless rant about it.
That's trolling.
Add a comprehensible rebuttal or STFU and GTFO.
That question is rather silly. Just look at RTS's online, many make "pro only" games, even for 1vs1's. Why? Because beating a tough guy is more challenging and fun for many than getting an easy win. Same goes with PVP in MMO's. I like even fights because there is more challenge and adrenaline involved and it feels much more satisfying when you win. And let's also not forget the boredom factor. I have heroed quite a few times in EVE because i just wanted to pewpew. I may have lost a ship but at least i got to lose while having fun. Not every PVP'er is a coward who doesn't dare engage in even fights.
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
Sure you did. You claimed that every type of content added by PVP could just be replaced with NPC's. That would mean that you'd need to have a buttload of NPC's doing all kinds of things. NPC's engaging in interdictions to disrupt certain mining processes which results in market price fluctuations (meaning that the NPC's buying on the market would also need to adapt their prices to NPC caused events such as this). In order to keep the 3D difficulty in EVE you'd also need to create NPC's which can pop-up and harass missioners/miners in low/null/WH's and these must be random off course (otherwise they become predictable and the risks can be easily countered).
And yes most MMO's are filled with NPC's. But these NPC's are simplistic and the content loses a lot of depth and inpredictability. I don't think there are many MMO's where NPC's are involved into political games like Nullsec alliances in EVE. There are also not many MMO's with NPC's which suddenly decide to go full berserk on people harvesting a certain resource in order to reduce the supply and make lots of profits. You also won't have many MMO's where you can "hire" NPC's to get rid of PVE'ers using resources you want to have. That's why FFA PVP opens a lot of doors. These things are never used in MMORPG's through NPC's because:
A) It would cost an insane amount of money/dev time
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.