Death of FFA PvP? Since when has this been mainstream or even remotely popular? Its always been a very small amount of people interested in this type of play.
Well.... If someone broke into your house and stole your HDTV they aren't really hurting you either. You're perfectly healthy. You just lost something that worked for several hours to get. If you get stressed out over it then I'm sorry, but that's not my problem ...Wow. Shocking, I thought I'd never see this before. Someone who can't understand that a game is...Oh my Gawwwdddddd...A GAME! Go forward and trek that unchartered land of reality...
Next person that compares real life illegal, violent, and immoral acts, to a game, trying to pretend that they can be even REMOTELY similar, will find torture and death at the means and ways of a soldering iron, and acid.
It's no wonder people bitch so much when they die at the hands of a mob, or a PK'er: They can't disassimilate their connection, and ultimate blurring of fiction, and reality.
While you do have a point I feel you overplay it a bit. And you refuse to acknowledge that there is a point to what Jimmy says too. (And I know I write this at the risk of being tortured and killed)
The point: There are actual people behind those pixels, and even if it is part of the game that you might kill him, and are in your right to do so (the character, of course), I'd say there are quite enough of those who go beyond that and work very actively to make their victims miserable and make the game unplayable for them. Which does hurt real people, regardless of how little you care.
"It's no wonder people bitch so much when they die at the hands of a mob, or a PK'er: They can't disassimilate their connection, and ultimate blurring of fiction, and reality."
Are you opposed to permadeath? Does the idea of losing your character upon death bother you? If so, why? Because it is important to you? Because it somehow affects the real you even if it is nothing but pixels, some diskspace and a little bit of memory here and there?
Very much rethorical questions. And I ask them in hopes that you will consider them honestly and decide whatever the answers mean to you. I don't ask to imply that I know something you don't, or that your view is inferior to mine. I hope I've made myself clear.
The future: Adellion Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants) Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens) Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Shocking, I thought I'd never see this before. Someone who can't understand that a game is...Oh my Gawwwdddddd...A GAME!
Next person that compares real life illegal, violent, and immoral acts, to a game, trying to pretend that they can be even REMOTELY similar, will find torture and death at the means and ways of a soldering iron, and acid.
It's no wonder people bitch so much when they die at the hands of a mob, or a PK'er: They can't disassimilate their connection, and ultimate blurring of fiction, and reality.
Alrighty! Let's get a few things very clear, very fast. The people you are playing with and the time they invest in the game ARE IN FACT REAL. Yes, the game and everything in it is just a bunch of ones and zeroes (more or less) being shuffled around faster than the human mind can comprehend. However, The fact that it's a game and you're totally anonymous does not give you free license to just be an asshole. How you treat others, i.e. what you do to others, has a very real consequence. It's like harassing someone in a chat room. This is the mentality of a ganker. They'll piss you off, just because they know you can't touch them. This is also the mentality of these FFA PvP whiners.
For the record, I love PvP. I just don't think it has any place in games that are cast in the mold of EQ. If these games required skill, be that skillfully strategy or just plain twitch, I would be singing a diffrent song. Unfortunately, most MMORPGs have all the strategic depth of piss on a flat rock. Grind up and gear up until you and beat whatever you're trying to kill with one hit. Sorry, but that doesn't seem to be what PvP is all about.
Don't get me wrong, I know the rush that comes from PvP. When you nab a flag in Tribes and hightail it back to your own base with 32 pissed oppnents nipping at your heels you know what it is to be alive. Likewise, there is nothing like sneaking into enemy territory in BF1942, not taking the flag, and then mowing them down from behind with gun implacements that they thought were safe. Yeah, I know EXACTLY where you're comming from. But In an MMORPG? It would have to be made specifically for PVP.
I realize the PvP can be done in RPGs. There are plenty of PvP servers for Neverwinter Nights and I've been on more than a few well done pure PKing MUDS (Godwars anyone?). In fact, I think that PvP should be pure PK, no mobs, no quests, just players killing players. If AC Darktide had been like this, I might have stuck around a little longer. Not much longer, mind you, but I would have been more open to the PvP. I also think that UO's original setup was much more friendly to PvP since you could only master about seven skills and you slowly lost the skills that you didn't use. There was still the issue of +20 equipment, something that I never liked, but base of the system was much more balanced. If you take away the leveling treadmill of killing mobs to get cash to buy equipment and replace it with some other income model, like guilds running their own towns a la C&C style, you get rid of alot of the problems people have with FFA PvP.
The good news for those of you like real PvP is that games like Roma Victor, Auto Assault, and SUN are comming out over the next couple of years and seem as though they'll provide some very real and balanced compitition. For the run of the mill, macho-insecure, FFA PvPer, there'll be Vangaurd and Darkfall.
Originally posted by Kormac I was quite suddenly and unexpectedly struck by an urge to do something constructive. Something very specific. Draw an outline of the PvP (action focused) game I'd like to play. The Revival of FFA PvP! Features (or lack thereof)
Permadeath Permadeath While you can do well without it, you cannot get it right without it. The ultimate loss isn't your gear, it isn't your XP, it is you.
To me this alone kills this game (as I'm sure it would most in the FFA community). As stated before, I believe that the best PvP games are those which involve RvR, city sieges, or something in that area. I'm talking about battles of atleast 50 on each side, and in battles like this people are going to die on each side. So that means some unlucky people on the winning side are going to have to completely re-roll their characters. A permadeath system in a game like this would make the game even more of a job than it already is.
To me the only permadeath system that is remotely right is EVE Online. You always have the ability to clone yourself so that if you die you have all the skills you had when the character was cloned
Originally posted by asdar I consider myself a very open person and I'll entertain the most ridiculous concepts. That said I find Permadeath on a PvP server to be completely impossible. The very best PvP contest is a max level fully developed and skilled person versus another max level fully developed and equally skilled person. That's where you see the best attacks and defenses, the most creative and strategic use of skills. I think even the most gank-ready PvP player would agree that winning a fight like that is what it's all about. In this kind of match the win-loss percentage is 50/50. Permadeath would create the exact world that nobody would want to play it. Ganking would be the only type of PvP for anyone of any skill. Whole guilds would fall and never rise again if they lost a real battle. I can't imagine any form of Permadeath FFA-PvP.
You're entitled to your opinion. However, there are many people who are disillusioned with current concepts. Has a permadeath game to this point been so successful that you have actually tried it? Most never come into existence.
But the loss of a character isn't the end of a game. It is the end of a chapter, and the beginning of a new one. Sounds silly and clich
First off I consider myself a hardcore pvper. I started playing MMORPGs in 1997 with Ultima Online (UO). I have played many MMORPGs, UO, DAoC, Shadowbane, Lineage 2, SWG, AC2, Rose Online, EQ2, WoW, and Eve. I like most pvpers out there enjoy nothing more than than a challenging pvp encounter. Now if you want a model for a FFA PVP game that can actually work you have to look at UO but before the Trammel/Felucia time. The game is but a shadow of itself and that is primarily due to games such as EQ. EQ changed the MMORPG scene and introduced many players to this type of game that had never played them before. While some people will say that UO died when they implemented the stat/skill loss for reds, they may have merit, but I did not have a huge problem with that. They later implemented a timer which determined if you would lose stats/skills. For each murder you performed (nonguild/faction pvp in which you attacked a Blue char) you short term murder count went up 8 hours, and your long term murder count went up 40 hours. To simplify things lets assume you killed 5 blue characters in less than an hour. This would turn you red and also put you into stat/skill loss upon ressing. However you could counter this by keeping you char in game for at least 8 hours before ressing to put you at 4 short term muder counts. The long term counts where there only to ensure that your character would remain red. If you wanted to macro for 40 hours then you could, but that means that your now not playing the game. It was a system which punished for rampant pking but also did not permanently destroy a character upon death because he killed a few people. The main pvp which occured in UO was guild vs guild, factional pvp (Order/Chaos) as well as the later implemented 4 faction pvp (dont remember the names). Keyword in that is that most pvp people consented too. That does not mean that you could not go out and kill lowbies or others equal to you.
Secondly, permadeath will never work. Imagine you are home minding your own business playing your favorite character and poof there goes the power. Now you get killed by a stupid npc and your char is now dead forever. Ok, lets say that game implements a system that says if you get disconnected immediately than it insta logs you. Ok well now im in a big fight (pvp or npc) and things start to go bad, well screw this im unplugging my computer so I dont die. Sounds very balanced right? Even a 20 second log out timer upon disconnection could easily result in the death of your character. Also most of what i read was about text/number based internet games rather than MMORPGs, granted I did not bother to research it because of the reasons i mentioned above. I have played some text/number internet games and all that was required was to log in a few times a day for a few minutes and set numbers for building/creating and check to see if you or others have been attacked. MMORPGS require a much more active participation in your characters development, although some games require much less due to power lvling etc. Also if you ask me, ganking in those text/number games happens just as often if not more often. Everyone attack so in so then we kill him then move on to next target. Some may call that focus firing, but in the games I played you could not help the person being attacked in a timely manner to prevent their defeat.
Next, I would like to address the statements such as "my char is 5 lvls lower and i got killed". Every game out since UO has used a lvl system rather than a skill system. By skill im not talking about the players skill, but rather the way a character progresses. Everyone is familiar with the system of kill x or y mob for z hours = ding/lvl. Each lvl getting progressively longer. I for one dont feel that it is a fair for an end game char to rampantly kill characters at the beginning lvls, with one exception. In a game like shadowbane, you could lvl very fast, very possible to go from 1 to 60 in 2-3 days. Yes that involved having your char logged in for nearly 72 hours, but you did not have to actually be sitting at the computer this amount of time, rather you just sat in a group near a mob spawn and your buddy just power lvled you. In shadowbane i had no problem killing a lvl 20 character if he had an opposing guilds tags on, because normally that means in a day or so he is going to be fighting me anyway, and I intend to slow that process down. Now, games like WoW, which i still play, have a terrible death/pk system. In WoW it is not uncommon to hear about a lvl 60 corpse camping lowbies. In games such as WoW lvls make a huge difference and its difficult to kill someone 5 lvls higher than yourself. Now I do not feel that is completely unfair because I think that if you put your time into a character then to some extent someone who has just been playing for 2 days should not be able to kill me. Ill use a realworld example here, however i thinkthat Jimmy's real world relations are just wrong and have already been discussed. For me ill say I dont think its logical for a a yellow belt in karate to be able to defeat a black belt in karate. Lucky punch etc yes yes i know its possible, but not logical. In many of the games currently out there, it is completely impossible for a low lvl char to defeat a high lvl char. However in games such as UO I have seen low developed chars with skill beat highly devloped chars without skill. Example GM mage fighting adept thief. The thief steals certain reagents which prevent the mage from healing/escaping or fighting at all. There were counters to this, but the possiblity still was there because the game mechanics allowed for it. In more current games, the mechanics make it impossible for this to happen.
Its my opionion that FFA PVP especially one with full loot makes the game more immersive. I think one reason many games dont have full loot is because people dont want to risk losing an item which took them 3 weeks to farm for, (necro run speed boots?). In games that are driven by items, people are more attached to the items their characters have rather than their character. Again ill give examples from UO before item blessing/insuring. In UO the items most commonly used were created by other players. A highly skilled craftsmen could create a weapon lets say a katana that did about 15 damage per hit where as the hardest to aquire magic item did around 20 damage. In a game that is all about pvp, the items a character use should not make or break them, rather they should be a means of giving a slight advantage. To counter this advantage that a player has, there needs to be a risk in using those items. The risk is losing those items if you should be killed. This is were the greatest pvp moments occur. Again the end game "uber" items can not be so overly powered or take weeks to aquire that people loose sleep over them. I like the ideal of risk vs reward. The main argument about "uber" gear is that it extends the gap between low lvl characters and high lvl characters even more. In a game about pvp, player skill can help bridge the gap between lvls/development but it cant cover the gap between lvls/development + end game uber gear. In a pvp game the focus should never be on gear, it should be on player conflict most notably amongst rival guilds and factions. I take much less enjoyment from an equal 1v1 encounter than I do when its 10v10 or 10v30. For the record I prefer being on the 10 side of the 10v30. SB was a great example of how a well organized group of 10 could easily defeat a ramshakle group of 30 players. Before you slam me by saying that those 30 people would all be lowbies, thats not the case. It was normal for my guildmates and I to defeat people of equal level even if they had greater numbers.
Also, a huge problem with games such as Shadowbane, was that there were very few mob zones when compared to the entire land mass. This allowed for roaming pk groups, myself included, to be able to predict exactly where people were. You knew that certain lvl characters would be in a zertain zone almost down to the exact location due to mob spawns, and if you didnt you could always use scouts track ability. Games need to have a greater variety of lvling/skill advancement locations to help prevent this type of pking.
My final opinion concerns skill advancement vs leveling. These are two completely different systems which lean themselves to different playstyles. I feel that leveling leans itself more to role playing type characters which some may call carebears, but ill say these people are typically more involved with questing and items rather than pvp. Not saying these people dont enjoy pvp at all, but they have different goals. I think the best pvp games will lean toward a character development system like that of Ultima Online. It allows players to advance their characters through both PvP and PvE. Its all about using the actual skills which will make up your final character. If you want to be a swordsman then use a sword and not a mace. If you want to be a mage, then cast spells. This allows for people to have fun pvping and advance their character at the same time, instead of forcing a lvl grind/treadmill.
To each his own, but for me I want FFA Full Loot PvP
Im sure I have left somethign out that I meant to cover, but Im sure someone will point it out and ill be able to respond.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe chs5138 wrote: So what you're saying is that a woman who wears a mini skirt and a tank top out in public is accepting the risk? Forgive me for saying this, but that is retarded. I followed that starment up with a sentence that started with the words "but seriously". Aparently you can't understand SIMPLE concepts like sarcasm. All games are about level and loot whether they are PvE or PvP. Uh.... Quake 4 and Age of Mythology are about level and loot? I think you want to change that to "all RPGs are about level and loot." It's exactly this reason that I don't take PvP in MMORPGs seriously. If it were truely a contest of skill, I would be much more accepting. It's not, so I'm not. To be honest, Roma Victor and Auto Assault appear to be the only PvP MMOs that I would even consider playing mainly due to the twitch nature of their combat systems. Let me use Shadowbane as an example...The level cap is 75 so no you are not going to compete at level 1, the use of that in an arguement is moronic at best. If it were truely a game of skill between two players, a level 1 player could take on a level 75 player and win. It would be rough, but possible. This isn't a game of skill, so it isn't even remotely possible. However, once you get to lvl 50 (R5) you can compete in high level PvP. And on your journey to level 50 you'll be zerged, ganked, and insulted by wandering groups of level 50+ players that just want to greif you because they can. Honor? Nigga PUH-LEEZ!!! High end equipment will give you an advantage but it doesn't mean you are going to win...and once you hit lvl 60 you can really compete with anyone. Quick thing about good PvP: equipment should simply support a particular playstyle, not give unfair numeric advantages to one player or another. The fact that you have to level to 60 before you can compete defeats your arguement about compitition. If you can't compete until level 60, then you should make it impossible to attack anyone under level 60 and prevent anyone under level 60 from attacking you. If you were really looking for compitition, this idea wouldn't bother you in the slightest. You're not, so I'm assuming that you'll cry like I just shot off your big toe. Not to mention it is possible (with some hardcore PLing) to go from 1-75 inside of 2 days, plus it's not hard to get high end gear in the game. Obviously By "hardcore" playing I assume that you mean staying planted at your computer for a full 48 hours. If the PvP was worth it's salt you could be competitive right out of the gate. This isn't about skill or intelligence, it's about grinding up to a point where you can kill lowbies to make up for your obvious RL shortcommings. Obviously you have never played shadowbane so your statement was one of ignorance. No, I never played Shadowbane. I took it off the shelf, looked at the back of it, said to myself "oh, an EQ clone", and promptly put it back on the shelf. I then went on to by Tribes: Vengence. Damn glad I made the right choice I have played AC and Lineage 2. They both repeat the same lack of depth in combat and hence make it impossible for a well outfitted group with exceptional teamwork to take down three times their number of opponents that are 20+ levels above them. From what I've seen in Shadowbane guild vids and heard on the forums, as well as mined from Stratics, Shadowbane is no different. Then again, I never played it.
well sorry I couldn't see your sarcasm when every other post of yours has consisted of compareing real life to a game.
Ok you're right all RPGs are about level and loot, so why would anyone play a PvE RPG
ARE YOU RETARDED? NO GAME IN THE WORLD WILL LET A LVL 1 BEAT A MAX LEVEL CHARACTER PvP OR PvE. Otherwise what is the point in leveling...However, like I said in Shadowbane a level 50 can beat a lvl 75...the reason the lower levels would have a much harder time killing that level 75 is because most classes in the game don't get their best skill/power until lvl 50. If you are going to use this as an arguement then be consistent and use it for both PvP and PvE games
I said nothing about honor, some guilds in the game are the honorable type, but that's not me. Again you are baseing your "facts" on nothing but what you believe (this is called ignorance)
The great thing about Shadowbane, EVERYONE can EASILY obtain high end equipment. The first guild I ever joined in the game (was very small) when I was still a "noob"...they outfitted me with the best gear for my class.
I have already said that you can compete at lvl 50 it's just harder than at lvl 60. If you restricted who you could kill than it wouldn't be an FFA PvP game...there are several reasons for killing "lowbies".
1.) Financial gain
2.) That's just a little more time that an enemy guild won't have that character in battles
3.) for real PvP. Quite often you kill a lowbie, he gets some of his friends together, logs on a PvP toon and they come to fight you.
Hardcore PLing meaning you get another account (or just get someone to help you) have your character sit at a mob camp all day, while the other guy sets a macro and PLs you...this is not the norm though. You can easily get from lvl 1-20 in about 2-4 hours (depending on the groups you get). 20-40 in another 4-6 hours. 40-50 in ~3-5 hours, and lets add on another 3 hours for travel time and anything that might go wrong. So anyone not playing by themselves can easily get to lvl 50 in ~18 hours, and as I said lvl 50 is where you really start competing in PvP. lvl 50-60 is probably another 4 hours.
You are right, Tribes was a fun game. Never played AC, but Shadowbane is better than L2. Your complaint is that a skilled group can take on 3 groups when they are 20 levels higher????????????? OK first of all taking on 3x your number should not be an easy task in the first place. Also what is the point in gaining levels if it doesn't give you some sort of advantage.
I will give you 1 (of litterally hundreds) of examples of a force taking on a great number of opponents (of course these opponents weren't 80 levels higher than them, they were only on the same level so I guess this doesn't quailify as skill) The first city baned on the Redemption server was an 8 man guild. The guild that baned them brought more than 50 to the fight. The 8 man guild destroyed them.
It is quite clear that you don't like PvP, so why do you care what I play? The point of a game is to have fun, I have fun with PvP you have fun with PvE
Well.... If someone broke into your house and stole your HDTV they aren't really hurting you either. You're perfectly healthy. You just lost something that worked for several hours to get. If you get stressed out over it then I'm sorry, but that's not my problem ...Wow. Shocking, I thought I'd never see this before. Someone who can't understand that a game is...Oh my Gawwwdddddd...A GAME! Go forward and trek that unchartered land of reality...
Next person that compares real life illegal, violent, and immoral acts, to a game, trying to pretend that they can be even REMOTELY similar, will find torture and death at the means and ways of a soldering iron, and acid.
It's no wonder people bitch so much when they die at the hands of a mob, or a PK'er: They can't disassimilate their connection, and ultimate blurring of fiction, and reality.
While you do have a point I feel you overplay it a bit. And you refuse to acknowledge that there is a point to what Jimmy says too. (And I know I write this at the risk of being tortured and killed)
The point: There are actual people behind those pixels, and even if it is part of the game that you might kill him, and are in your right to do so (the character, of course), I'd say there are quite enough of those who go beyond that and work very actively to make their victims miserable and make the game unplayable for them. Which does hurt real people, regardless of how little you care.
"It's no wonder people bitch so much when they die at the hands of a mob, or a PK'er: They can't disassimilate their connection, and ultimate blurring of fiction, and reality."
Are you opposed to permadeath? Does the idea of losing your character upon death bother you? If so, why? Because it is important to you? Because it somehow affects the real you even if it is nothing but pixels, some diskspace and a little bit of memory here and there?
Very much rethorical questions. And I ask them in hopes that you will consider them honestly and decide whatever the answers mean to you. I don't ask to imply that I know something you don't, or that your view is inferior to mine. I hope I've made myself clear.
They may be rhetorical questions, but I don't want you to be left curious as to the answers
Yes the idea of losing a character that takes a full day (in the very quickest leveling games like Shadowbane) to 3 months (to a game like WoW). I've rolled my fair share of new characters in Shadowbane, but eventually I just got tired of it.
Now you may ask what the difference is between this and just loseing loot. Loot can be bought back with in game money (that you won't lose upon death). Also, I believe a PvP game should make equipment easily obtained. The faster people can level and equip their characters to more PvP that gets to take place
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe chs5138 wrote: As for the Driver and GTA games. I could argue the same thing for MMO's, you aren't actually hurting someone. You may kill their pixelated character that they are controlling, but you aren't actually hurting them. If they get stressed out over it then I'm sorry but it's not my problem. Well.... If someone broke into your house and stole your HDTV they aren't really hurting you either. You're perfectly healthy. You just lost something that worked for several hours to get. If you get stressed out over it then I'm sorry, but that's not my problem That is a risk you took when you CHOSE to play the game, and it has nothing to do with real life. And if a woman gets raped, that's a risk she chose to take when she wore that short, short skirt. Seriously though, choosing to play a game doesn't obligate one to continue playing. Thus many people quit and leave the l33tz to their own circle jerk of psuedo-masculinity. And you should be happy about that since you claim to hate carebears so much. Rejoice!! The carebears don't want to play with you and will go somewhere els.
Finally I would like to say that I think you have a misconception about FFA PvP. It's not about ruining someone's day, it's about the competition. Really? That's why you're all massed together in AC, Shadowbane, and Lineage 2. All of those games are about level and loot. There is no way in hell that a lvl 1 character can defeat a group of players at the level cap. End of line. As for your comparison to boss monsters, I'd like to state that bosses are generally not more than 5 or ten levels higher than any character in the group and there are usually only one or two of them. And no, it doesn't take skill. The deciding factor in boss battles are how well stocked the party is with heal items, the number of buffs before combat, and of course how each character supports the others during the battle. Just have your attackers use their most powerful attack with their most powerful weapons while the healers keep the party from dying. Then it's just a matter of using buff and healing items periodically until whatever you're killing is no more. Face it, the only reason you play PvP in an MMORPG is so you can kill lowbies and then talk shit about how uber you are. Go play America's Army, Counter-Strike, Age of Mythology, Mortal Kombat: Deception (or just wait for Samurai Showdown 5 if you have an XBox ), or any NWN PvP server and you'll learn what uber really is. BTW, most NWN PvP servers restrict PKing to players that are +- 5 levels of yourself. Just thought you might like to know that.
Dear Jimmy,
Get help so you dont come up with so fucked up comparisons anymore.
Alrighty! Let's get a few things very clear, very fast. The people you are playing with and the time they invest in the game ARE IN FACT REAL. Yes, the game and everything in it is just a bunch of ones and zeroes (more or less) being shuffled around faster than the human mind can comprehend. However, The fact that it's a game and you're totally anonymous does not give you free license to just be an asshole. How you treat others, i.e. what you do to others, has a very real consequence. It's like harassing someone in a chat room. This is the mentality of a ganker. They'll piss you off, just because they know you can't touch them. This is also the mentality of these FFA PvP whiners. For the record, I love PvP. I just don't think it has any place in games that are cast in the mold of EQ. If these games required skill, be that skillfully strategy or just plain twitch, I would be singing a diffrent song. Unfortunately, most MMORPGs have all the strategic depth of piss on a flat rock. Grind up and gear up until you and beat whatever you're trying to kill with one hit. Sorry, but that doesn't seem to be what PvP is all about. Don't get me wrong, I know the rush that comes from PvP. When you nab a flag in Tribes and hightail it back to your own base with 32 pissed oppnents nipping at your heels you know what it is to be alive. Likewise, there is nothing like sneaking into enemy territory in BF1942, not taking the flag, and then mowing them down from behind with gun implacements that they thought were safe. Yeah, I know EXACTLY where you're comming from. But In an MMORPG? It would have to be made specifically for PVP. I realize the PvP can be done in RPGs. There are plenty of PvP servers for Neverwinter Nights and I've been on more than a few well done pure PKing MUDS (Godwars anyone?). In fact, I think that PvP should be pure PK, no mobs, no quests, just players killing players. If AC Darktide had been like this, I might have stuck around a little longer. Not much longer, mind you, but I would have been more open to the PvP. I also think that UO's original setup was much more friendly to PvP since you could only master about seven skills and you slowly lost the skills that you didn't use. There was still the issue of +20 equipment, something that I never liked, but base of the system was much more balanced. If you take away the leveling treadmill of killing mobs to get cash to buy equipment and replace it with some other income model, like guilds running their own towns a la C&C style, you get rid of alot of the problems people have with FFA PvP. The good news for those of you like real PvP is that games like Roma Victor, Auto Assault, and SUN are comming out over the next couple of years and seem as though they'll provide some very real and balanced compitition. For the run of the mill, macho-insecure, FFA PvPer, there'll be Vangaurd and Darkfall.
The fact is most people who play these FFA PvP games are of a similar mindset so they don't care
This is a ROLE PLAYING game. While there are a lot of FFA people (myself included) that aren't really the role playing community, whether you know it or not you are playing a role. The role of an "evil guild" is to be evil. The villain in a movie isn't nice to the protagonist, because he is playing an evil role (this is an accurate comparison because just like a game, a movie is fantasy where real people are playing a role). A ganker is playing the role of an "evil villain". By playing this game you are accepting the risk that something like this might happen...if you don't like it then you simply have the choice to not play it anymore
A lot of what you said about what FFA PvP should be is Shadowbane. There are player run cities...These cities can make any type of equipment in the game...Now there is PvE just like any MMO, but the level grind is really quick (though we always try and get it done faster)...Yes there are the +8 items, but they are so easy to get that it really doesn't matter.
Shadowbane requires skill and strategy. You form up groups that complement each class in the group...or a group to counter an opponents group...Very often you will find yourself fighting a greater number of people. Yes there is a signifant difference between lvl 1 and lvl 75, and having +8 def gear and +2 def gear...but the game was done in a way where everyone is on the same level anyway because it is so easy to get to lvl 60-70 and to get that +8 gear
ARE YOU RETARDED? NO GAME IN THE WORLD WILL LET A LVL 1 BEAT A MAX LEVEL CHARACTER PvP OR PvE. Otherwise what is the point in leveling...
Your complaint is that a skilled group can take on 3 groups when they are 20 levels higher????????????? OK first of all taking on 3x your number should not be an easy task in the first place. Also what is the point in gaining levels if it doesn't give you some sort of advantage.
These two statements speak volumes of what you really have in mind for PvP. You want a one sided ass beating, with you doing the ass beating. Thank you for proving my point. Thank you for playing. Have a nice day.
Kade wrote:
For me ill say I dont think its logical for a a yellow belt in karate to be able to defeat a black belt in karate.
I was with you through most of that post man, but there are a few things that I have to disagree with. You're using a real life anology so I will as well. Have you ever watched to black belts sparr? Alot of new martial arts students express some discontent after watching higher ranked students sparr because they only see techniques used that they learned as white belts. Some techniques are general purpose but others have a very specific situations that they were designed for. Likewise, entire martial arts are made with different goals in mind. Tang Soo Do is about tripping your opponent and keeping them on the floor until you can either put your opponent out or run away. Jujitsu is about throwing an opponent on the ground really hard or bending them in ways that will cause debilitating inury. Karate is about putting your opponent out with one strike. What does this have to do with your statement? Simply that more experience or training doesn't gaurentee success. When I was in the military, I got into a fight with a civilian friend who had black belts in Tea Kwon Do, Kempo, and Judo. I only had three weeks hand to hand training. I walked (limped) away and he had to go to the hospital. It wasn't a high point in my life, believe me! We had different fighting styles, but we were evenly matched despite him having more training and experience. I had never been in a fight before that night.
Another thing to take into consideration is natural talent. I can't draw worth a damn. I try like hell, but I'm no Frank Frazetta (I hope I spelled that right). Even if I drew for 10 hours a day for the next 10 years, I would NEVER reach that level. These two things should be the same for PvP. A beginner with a lot of talent should be able to pick the game up quickly and own within a couple of hours. Likewise, the choice of weapon shouldn't produce that much of an advantage. Yes it's easier to fire an MP5 than an UZI but if you're poor marksman, using an MP5 will not make you any better. Levels and uber items defeat the whole purpose of PvP. That purpose being a contest of skill between two (or more) players. I'm all for a PvP MMORPG with some strategic depth. Let me know when this happens.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe chs5138 wrote: ARE YOU RETARDED? NO GAME IN THE WORLD WILL LET A LVL 1 BEAT A MAX LEVEL CHARACTER PvP OR PvE. Otherwise what is the point in leveling... Your complaint is that a skilled group can take on 3 groups when they are 20 levels higher????????????? OK first of all taking on 3x your number should not be an easy task in the first place. Also what is the point in gaining levels if it doesn't give you some sort of advantage. These two statements speak volumes of what you really have in mind for PvP. You want a one sided ass beating, with you doing the ass beating. Thank you for proving my point. Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Kade wrote: For me ill say I dont think its logical for a a yellow belt in karate to be able to defeat a black belt in karate. I was with you through most of that post man, but there are a few things that I have to disagree with. You're using a real life anology so I will as well. Have you ever watched to black belts sparr? Alot of new martial arts students express some discontent after watching higher ranked students sparr because they only see techniques used that they learned as white belts. Some techniques are general purpose but others have a very specific situations that they were designed for. Likewise, entire martial arts are made with different goals in mind. Tang Soo Do is about tripping your opponent and keeping them on the floor until you can either put your opponent out or run away. Jujitsu is about throwing an opponent on the ground really hard or bending them in ways that will cause debilitating inury. Karate is about putting your opponent out with one strike. What does this have to do with your statement? Simply that more experience or training doesn't gaurentee success. When I was in the military, I got into a fight with a civilian friend who had black belts in Tea Kwon Do, Kempo, and Judo. I only had three weeks hand to hand training. I walked (limped) away and he had to go to the hospital. It wasn't a high point in my life, believe me! We had different fighting styles, but we were evenly matched despite him having more training and experience. I had never been in a fight before that night. Another thing to take into consideration is natural talent. I can't draw worth a damn. I try like hell, but I'm no Frank Frazetta (I hope I spelled that right). Even if I drew for 10 hours a day for the next 10 years, I would NEVER reach that level. These two things should be the same for PvP. A beginner with a lot of talent should be able to pick the game up quickly and own within a couple of hours. Likewise, the choice of weapon shouldn't produce that much of an advantage. Yes it's easier to fire an MP5 than an UZI but if you're poor marksman, using an MP5 will not make you any better. Levels and uber items defeat the whole purpose of PvP. That purpose being a contest of skill between two (or more) players. I'm all for a PvP MMORPG with some strategic depth. Let me know when this happens.
I really understand what you're saying, and I agree with it to an extent. Basically what you're saying is the same thing as when ESPN says "if the game was played on paper", but levels and items make up every RPG. Unless you take away the leveling/skills then you have to give the higher level person some sort of advantage.
Yes, there are advantages to be higher levels and having the best equipment, but there is a lot of skill involved too. This is why I liked Shadowbane, you can quickly level up and get your characters outfitted so everyone is pretty much on the same playing field
It would be cool to have a game where everyone is always on the same character ability level, but that type of game might be a bit shallow, but then again it could be great. I don't know, no game has ever been made like that and we won't know until a game like that is made.
Mix between carebears and no new games that offer it. I love open PvP, its ridiculous that now we have to go into battlegrounds which is just a bunch of ganking back and forth. I think open faction based PvP or full open pvp is the most fun.
Look if you PvPers are so into quick leveling, adrenaline rush, skillful PvP...play Guild Wars.
It's DESIGNED for PvP combat to be even, quick, fun, adrenaline rush, GvG, defend the keep, blah blah etc. It takes about 20 hours to get a character to lvl 20 and able to play in PvP, or if you can't be bothered with PvE at all you can START a level 20 and go straight into playing for your guild.
Yes, it's consensual, yes it's instanced, and yes, it's not FFA...but it's FAIR and EVEN (this design being the only way PvP could EVER really be fair and even)...and it has the added bonus that you don't get to piss off anyone who doesn't care for being killed with no reason.
If you don't like my suggestion, you're OBVIOUSLY not into PvP for fair and even fights where skill and quality of your character's build (or heaven forbid teamwork, with teams with EVEN sides) is the order of the day. If so, then STFU and go kill some lowbies to stop them catching up to your "mighty level", and confirm to us all what your so called skillful FFA PvP is REALLY all about.
(And if you want to "affect" the roleplay world you're in stay on the back of the Guild Wars devs to implement it. They will eventually; it was a plan when I was in their beta that they would eventually have areas that could be fought over and owned by one guild or another. In one of their upcoming expansions, I'm sure it will be implemented. Oh, and as of recently, you can even get friends to watch your l33t skills in action in observer mode...this game really is quality, pity about the community...but then, they are PvPers so what do I expect ). NO that was NOT an ad, it was a recommendation.
Originally posted by hadz Look if you PvPers are so into quick leveling, adrenaline rush, skillful PvP...play Guild Wars. It's DESIGNED for PvP combat to be even, quick, fun, adrenaline rush, GvG, defend the keep, blah blah etc. It takes about 20 hours to get a character to lvl 20 and able to play in PvP, or if you can't be bothered with PvE at all you can START a level 20 and go straight into playing for your guild. Yes, it's consensual, yes it's instanced, and yes, it's not FFA...but it's FAIR and EVEN (this design being the only way PvP could EVER really be fair and even)...and it has the added bonus that you don't get to piss off anyone who doesn't care for being killed with no reason. If you don't like my suggestion, you're OBVIOUSLY not into PvP for fair and even fights where skill and quality of your character's build (or heaven forbid teamwork, with teams with EVEN sides) is the order of the day. If so, then STFU and go kill some lowbies to stop them catching up to your "mighty level", and confirm to us all what your so called skillful FFA PvP is REALLY all about. (And if you want to "affect" the roleplay world you're in stay on the back of the Guild Wars devs to implement it. They will eventually; it was a plan when I was in their beta that they would eventually have areas that could be fought over and owned by one guild or another. In one of their upcoming expansions, I'm sure it will be implemented. Oh, and as of recently, you can even get friends to watch your l33t skills in action in observer mode...this game really is quality, pity about the community...but then, they are PvPers so what do I expect ). NO that was NOT an ad, it was a recommendation.
I have played GW (and actually just started playing again) decent game...pretty good pvp. Except the fights are static. There is no variation...you know it's going to be 4v4, 8v8, or whatever...in FFA PvP you never know how many you will be faceing. Not to mention the numbers on each side are far greater than 8.
You statement "if you don't like my suggestion then you're not into PvP for fair fights" has some truth to it, but is more wrong than it is right. The part of it that is right is because no, I don't always want a fair fight. If the numbers on each side happen to be the same then GREAT, but if it's the same all the time then it just gets repetitive. I'd much rather have the ability to outnumber my opponent or have the risk of them outnumbering me. Defeating a force that has twice as many, or more, members is so much more satisfying than winning an 8v8.
Now about skill: Unless the numbers just get ridiculous, then more often than not the better team will win. That meaning the team with the more skilled players, competant leader, complete teamwork. However, if it's like 200 vs. 20 then no the 20 aren't going to win because they shouldn't be able to.
Guild Wars is a fun game, and if they add the content you said they had planned on adding then that will make it much better. Except it still doesn't beat a warfare system like that of shadowbane where there are litterally hundreds of people involved in the fights and sieges that have lasted for more than 6 hours.
I really don't know what you are talking about. FFA pvp is not dead. Roma Victor, The Chronicle and Darkfall all offer FFA pvp. They come out more rarely because most of the people that play MMORPG's are closer to the sterotypical one. A loser with no life. If you are used to screwing everything up then you like games where you can't lose. Not saying everyone that plays these games but, there are some. While people that play real pvp games like UO where you don't have to play non-stop and your items and skills don't determine the winner(the way Roma Victor and Darkfall are rumored to be) are more likely to have people who are older and looking for a challenge. Games like L2 where your level/class determine everything are more likely to attract the first type of player I described. Again not saying that everyone that plays each type of game is like that. Just saying those are the people more likely to play them.
Originally posted by chs5138 Guild Wars is a fun game, and if they add the content you said they had planned on adding then that will make it much better. Except it still doesn't beat a warfare system like that of shadowbane where there are litterally hundreds of people involved in the fights and sieges that have lasted for more than 6 hours.
Yeah, I understand all the points in your post, it's true that anything that is *always* the same can become a bit repetitive, but I don't think unfair fights give you "bragging rights" or are anything to be proud of (unless of course you're the side that wins from the unfair position, then it rocks...but you can have that feeling against NPCs too without the grief to other players...if the PvE is designed right).
The funny thing is Shadowbane was THE PvP interactive world MMO that I'd really love to have played, but because of living in Australia, and therefore not being able to sign up for the demo (or even buy it at all if I remember rightly) I've never been able to experience it. Plus, with the buggy release, the now smallish numbers, and the myriad of other games I'm interested in coming out soon, I doubt I'll ever end up trying it now.
Originally posted by chs5138 Guild Wars is a fun game, and if they add the content you said they had planned on adding then that will make it much better. Except it still doesn't beat a warfare system like that of shadowbane where there are litterally hundreds of people involved in the fights and sieges that have lasted for more than 6 hours.
Yeah, I understand all the points in your post, it's true that anything that is *always* the same can become a bit repetitive, but I don't think unfair fights give you "bragging rights" or are anything to be proud of (unless of course you're the side that wins from the unfair position, then it rocks...but you can have that feeling against NPCs too without the grief to other players...if the PvE is designed right).
The funny thing is Shadowbane was THE PvP interactive world MMO that I'd really love to have played, but because of living in Australia, and therefore not being able to sign up for the demo (or even buy it at all if I remember rightly) I've never been able to experience it. Plus, with the buggy release, the now smallish numbers, and the myriad of other games I'm interested in coming out soon, I doubt I'll ever end up trying it now.
I was talking about being on the disadvantaged side in an uneven fight. If you're in a fight with 10 on your side vs. 40 other people then it feels great to win. If you're in that side of 40 then it is embarrasing
Fighting a greater number of NPC's just isn't as appealing to me. Hacking and Slashing away at constant NPCs is fun at first, but you can only kill mindless drones for so long before you can't take it anymore.
I want to fight live people who can think on their feet, and possibly employ some tactic I've never even seen before. It's just so much fun .
As for Shadowbane. Ya lots of bugs and the populations on the servers have seriously declined because of them. Still by far the best PvP game I have ever played, heres for hoping for Shadowbane 2.
The problem most have with FFA PvP is that they don't understand two very basic and very important things about FFA PvP. The first being the primary purpose of FFA PvP. The second being that FFA PvP is for the more mature gamer.
The primary reason for including FFA PvP in any game is to provide a dynamic and unpredictable element of danger to the game world. Stated as above the idea of FFA PvP seems like a good thing and it would be except that it is usually poorly implemented. The reason stems from the same root as to why so many MMO economies end up screwed up with hyper inflation. The people that designed the economy don't understand the underlying princples and mechanisms that create and maintan a robust ecomony. Similiarly, the people that design the game worlds fail to understand the basis of a robust sustainable society. FFA is not the same thing as anarchy, except in games it is. This lack of structure concerning PvP and saying that well, the players can just kill the PKer right back is not a good recipe for a normal seeming societal structure.
Logically, a bandit should not be able to beat and rob you a few yards from the town gate. Likewise, a well traveled route should be safe enough during the day. Where is the law? A King that can't protect his subects isn't much of a King. Saying that the player base should impose some law upon rampant PKers is the ultimate cop out by development staff. Criminal behavior should have consequences. A good start would be deciding exactly what constitutes a ciminal act as oppossed to legitimate conflict between oppossing entities or self defense. The annoying PK/greifer types that flourish in many FFA type enviroment are soley the fault of poor game design.
My second point is that FFA PvP is for mature gamers that have gotten past the child like view that the world should be fair. Fair is a nice thing but as an adult I've come to realize that most people that have an advantage over me have, shockingly enough, done something to earn that advantage. I will admit that a minority of people have just gotten lucky but again, as an adult, I've come to see often enough you can make your own luck.
The anti-FFA crowd can't be won over by any amount of arguement. However they will grow up, or not.
My second point is that FFA PvP is for mature gamers that have gotten past the child like view that the world should be fair. Fair is a nice thing but as an adult I've come to realize that most people that have an advantage over me have, shockingly enough, done something to earn that advantage.
I too am an adult. I too also realize that life isn't fair. However, to believe that the master class is where they are due to merit is a total crock of shit. I realize that had I been born a different color, religion, or in another country, my life would have been much, much harder than it is. I also realize that over 90% of the people that occupy the upper 1% of the world income bracket got there by inheritance. The remaining 10% is divided (lopsidedly) between hard work and stock / real estate speculation. BTW, Speculation is the greater sum of that final 1/10th of 1%.
Back to the discussion. I believe that a players ability should be the deciding factor in how well they do and the playing field should be level. In real life we call that an ideal and ideals are something that you work towards in the face of adversity. In games, we can achieve (more or less) a level playing field by keeping levels and loot out of the equation. Skills? No problem. Weapons, they should only compliment this or that STYLE of play and not become totems of instant ownage. The skill of the player should ultimately decide the outcome of any PvP, not the player character's stats or gear.
Shadowbane showed that FFA PVP is the BEST for making money... because people lose things, as well as things break so there's always a huge demand for money. I knew a 10 year old kid who made over 10 grand in 3 months (duping, but still) playing shadowbane. His parents (which are my friends) made him put it towards a college fund and gave him a little extra to go buy some video games with.
In fact the huge demand for money and duping destroyed the game because people realized they could sell 1 mil shadowbane money for like 100 bucks real life money and it took a few seconds to get a BILLION duped.
At times I read it as though we are saying the same things, but at the same time it seems we stand on different sides of a fence, trying to convince eachother of it...
I don't think there are many (if any) anti FFA PvP'ers who have stuck with this discussion, posts don't indicate that. The anti's drop by, make a post about hoping this thing is really dead and move on. What separates people still is what kind of FFA PvP we want. How it should be implemented. And I don't know of a single workable solution that has come out as a game. Mildly enjoyable, temporarily, yes. Truly workable, no.
But really: I know I could enjoy a good game of FFA PvP. I have my own views on what is good, but don't we all?
The future: Adellion Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants) Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens) Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
I miss the FFA pvp of AC on Darktide and even on some of the white servers.
I love how the people bashing ffa pvp have never really even played it. Guild Wars is not an alternative for us pvp'ers. It is not ffa and has very little depth.
Hopefully, some of the upcoming games will bring back true ffa pvp and wont bow down to every carebear.
Comments
Next person that compares real life illegal, violent, and immoral acts, to a game, trying to pretend that they can be even REMOTELY similar, will find torture and death at the means and ways of a soldering iron, and acid.
It's no wonder people bitch so much when they die at the hands of a mob, or a PK'er: They can't disassimilate their connection, and ultimate blurring of fiction, and reality.
While you do have a point I feel you overplay it a bit. And you refuse to acknowledge that there is a point to what Jimmy says too. (And I know I write this at the risk of being tortured and killed)
The point: There are actual people behind those pixels, and even if it is part of the game that you might kill him, and are in your right to do so (the character, of course), I'd say there are quite enough of those who go beyond that and work very actively to make their victims miserable and make the game unplayable for them. Which does hurt real people, regardless of how little you care.
"It's no wonder people bitch so much when they die at the hands of a mob, or a PK'er: They can't disassimilate their connection, and ultimate blurring of fiction, and reality."
Are you opposed to permadeath? Does the idea of losing your character upon death bother you? If so, why? Because it is important to you? Because it somehow affects the real you even if it is nothing but pixels, some diskspace and a little bit of memory here and there?
Very much rethorical questions. And I ask them in hopes that you will consider them honestly and decide whatever the answers mean to you. I don't ask to imply that I know something you don't, or that your view is inferior to mine. I hope I've made myself clear.
The future: Adellion
Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually
Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants)
Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens)
Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
Aldaron wrote:
Shocking, I thought I'd never see this before. Someone who can't understand that a game is...Oh my Gawwwdddddd...A GAME!
Next person that compares real life illegal, violent, and immoral acts, to a game, trying to pretend that they can be even REMOTELY similar, will find torture and death at the means and ways of a soldering iron, and acid.
It's no wonder people bitch so much when they die at the hands of a mob, or a PK'er: They can't disassimilate their connection, and ultimate blurring of fiction, and reality.
Alrighty! Let's get a few things very clear, very fast. The people you are playing with and the time they invest in the game ARE IN FACT REAL. Yes, the game and everything in it is just a bunch of ones and zeroes (more or less) being shuffled around faster than the human mind can comprehend. However, The fact that it's a game and you're totally anonymous does not give you free license to just be an asshole. How you treat others, i.e. what you do to others, has a very real consequence. It's like harassing someone in a chat room. This is the mentality of a ganker. They'll piss you off, just because they know you can't touch them. This is also the mentality of these FFA PvP whiners.
For the record, I love PvP. I just don't think it has any place in games that are cast in the mold of EQ. If these games required skill, be that skillfully strategy or just plain twitch, I would be singing a diffrent song. Unfortunately, most MMORPGs have all the strategic depth of piss on a flat rock. Grind up and gear up until you and beat whatever you're trying to kill with one hit. Sorry, but that doesn't seem to be what PvP is all about.
Don't get me wrong, I know the rush that comes from PvP. When you nab a flag in Tribes and hightail it back to your own base with 32 pissed oppnents nipping at your heels you know what it is to be alive. Likewise, there is nothing like sneaking into enemy territory in BF1942, not taking the flag, and then mowing them down from behind with gun implacements that they thought were safe. Yeah, I know EXACTLY where you're comming from. But In an MMORPG? It would have to be made specifically for PVP.
I realize the PvP can be done in RPGs. There are plenty of PvP servers for Neverwinter Nights and I've been on more than a few well done pure PKing MUDS (Godwars anyone?). In fact, I think that PvP should be pure PK, no mobs, no quests, just players killing players. If AC Darktide had been like this, I might have stuck around a little longer. Not much longer, mind you, but I would have been more open to the PvP. I also think that UO's original setup was much more friendly to PvP since you could only master about seven skills and you slowly lost the skills that you didn't use. There was still the issue of +20 equipment, something that I never liked, but base of the system was much more balanced. If you take away the leveling treadmill of killing mobs to get cash to buy equipment and replace it with some other income model, like guilds running their own towns a la C&C style, you get rid of alot of the problems people have with FFA PvP.
The good news for those of you like real PvP is that games like Roma Victor, Auto Assault, and SUN are comming out over the next couple of years and seem as though they'll provide some very real and balanced compitition. For the run of the mill, macho-insecure, FFA PvPer, there'll be Vangaurd and Darkfall.
To me this alone kills this game (as I'm sure it would most in the FFA community). As stated before, I believe that the best PvP games are those which involve RvR, city sieges, or something in that area. I'm talking about battles of atleast 50 on each side, and in battles like this people are going to die on each side. So that means some unlucky people on the winning side are going to have to completely re-roll their characters. A permadeath system in a game like this would make the game even more of a job than it already is.
To me the only permadeath system that is remotely right is EVE Online. You always have the ability to clone yourself so that if you die you have all the skills you had when the character was cloned
You're entitled to your opinion. However, there are many people who are disillusioned with current concepts. Has a permadeath game to this point been so successful that you have actually tried it? Most never come into existence.
But the loss of a character isn't the end of a game. It is the end of a chapter, and the beginning of a new one. Sounds silly and clich
First off I consider myself a hardcore pvper. I started playing MMORPGs in 1997 with Ultima Online (UO). I have played many MMORPGs, UO, DAoC, Shadowbane, Lineage 2, SWG, AC2, Rose Online, EQ2, WoW, and Eve. I like most pvpers out there enjoy nothing more than than a challenging pvp encounter. Now if you want a model for a FFA PVP game that can actually work you have to look at UO but before the Trammel/Felucia time. The game is but a shadow of itself and that is primarily due to games such as EQ. EQ changed the MMORPG scene and introduced many players to this type of game that had never played them before. While some people will say that UO died when they implemented the stat/skill loss for reds, they may have merit, but I did not have a huge problem with that. They later implemented a timer which determined if you would lose stats/skills. For each murder you performed (nonguild/faction pvp in which you attacked a Blue char) you short term murder count went up 8 hours, and your long term murder count went up 40 hours. To simplify things lets assume you killed 5 blue characters in less than an hour. This would turn you red and also put you into stat/skill loss upon ressing. However you could counter this by keeping you char in game for at least 8 hours before ressing to put you at 4 short term muder counts. The long term counts where there only to ensure that your character would remain red. If you wanted to macro for 40 hours then you could, but that means that your now not playing the game. It was a system which punished for rampant pking but also did not permanently destroy a character upon death because he killed a few people. The main pvp which occured in UO was guild vs guild, factional pvp (Order/Chaos) as well as the later implemented 4 faction pvp (dont remember the names). Keyword in that is that most pvp people consented too. That does not mean that you could not go out and kill lowbies or others equal to you.
Secondly, permadeath will never work. Imagine you are home minding your own business playing your favorite character and poof there goes the power. Now you get killed by a stupid npc and your char is now dead forever. Ok, lets say that game implements a system that says if you get disconnected immediately than it insta logs you. Ok well now im in a big fight (pvp or npc) and things start to go bad, well screw this im unplugging my computer so I dont die. Sounds very balanced right? Even a 20 second log out timer upon disconnection could easily result in the death of your character. Also most of what i read was about text/number based internet games rather than MMORPGs, granted I did not bother to research it because of the reasons i mentioned above. I have played some text/number internet games and all that was required was to log in a few times a day for a few minutes and set numbers for building/creating and check to see if you or others have been attacked. MMORPGS require a much more active participation in your characters development, although some games require much less due to power lvling etc. Also if you ask me, ganking in those text/number games happens just as often if not more often. Everyone attack so in so then we kill him then move on to next target. Some may call that focus firing, but in the games I played you could not help the person being attacked in a timely manner to prevent their defeat.
Next, I would like to address the statements such as "my char is 5 lvls lower and i got killed". Every game out since UO has used a lvl system rather than a skill system. By skill im not talking about the players skill, but rather the way a character progresses. Everyone is familiar with the system of kill x or y mob for z hours = ding/lvl. Each lvl getting progressively longer. I for one dont feel that it is a fair for an end game char to rampantly kill characters at the beginning lvls, with one exception. In a game like shadowbane, you could lvl very fast, very possible to go from 1 to 60 in 2-3 days. Yes that involved having your char logged in for nearly 72 hours, but you did not have to actually be sitting at the computer this amount of time, rather you just sat in a group near a mob spawn and your buddy just power lvled you. In shadowbane i had no problem killing a lvl 20 character if he had an opposing guilds tags on, because normally that means in a day or so he is going to be fighting me anyway, and I intend to slow that process down. Now, games like WoW, which i still play, have a terrible death/pk system. In WoW it is not uncommon to hear about a lvl 60 corpse camping lowbies. In games such as WoW lvls make a huge difference and its difficult to kill someone 5 lvls higher than yourself. Now I do not feel that is completely unfair because I think that if you put your time into a character then to some extent someone who has just been playing for 2 days should not be able to kill me. Ill use a realworld example here, however i thinkthat Jimmy's real world relations are just wrong and have already been discussed. For me ill say I dont think its logical for a a yellow belt in karate to be able to defeat a black belt in karate. Lucky punch etc yes yes i know its possible, but not logical. In many of the games currently out there, it is completely impossible for a low lvl char to defeat a high lvl char. However in games such as UO I have seen low developed chars with skill beat highly devloped chars without skill. Example GM mage fighting adept thief. The thief steals certain reagents which prevent the mage from healing/escaping or fighting at all. There were counters to this, but the possiblity still was there because the game mechanics allowed for it. In more current games, the mechanics make it impossible for this to happen.
Its my opionion that FFA PVP especially one with full loot makes the game more immersive. I think one reason many games dont have full loot is because people dont want to risk losing an item which took them 3 weeks to farm for, (necro run speed boots?). In games that are driven by items, people are more attached to the items their characters have rather than their character. Again ill give examples from UO before item blessing/insuring. In UO the items most commonly used were created by other players. A highly skilled craftsmen could create a weapon lets say a katana that did about 15 damage per hit where as the hardest to aquire magic item did around 20 damage. In a game that is all about pvp, the items a character use should not make or break them, rather they should be a means of giving a slight advantage. To counter this advantage that a player has, there needs to be a risk in using those items. The risk is losing those items if you should be killed. This is were the greatest pvp moments occur. Again the end game "uber" items can not be so overly powered or take weeks to aquire that people loose sleep over them. I like the ideal of risk vs reward. The main argument about "uber" gear is that it extends the gap between low lvl characters and high lvl characters even more. In a game about pvp, player skill can help bridge the gap between lvls/development but it cant cover the gap between lvls/development + end game uber gear. In a pvp game the focus should never be on gear, it should be on player conflict most notably amongst rival guilds and factions. I take much less enjoyment from an equal 1v1 encounter than I do when its 10v10 or 10v30. For the record I prefer being on the 10 side of the 10v30. SB was a great example of how a well organized group of 10 could easily defeat a ramshakle group of 30 players. Before you slam me by saying that those 30 people would all be lowbies, thats not the case. It was normal for my guildmates and I to defeat people of equal level even if they had greater numbers.
Also, a huge problem with games such as Shadowbane, was that there were very few mob zones when compared to the entire land mass. This allowed for roaming pk groups, myself included, to be able to predict exactly where people were. You knew that certain lvl characters would be in a zertain zone almost down to the exact location due to mob spawns, and if you didnt you could always use scouts track ability. Games need to have a greater variety of lvling/skill advancement locations to help prevent this type of pking.
My final opinion concerns skill advancement vs leveling. These are two completely different systems which lean themselves to different playstyles. I feel that leveling leans itself more to role playing type characters which some may call carebears, but ill say these people are typically more involved with questing and items rather than pvp. Not saying these people dont enjoy pvp at all, but they have different goals. I think the best pvp games will lean toward a character development system like that of Ultima Online. It allows players to advance their characters through both PvP and PvE. Its all about using the actual skills which will make up your final character. If you want to be a swordsman then use a sword and not a mace. If you want to be a mage, then cast spells. This allows for people to have fun pvping and advance their character at the same time, instead of forcing a lvl grind/treadmill.
To each his own, but for me I want FFA Full Loot PvP
Im sure I have left somethign out that I meant to cover, but Im sure someone will point it out and ill be able to respond.
www.fa.playtokill.com
well sorry I couldn't see your sarcasm when every other post of yours has consisted of compareing real life to a game.
Ok you're right all RPGs are about level and loot, so why would anyone play a PvE RPG
ARE YOU RETARDED? NO GAME IN THE WORLD WILL LET A LVL 1 BEAT A MAX LEVEL CHARACTER PvP OR PvE. Otherwise what is the point in leveling...However, like I said in Shadowbane a level 50 can beat a lvl 75...the reason the lower levels would have a much harder time killing that level 75 is because most classes in the game don't get their best skill/power until lvl 50. If you are going to use this as an arguement then be consistent and use it for both PvP and PvE games
I said nothing about honor, some guilds in the game are the honorable type, but that's not me. Again you are baseing your "facts" on nothing but what you believe (this is called ignorance)
The great thing about Shadowbane, EVERYONE can EASILY obtain high end equipment. The first guild I ever joined in the game (was very small) when I was still a "noob"...they outfitted me with the best gear for my class.
I have already said that you can compete at lvl 50 it's just harder than at lvl 60. If you restricted who you could kill than it wouldn't be an FFA PvP game...there are several reasons for killing "lowbies".
1.) Financial gain
2.) That's just a little more time that an enemy guild won't have that character in battles
3.) for real PvP. Quite often you kill a lowbie, he gets some of his friends together, logs on a PvP toon and they come to fight you.
Hardcore PLing meaning you get another account (or just get someone to help you) have your character sit at a mob camp all day, while the other guy sets a macro and PLs you...this is not the norm though. You can easily get from lvl 1-20 in about 2-4 hours (depending on the groups you get). 20-40 in another 4-6 hours. 40-50 in ~3-5 hours, and lets add on another 3 hours for travel time and anything that might go wrong. So anyone not playing by themselves can easily get to lvl 50 in ~18 hours, and as I said lvl 50 is where you really start competing in PvP. lvl 50-60 is probably another 4 hours.
You are right, Tribes was a fun game. Never played AC, but Shadowbane is better than L2. Your complaint is that a skilled group can take on 3 groups when they are 20 levels higher????????????? OK first of all taking on 3x your number should not be an easy task in the first place. Also what is the point in gaining levels if it doesn't give you some sort of advantage.
I will give you 1 (of litterally hundreds) of examples of a force taking on a great number of opponents (of course these opponents weren't 80 levels higher than them, they were only on the same level so I guess this doesn't quailify as skill) The first city baned on the Redemption server was an 8 man guild. The guild that baned them brought more than 50 to the fight. The 8 man guild destroyed them.
It is quite clear that you don't like PvP, so why do you care what I play? The point of a game is to have fun, I have fun with PvP you have fun with PvE
Next person that compares real life illegal, violent, and immoral acts, to a game, trying to pretend that they can be even REMOTELY similar, will find torture and death at the means and ways of a soldering iron, and acid.
It's no wonder people bitch so much when they die at the hands of a mob, or a PK'er: They can't disassimilate their connection, and ultimate blurring of fiction, and reality.
While you do have a point I feel you overplay it a bit. And you refuse to acknowledge that there is a point to what Jimmy says too. (And I know I write this at the risk of being tortured and killed)
The point: There are actual people behind those pixels, and even if it is part of the game that you might kill him, and are in your right to do so (the character, of course), I'd say there are quite enough of those who go beyond that and work very actively to make their victims miserable and make the game unplayable for them. Which does hurt real people, regardless of how little you care.
"It's no wonder people bitch so much when they die at the hands of a mob, or a PK'er: They can't disassimilate their connection, and ultimate blurring of fiction, and reality."
Are you opposed to permadeath? Does the idea of losing your character upon death bother you? If so, why? Because it is important to you? Because it somehow affects the real you even if it is nothing but pixels, some diskspace and a little bit of memory here and there?
Very much rethorical questions. And I ask them in hopes that you will consider them honestly and decide whatever the answers mean to you. I don't ask to imply that I know something you don't, or that your view is inferior to mine. I hope I've made myself clear.
They may be rhetorical questions, but I don't want you to be left curious as to the answers
Yes the idea of losing a character that takes a full day (in the very quickest leveling games like Shadowbane) to 3 months (to a game like WoW). I've rolled my fair share of new characters in Shadowbane, but eventually I just got tired of it.
Now you may ask what the difference is between this and just loseing loot. Loot can be bought back with in game money (that you won't lose upon death). Also, I believe a PvP game should make equipment easily obtained. The faster people can level and equip their characters to more PvP that gets to take place
Dear Jimmy,
Get help so you dont come up with so fucked up comparisons anymore.
Merry christmas and happy new year.
The fact is most people who play these FFA PvP games are of a similar mindset so they don't care
This is a ROLE PLAYING game. While there are a lot of FFA people (myself included) that aren't really the role playing community, whether you know it or not you are playing a role. The role of an "evil guild" is to be evil. The villain in a movie isn't nice to the protagonist, because he is playing an evil role (this is an accurate comparison because just like a game, a movie is fantasy where real people are playing a role). A ganker is playing the role of an "evil villain". By playing this game you are accepting the risk that something like this might happen...if you don't like it then you simply have the choice to not play it anymore
A lot of what you said about what FFA PvP should be is Shadowbane. There are player run cities...These cities can make any type of equipment in the game...Now there is PvE just like any MMO, but the level grind is really quick (though we always try and get it done faster)...Yes there are the +8 items, but they are so easy to get that it really doesn't matter.
Shadowbane requires skill and strategy. You form up groups that complement each class in the group...or a group to counter an opponents group...Very often you will find yourself fighting a greater number of people. Yes there is a signifant difference between lvl 1 and lvl 75, and having +8 def gear and +2 def gear...but the game was done in a way where everyone is on the same level anyway because it is so easy to get to lvl 60-70 and to get that +8 gear
chs5138 wrote:
ARE YOU RETARDED? NO GAME IN THE WORLD WILL LET A LVL 1 BEAT A MAX LEVEL CHARACTER PvP OR PvE. Otherwise what is the point in leveling...
Your complaint is that a skilled group can take on 3 groups when they are 20 levels higher????????????? OK first of all taking on 3x your number should not be an easy task in the first place. Also what is the point in gaining levels if it doesn't give you some sort of advantage.
These two statements speak volumes of what you really have in mind for PvP. You want a one sided ass beating, with you doing the ass beating. Thank you for proving my point. Thank you for playing. Have a nice day.
Kade wrote:
For me ill say I dont think its logical for a a yellow belt in karate to be able to defeat a black belt in karate.
I was with you through most of that post man, but there are a few things that I have to disagree with. You're using a real life anology so I will as well. Have you ever watched to black belts sparr? Alot of new martial arts students express some discontent after watching higher ranked students sparr because they only see techniques used that they learned as white belts. Some techniques are general purpose but others have a very specific situations that they were designed for. Likewise, entire martial arts are made with different goals in mind. Tang Soo Do is about tripping your opponent and keeping them on the floor until you can either put your opponent out or run away. Jujitsu is about throwing an opponent on the ground really hard or bending them in ways that will cause debilitating inury. Karate is about putting your opponent out with one strike. What does this have to do with your statement? Simply that more experience or training doesn't gaurentee success. When I was in the military, I got into a fight with a civilian friend who had black belts in Tea Kwon Do, Kempo, and Judo. I only had three weeks hand to hand training. I walked (limped) away and he had to go to the hospital. It wasn't a high point in my life, believe me! We had different fighting styles, but we were evenly matched despite him having more training and experience. I had never been in a fight before that night.
Another thing to take into consideration is natural talent. I can't draw worth a damn. I try like hell, but I'm no Frank Frazetta (I hope I spelled that right). Even if I drew for 10 hours a day for the next 10 years, I would NEVER reach that level. These two things should be the same for PvP. A beginner with a lot of talent should be able to pick the game up quickly and own within a couple of hours. Likewise, the choice of weapon shouldn't produce that much of an advantage. Yes it's easier to fire an MP5 than an UZI but if you're poor marksman, using an MP5 will not make you any better. Levels and uber items defeat the whole purpose of PvP. That purpose being a contest of skill between two (or more) players. I'm all for a PvP MMORPG with some strategic depth. Let me know when this happens.
I really understand what you're saying, and I agree with it to an extent. Basically what you're saying is the same thing as when ESPN says "if the game was played on paper", but levels and items make up every RPG. Unless you take away the leveling/skills then you have to give the higher level person some sort of advantage.
Yes, there are advantages to be higher levels and having the best equipment, but there is a lot of skill involved too. This is why I liked Shadowbane, you can quickly level up and get your characters outfitted so everyone is pretty much on the same playing field
It would be cool to have a game where everyone is always on the same character ability level, but that type of game might be a bit shallow, but then again it could be great. I don't know, no game has ever been made like that and we won't know until a game like that is made.
Mix between carebears and no new games that offer it. I love open PvP, its ridiculous that now we have to go into battlegrounds which is just a bunch of ganking back and forth. I think open faction based PvP or full open pvp is the most fun.
Look if you PvPers are so into quick leveling, adrenaline rush, skillful PvP...play Guild Wars.
It's DESIGNED for PvP combat to be even, quick, fun, adrenaline rush, GvG, defend the keep, blah blah etc. It takes about 20 hours to get a character to lvl 20 and able to play in PvP, or if you can't be bothered with PvE at all you can START a level 20 and go straight into playing for your guild.
Yes, it's consensual, yes it's instanced, and yes, it's not FFA...but it's FAIR and EVEN (this design being the only way PvP could EVER really be fair and even)...and it has the added bonus that you don't get to piss off anyone who doesn't care for being killed with no reason.
If you don't like my suggestion, you're OBVIOUSLY not into PvP for fair and even fights where skill and quality of your character's build (or heaven forbid teamwork, with teams with EVEN sides) is the order of the day. If so, then STFU and go kill some lowbies to stop them catching up to your "mighty level", and confirm to us all what your so called skillful FFA PvP is REALLY all about.
(And if you want to "affect" the roleplay world you're in stay on the back of the Guild Wars devs to implement it. They will eventually; it was a plan when I was in their beta that they would eventually have areas that could be fought over and owned by one guild or another. In one of their upcoming expansions, I'm sure it will be implemented. Oh, and as of recently, you can even get friends to watch your l33t skills in action in observer mode...this game really is quality, pity about the community...but then, they are PvPers so what do I expect
). NO that was NOT an ad, it was a recommendation.
I have played GW (and actually just started playing again) decent game...pretty good pvp. Except the fights are static. There is no variation...you know it's going to be 4v4, 8v8, or whatever...in FFA PvP you never know how many you will be faceing. Not to mention the numbers on each side are far greater than 8.
You statement "if you don't like my suggestion then you're not into PvP for fair fights" has some truth to it, but is more wrong than it is right. The part of it that is right is because no, I don't always want a fair fight. If the numbers on each side happen to be the same then GREAT, but if it's the same all the time then it just gets repetitive. I'd much rather have the ability to outnumber my opponent or have the risk of them outnumbering me. Defeating a force that has twice as many, or more, members is so much more satisfying than winning an 8v8.
Now about skill: Unless the numbers just get ridiculous, then more often than not the better team will win. That meaning the team with the more skilled players, competant leader, complete teamwork. However, if it's like 200 vs. 20 then no the 20 aren't going to win because they shouldn't be able to.
Guild Wars is a fun game, and if they add the content you said they had planned on adding then that will make it much better. Except it still doesn't beat a warfare system like that of shadowbane where there are litterally hundreds of people involved in the fights and sieges that have lasted for more than 6 hours.
http://aerirprown.blogspot.com/
Yeah, I understand all the points in your post, it's true that anything that is *always* the same can become a bit repetitive, but I don't think unfair fights give you "bragging rights" or are anything to be proud of (unless of course you're the side that wins from the unfair position, then it rocks...but you can have that feeling against NPCs too without the grief to other players...if the PvE is designed right).
The funny thing is Shadowbane was THE PvP interactive world MMO that I'd really love to have played, but because of living in Australia, and therefore not being able to sign up for the demo (or even buy it at all if I remember rightly) I've never been able to experience it. Plus, with the buggy release, the now smallish numbers, and the myriad of other games I'm interested in coming out soon, I doubt I'll ever end up trying it now.
Yeah, I understand all the points in your post, it's true that anything that is *always* the same can become a bit repetitive, but I don't think unfair fights give you "bragging rights" or are anything to be proud of (unless of course you're the side that wins from the unfair position, then it rocks...but you can have that feeling against NPCs too without the grief to other players...if the PvE is designed right).
The funny thing is Shadowbane was THE PvP interactive world MMO that I'd really love to have played, but because of living in Australia, and therefore not being able to sign up for the demo (or even buy it at all if I remember rightly) I've never been able to experience it. Plus, with the buggy release, the now smallish numbers, and the myriad of other games I'm interested in coming out soon, I doubt I'll ever end up trying it now.
I was talking about being on the disadvantaged side in an uneven fight. If you're in a fight with 10 on your side vs. 40 other people then it feels great to win. If you're in that side of 40 then it is embarrasing
Fighting a greater number of NPC's just isn't as appealing to me. Hacking and Slashing away at constant NPCs is fun at first, but you can only kill mindless drones for so long before you can't take it anymore.
I want to fight live people who can think on their feet, and possibly employ some tactic I've never even seen before. It's just so much fun
.
As for Shadowbane. Ya lots of bugs and the populations on the servers have seriously declined because of them. Still by far the best PvP game I have ever played, heres for hoping for Shadowbane 2.
The problem most have with FFA PvP is that they don't understand two very basic and very important things about FFA PvP. The first being the primary purpose of FFA PvP. The second being that FFA PvP is for the more mature gamer.
The primary reason for including FFA PvP in any game is to provide a dynamic and unpredictable element of danger to the game world. Stated as above the idea of FFA PvP seems like a good thing and it would be except that it is usually poorly implemented. The reason stems from the same root as to why so many MMO economies end up screwed up with hyper inflation. The people that designed the economy don't understand the underlying princples and mechanisms that create and maintan a robust ecomony. Similiarly, the people that design the game worlds fail to understand the basis of a robust sustainable society. FFA is not the same thing as anarchy, except in games it is. This lack of structure concerning PvP and saying that well, the players can just kill the PKer right back is not a good recipe for a normal seeming societal structure.
Logically, a bandit should not be able to beat and rob you a few yards from the town gate. Likewise, a well traveled route should be safe enough during the day. Where is the law? A King that can't protect his subects isn't much of a King. Saying that the player base should impose some law upon rampant PKers is the ultimate cop out by development staff. Criminal behavior should have consequences. A good start would be deciding exactly what constitutes a ciminal act as oppossed to legitimate conflict between oppossing entities or self defense. The annoying PK/greifer types that flourish in many FFA type enviroment are soley the fault of poor game design.
My second point is that FFA PvP is for mature gamers that have gotten past the child like view that the world should be fair. Fair is a nice thing but as an adult I've come to realize that most people that have an advantage over me have, shockingly enough, done something to earn that advantage. I will admit that a minority of people have just gotten lucky but again, as an adult, I've come to see often enough you can make your own luck.
The anti-FFA crowd can't be won over by any amount of arguement. However they will grow up, or not.
I have to go off topic here for a second....
fulltimekilr wrote:
My second point is that FFA PvP is for mature gamers that have gotten past the child like view that the world should be fair. Fair is a nice thing but as an adult I've come to realize that most people that have an advantage over me have, shockingly enough, done something to earn that advantage.
I too am an adult. I too also realize that life isn't fair. However, to believe that the master class is where they are due to merit is a total crock of shit. I realize that had I been born a different color, religion, or in another country, my life would have been much, much harder than it is. I also realize that over 90% of the people that occupy the upper 1% of the world income bracket got there by inheritance. The remaining 10% is divided (lopsidedly) between hard work and stock / real estate speculation. BTW, Speculation is the greater sum of that final 1/10th of 1%.
Back to the discussion. I believe that a players ability should be the deciding factor in how well they do and the playing field should be level. In real life we call that an ideal and ideals are something that you work towards in the face of adversity. In games, we can achieve (more or less) a level playing field by keeping levels and loot out of the equation. Skills? No problem. Weapons, they should only compliment this or that STYLE of play and not become totems of instant ownage. The skill of the player should ultimately decide the outcome of any PvP, not the player character's stats or gear.
this is the most retarded thread ever.
Shadowbane showed that FFA PVP is the BEST for making money... because people lose things, as well as things break so there's always a huge demand for money. I knew a 10 year old kid who made over 10 grand in 3 months (duping, but still) playing shadowbane. His parents (which are my friends) made him put it towards a college fund and gave him a little extra to go buy some video games with.
In fact the huge demand for money and duping destroyed the game because people realized they could sell 1 mil shadowbane money for like 100 bucks real life money and it took a few seconds to get a BILLION duped.
I think I generally agree with a few people here.
Among them: Both Fulltimekilr and Jimmy_Schythe.
At times I read it as though we are saying the same things, but at the same time it seems we stand on different sides of a fence, trying to convince eachother of it...
I don't think there are many (if any) anti FFA PvP'ers who have stuck with this discussion, posts don't indicate that. The anti's drop by, make a post about hoping this thing is really dead and move on. What separates people still is what kind of FFA PvP we want. How it should be implemented. And I don't know of a single workable solution that has come out as a game. Mildly enjoyable, temporarily, yes. Truly workable, no.
But really: I know I could enjoy a good game of FFA PvP. I have my own views on what is good, but don't we all?
The future: Adellion
Common flaw in MMORPGs: The ability to die casually
Advantages of Adellion: Dynamic world (affected by its inhabitants)
Player-driven world (beasts won't be an endless supply of mighty swords, gold will come from mines, not dragonly dens)
Player-driven world (Leadership is the privilege of a player, not an npc)
I miss the FFA pvp of AC on Darktide and even on some of the white servers.
I love how the people bashing ffa pvp have never really even played it.
Guild Wars is not an alternative for us pvp'ers. It is not ffa and has very little depth.
Hopefully, some of the upcoming games will bring back true ffa pvp and wont bow down to every carebear.