This is the problem man, so very few choose to join those games, so they aren't being made.
How do you get people to WANT to get more involved with PvP over PvE?
Remove the asshats. Or make the asshats really, really have to think about the consequences of their behavior.
Ya'll sandbox ffa etc. etc. folk are always championing "realism" and "honor" yet I propose a system that would give you BOTH and it's still not enough.
Asshats LIKE being asshats.
Hence why game that cater to asshats are always so, so, so very low in population and thus funding, support, quality, etc.
Have you guys looked at Life is Feudal. Full PVP, Full Loot, With Very harsh penalties for PKing.
Worth a look. But that is seriously the only answer.
FFA PvP has always catered and coddled to the PK, not the Anti-PK. Been true since UO.
It's easier/more efficient to be "evil" - just like the Dark Side man. But, in a video game you don't have a soul to corrupt with the dark side of the force, and it's not "real" so you can't appeal to a person's IRL morality - you HAVE to do it with gameplay systems that help FORCE morality and "good" choices.
And that also makes it a LOT more interesting, and challenging, for the true PK that can hack it.
Another example is exploration. It's not inherently pve or pvp, but can easily consist of both. It should not be developed and tailored to Mr. "Keep PvP out my game!"
I think there's nothing wrong with a strictly pve game. If there's to be PvP, I like how Daoc did it Pre-ToA. You were safe behind your gates, but once you ventured out into the frontiers you were fair game. If you decided to go beyond the gates you knew it was a pvp zone with pve mobs all about, danger was everywhere once you left the safety of your home gates.
I love RvR done right, and ganking lowbies was never my thing. What good is it? I like a challenging fight were it could go either way, why would I want to pick on some lowbie I know I can beat? I've found that usually the people that like to lowbie gank are just terrible pvp'ers when up against equal opponents and just go kill lowbies since they know that's all they can defeat.
I realistic, true morality/criminality system that very, very strongly motivated people to NOT be asshats is the only solution.
Something like, PK players who go against the established rule of law in the game are subject to REAL in-game jail time and character permadeath:
The game must clearly state-
1. If you choose to be a criminal, you may face long duration in-game jail time - weeks or even more than a month of forced downtime on that character. No access to log in to the game's server with a jailed character for X amount of time.
2. If you choose to be a murderer, a sociopath, you are subject to permadeath of that character upon capture or player death by a registered bounty hunter.
3. War crimes - even in a state of legal war with a registered faction/alliance/guild etc. the killing of non-combatants is subject to war crimes proceedings, including long duration in-game jail time and/or character permadeath.
Your entire argument is invalid because they CHOOSE to join a game with full pvp.
This is the problem man, so very few choose to join those games, so they aren't being made.
How do you get people to WANT to get more involved with PvP over PvE?
Remove the asshats. Or make the asshats really, really have to think about the consequences of their behavior.
Ya'll sandbox ffa etc. etc. folk are always championing "realism" and "honor" yet I propose a system that would give you BOTH and it's still not enough.
Asshats LIKE being asshats.
Hence why game that cater to asshats are always so, so, so very low in population and thus funding, support, quality, etc.
Have you guys looked at Life is Feudal. Full PVP, Full Loot, With Very harsh penalties for PKing. Such as red players have a chance depending on their reputation of losing ALL of their skill points on death. Virtually a permadeath system ONLY for Red players.
Yup, seen it. Not really interested. Not interested in death penalties at all either.
This game will end up being a great illustration of the "PvP Truth". That is, there are plenty of people who say they want to be in PvP, but when it comes to games where you are actually confronted with people who are actually good at PvP, 90% of those people leave the game because they can't simply go and gank lowbies to blow off steam of their own suckyness.
I won't disagree, if I joined LiF, that's my own fault. That IS the game. My argument is that there are way more people who say they love PvP, but very few to whom "PvP" means fighting similarly-skilled foes. You might be one of those people who are actually good at PvP. I'm not here to judge your skills, but I'm saying that even the people who say they love PvP usually have a warped perception of what that actually means.
I've always felt like there is a bit of a cognitive dissonance when it comes to PvP as well.
It's like:
1. The game is telling us we are heroes/adventurers and are thus "special"
2. We are immortal because we are "special"
3. We are powerful and grow in power or amass more of it as we continue to adventure
4. Heroes and "special" people in literature, dating back forever, are more often than not victorious and only perish when it is epic or heroic to do so- going all the way back to Homer we are told heroes are heroes because they are NOT immortal
See where I am going with this?
So why do we, in MMOs, fling our bodies to death after death after death and still call it heroic?
Just a bunch of demi-gods killing each other over and over and over.
Shouldn't we just be normal, faceless soldiers?
But doesn't that go counter against us doing heroic deeds and growing in power?
And wouldn't normal soldier NOT have the kind of power and magical abilities of these ancient heroes?
Should developers continue to design content for the PvE only player?
I don't think they should. The PvE only player is the creative roadblock in mmorpg design. From resource gathering to trade, to territory control, they have all been designed, governed or gutted by the demands of the PvE only player.
There can be no transit of commerce because of the PvE only player. Social systems are left without politics because of the PvE only player. Wealth creation systems are designed with the PvE only player in mind. This way of developing mmorpgs has lead to the creation of sterile worlds, lacking consequence.
Developing mmorpgs for the pvp/pve player will allow for the creation of any and all systems. Systems that can then be smoothed for balance with moderation in mind for the majority of players.
I have a dream that one day, pve and pvp will be things of the past! Tha... I'll stop here.
I'll take it a step further...when will devs stop trying to force pvpers to pve and force pvers to pvp? The devs need to make pve servers that only have consentual pvp and pvp servers that force pvp. So many games now try to appease both sides and no one is happy...sucks.
Incognito www.incognito-gaming.us "You're either with us or against us"
From what I have seen over the years, since 1999 or so, is that the number of PvPers is quite low compared to the number of PvErs in almost every game. The thing that makes it seem like there are so many more PvPers then there actually are is that PvPers are a very vocal lot. Often when a game includes PvP content it dilutes the quality of a game across the board. If some one makes a PvP only game that would be great except IMHO there would not be enough players to keep it going. The sheen will wear off and a lot of the lesser skilled PvPers will be on boards like this complaining about how bad the PvP only game sucks and the maker will add restrictions to get back lost players and they will gimp the crap out of it. A PvP only game could only have a marginal success if that. As always, this is my opinion based on my experiences of the last 15 years of MMO's. Feel free to scream and shout cause, frankly I don't care. This post is probably the first, last and only time I look at this thread so flame away!
I realistic, true morality/criminality system that very, very strongly motivated people to NOT be asshats is the only solution.
Something like, PK players who go against the established rule of law in the game are subject to REAL in-game jail time and character permadeath:
The game must clearly state-
1. If you choose to be a criminal, you may face long duration in-game jail time - weeks or even more than a month of forced downtime on that character. No access to log in to the game's server with a jailed character for X amount of time.
2. If you choose to be a murderer, a sociopath, you are subject to permadeath of that character upon capture or player death by a registered bounty hunter.
3. War crimes - even in a state of legal war with a registered faction/alliance/guild etc. the killing of non-combatants is subject to war crimes proceedings, including long duration in-game jail time and/or character permadeath.
Your entire argument is invalid because they CHOOSE to join a game with full pvp.
This is the problem man, so very few choose to join those games, so they aren't being made.
How do you get people to WANT to get more involved with PvP over PvE?
Remove the asshats. Or make the asshats really, really have to think about the consequences of their behavior.
Ya'll sandbox ffa etc. etc. folk are always championing "realism" and "honor" yet I propose a system that would give you BOTH and it's still not enough.
Asshats LIKE being asshats.
Hence why game that cater to asshats are always so, so, so very low in population and thus funding, support, quality, etc.
Have you guys looked at Life is Feudal. Full PVP, Full Loot, With Very harsh penalties for PKing. Such as red players have a chance depending on their reputation of losing ALL of their skill points on death. Virtually a permadeath system ONLY for Red players.
Yup, seen it. Not really interested. Not interested in death penalties at all either.
This game will end up being a great illustration of the "PvP Truth". That is, there are plenty of people who say they want to be in PvP, but when it comes to games where you are actually confronted with people who are actually good at PvP, 90% of those people leave the game because they can't simply go and gank lowbies to blow off steam of their own suckyness.
I won't disagree, if I joined LiF, that's my own fault. That IS the game. My argument is that there are way more people who say they love PvP, but very few to whom "PvP" means fighting similarly-skilled foes. You might be one of those people who are actually good at PvP. I'm not here to judge your skills, but I'm saying that even the people who say they love PvP usually have a warped perception of what that actually means.
I actually am a bandit. I go after single targets usually who are gathering. Do I kill for fun? Of course not... What's the point? Will I wait in the bushes watching you for 20 minutes till you are done mining and hopefully a bit encumbered and take full tactical advantage of your unguarded serfs? You bet your sweet bippy I will. A sheep that cries when wolf eats eat should have stayed closer to the flock.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Sorry OP but you obviously have not paid attention to what devs are saying and doing.
The creative roadblock is from the developer,they are NOT willing to hand craft a world anymore,they said it is just too costly.'
So HOW do you design a good pvp combat world unless you hand craft it?Then you need to put in the tiem and effort to make sure players have various skills to allow for all types of combat.
Guess what you actually end up with?
Open areas with some repeated tree models,a few hedge brushes,maybe some flowers,1 maybe 2 weapon choices,no actual weapon skills,just a few hot bar icons to click.So there you have it,a REALLY dull barren world with some added creatures dotted around the landscape.
The best pvp and probably always will be is in Arena settings because they are focused on pvp and almost always offer players various choice...see example Unreal Tournament 99.You have short range ,mid range,long range weapons,then you have versatile ,splash weapons and the superlative Shock Rifle that can shoot around corners and has a decent aoe range.
Simply running out in the open with your sword and hitting some hotbar icons is NOTHING to what real pvp should be,matter of fact it is what i would consider the lowest denominator for pvp.
I find it really odd that all i ever hear is players want large scale fights and meaningful fights,seems the ymiss the whole point of getting the combat right FIRST before moving onto anything else.
Bottom line is devs have had more than enough time to figure it out and get it right but have not come evern remotely clsoe to doing it,so imo give up on it,leave it to the fps devs who can do it MUCH better.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Should developers continue to design content for the PvE only player?
I don't think they should. The PvE only player is the creative roadblock in mmorpg design. From resource gathering to trade, to territory control, they have all been designed, governed or gutted by the demands of the PvE only player.
There can be no transit of commerce because of the PvE only player. Social systems are left without politics because of the PvE only player. Wealth creation systems are designed with the PvE only player in mind. This way of developing mmorpgs has lead to the creation of sterile worlds, lacking consequence.
Developing mmorpgs for the pvp/pve player will allow for the creation of any and all systems. Systems that can then be smoothed for balance with moderation in mind for the majority of players.
I have a dream that one day, pve and pvp will be things of the past! Tha... I'll stop here.
I'll take it a step further...when will devs stop trying to force pvpers to pve and force pvers to pvp? The devs need to make pve servers that only have consentual pvp and pvp servers that force pvp. So many games now try to appease both sides and no one is happy...sucks.
Why do you consider it a direct attack on you if a game is made that doesn't fit your exact playstyle? I can't begin to tell you how entitled you sound.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Look there is two ways to make PvP. PvP that caters to the PvP crowd and can be turned off on PvE only servers or PvP that caters to the PvE crowd which tends to make the PvP crowd unhappy.
What we get today is almost always the latter. We get these goofy PvP zones that offer no consequence and no real reason to the PvP that is there to appease those that dont' like real PvP but still want to be able to jump into it on a whim to have a different game experience.
This has effectively ruined PvP for the PvP crowd in all newer games.
I'd gladly see a game that just does PvE only content and doesn't try to draw the quasi PvP crowd as well as long as we also get a few major titles that try to make the PvP crowd without catering to the quasi PvP crowd as well. Unfortunately we just get one glop of crud meant for both.
Sorry OP but you obviously have not paid attention to what devs are saying and doing.
The creative roadblock is from the developer,they are NOT willing to hand craft a world anymore,they said it is just too costly.'
So HOW do you design a good pvp combat world unless you hand craft it?Then you need to put in the tiem and effort to make sure players have various skills to allow for all types of combat.
Guess what you actually end up with?
Open areas with some repeated tree models,a few hedge brushes,maybe some flowers,1 maybe 2 weapon choices,no actual weapon skills,just a few hot bar icons to click.So there you have it,a REALLY dull barren world with some added creatures dotted around the landscape.
The best pvp and probably always will be is in Arena settings because they are focused on pvp and almost always offer players various choice...see example Unreal Tournament 99.You have short range ,mid range,long range weapons,then you have versatile ,splash weapons and the superlative Shock Rifle that can shoot around corners and has a decent aoe range.
Simply running out in the open with your sword and hitting some hotbar icons is NOTHING to what real pvp should be,matter of fact it is what i would consider the lowest denominator for pvp.
I find it really odd that all i ever hear is players want large scale fights and meaningful fights,seems the ymiss the whole point of getting the combat right FIRST before moving onto anything else.
Bottom line is devs have had more than enough time to figure it out and get it right but have not come evern remotely clsoe to doing it,so imo give up on it,leave it to the fps devs who can do it MUCH better.
I was involved in several 400 man+ city raids on Darkfall. So what was your point again exactly?
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Developing mmorpgs for the pvp/pve player will allow for the creation of any and all systems. Systems that can then be smoothed for balance with moderation in mind for the majority of players.
Developing mmorpgs for the pvp/pve player will allow for the creation of any and all systems. Systems that can then be smoothed for balance with moderation in mind for the majority of players.
You might want to explain exactly what you are talking about, and how what you're describing is different from say, WoW, which includes content for PvEvP players. Would your target game be something like WoW, with more PvP content in the world, or something like Darkfall with more PvE content in the world? You are either going on about something that is already common, or what you're talking about has nothing at all to do with PvP or PvE players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Development systems with the player who enjoys all aspects of mmorpgs in mind, versus the "I oooonly PvE" guy.
That only makes sense if the "player who enjoys it all" audience is larger than the "I only PvE" audience, which doesn't appear to be the case. But if you want to have a real conversation about how to address the issues you bring up, you have to talk about why the "I only PvE" player exists in the first place, and how to make that player *want* to do more than just PvE. Changing the games without first finding a way to change audience preferences is just a path to failed games.
It's ok for the computer to kill me, but if a player does it I go crying off to the forums to have pvp removed...
That's the mindset of the PVE only type. What they were even doing in a FFAPVP game in the first place?
Not the same thing, and you know it. The computer only kills the player when the player goes somewhere they aren't strong enough to be, picks a fight he can't win, etc. etc. Death in PvE happens as a result of the player making the wrong choices when confronted with NPCs that are only acting the way they are supposed to act according to their nature and the nature of the setting.
In games with FFA PvP, death is often the result of a disproportionate number of players being assholes purely for the sake of being assholes. Level 50s showing up in level 10 zones and killing everyone they see just because they can one shot them and think it's funny, roaming groups killing anybody they see soloing to "punish" them for "playing wrong," etc. etc. All because the games lack any real consequences for behavior which (in a realistic setting) would get you locked in a cell. (Or, in a reality where characters aren't functionally immortal, killed permanently.)
Most limitations imposed on PvP aren't imposed because the developers disagree in principle with the idea of FFA PvP enhancing a game, it's because they recognize the reality of the type of player most drawn to those systems, and they try to create limitations which allow the "good" PvP while preventing the "bad" PvP. Have any of these systems been ideal? No, but most of them are still better than FFA, which generally results in there being so much "bad" PvP that you don't even have enough players who stick around for the "good" PvP to be very well populated.
As other posters have mentioned, the ideal if someone could manage to do it well would be to have FFA PvP, but to have incredibly harsh in game consequences that are enforced by the game itself and it's NPCs, not just other players, when you engage in murderous behavior outside of designated "war" zones based around factional conflict. If someone likes to randomly kill people for "teh lulz," then that is a player who should eventually be considered an outlaw in every city, with NPC guards trying to arrest him whenever he is seen. His only options should be to surrender or resist arrest, and if he surrenders or dies fighting the guards he should end up in custody, with his only choices being to try to break out of prison, or let the sentence run it's course. And the sentences should be consecutive, not concurrent, more time for every murder committed. And with more time tacked on for every failed escape attempt.
A system like that, well implemented, would eventually accomplish one of two things; getting the asshats to quit playing, or training them to behave in a more civilized fashion. All while still technically having FFA PvP.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
The PvE-focused player makes up the majority of the playerbase of every successful sandbox MMO.
I would disagree. I think it's the player that does both to some degree. Beyond that it will be conjecture from the both of us.
Really? Want proof? Just look with ANY game how many PVE servers they had to open and how many PVP. Usually ratio is 1:10 in favor of PVE. Exception are of course PVP only games. But there are none really valid.
The PvE-focused player makes up the majority of the playerbase of every successful sandbox MMO.
I would disagree. I think it's the player that does both to some degree. Beyond that it will be conjecture from the both of us.
Really? Want proof? Just look with ANY game how many PVE servers they had to open and how many PVP. Usually ratio is 1:10 in favor of PVE. Exception are of course PVP only games. But there are none really valid.
That's really the point though, lots of people who like really niche gameplay will pretend that what they enjoy is really popular, be it PvP or permadeath or sandbox games, but at the end of the day, none of those things are popular, they're not getting more popular and the vast majority of MMO players wants nothing to do with them. Getting the enthusiasts to admit it though... that's another thing.
So I'm assuming everyone here who wants pvp only mmos is backing Camelot Unchained?
Weirdly enough, the only money I spent on MMO's in 2013 was to become an alpha backer of CU, and is the only Kickstarter I've ever funded.
And I don't really like to PVP that much.
But I did like the concept, a game made directly for the PVP only crowd and I wanted to see how it turned out. Heck, I might even grow to enjoy PVP a bit more, who knows?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The problem isn't the PvE only players, the problem is the PvP players who have trained the majority of players to be PvE only players. As others have mentioned, most people don't want to deal with jerks being jerks for their own amusement. It's not "fair" if them enjoying themselves has no impact on you, but your enjoying yourself means they can't. Massive penalties for ganking morons helps to level out the perceived imbalance, but they have to be really brutal or you just end up with another game that everyone but the jerks abandon.
Well it depends on the game. Like a Wildstar or EQN I really don't care if its PvE only because I won't be playing them. I usually only play PvE because it is usually where you level up and get stuff to craft so you can finally get into the PvP. Backed the kickstarter for CU because that is the type of game I want to play, I don't want to run the same dungeons 10,000 times to get the purple mushroom tip helmet to only find out the new blue mushroom tip helmet is .0001% better and have to run it all over again 20,000 times.
I do not think you can point to a game like League of Legends and say that the popularity of a MOBA type game illustrates that people want more PvP than PvE. The reason for this is that in MoBA games a match has no lasting impact on your character. You are not looted or diminished ,what you earn is spent in the match itself when you buy the gear with what you earn in that match and you walk away able to participate again with little to no consequences to losing.
In an MMORPG you are investing hours and hours of time building up your character and if someone kills and loots you, you are losing something of value that an ordinary PvE player places value on. I must emphasize the word ordinary meaning a normal player places a value on what they do to build up their character. If you personally have no attachment does not mean every other PvE players has no such attachment. It is this attachment that causes PvE players to balk at being killed in a PvP game . Many find this sentiment to pixels difficult to understand but if you spend time and effort gathering resources building and maintaining your character that effort is what makes up a majority of a PvE player's satisfaction and motivation in the game. You cannot put a value or measure it individually but collectively PvE players place a great deal of emphasis on growth of their characters and it does not in many cases stand up to being destroyed by some slaphappy PvP player bent on destroying those hard worn items.Silly perhaps but different people play games for different reasons and you absolutely cannot force one type of style on another unless you want a recipe for failure.
Developing mmorpgs for the pvp/pve player will allow for the creation of any and all systems. Systems that can then be smoothed for balance with moderation in mind for the majority of players.
You might want to explain exactly what you are talking about, and how what you're describing is different from say, WoW, which includes content for PvEvP players. Would your target game be something like WoW, with more PvP content in the world, or something like Darkfall with more PvE content in the world? You are either going on about something that is already common, or what you're talking about has nothing at all to do with PvP or PvE players.
bcbully is saying **I think** that the majority of Players participate in both pve and pvp, and so the majority is who you design MMOs for....
MMOs are not designed for Players that only PvP...
MMOs are not designed for Players that only PvE...
short version.... if you don't enjoy both PvP and PvE and are will to accept balancing for a MMO that caters to both then you are ignored as a customer.
I don't agree with this design philosophy, but then I have always been a misfit so I see value and importance in places others ignore.
Comments
Worth a look. But that is seriously the only answer.
FFA PvP has always catered and coddled to the PK, not the Anti-PK. Been true since UO.
It's easier/more efficient to be "evil" - just like the Dark Side man. But, in a video game you don't have a soul to corrupt with the dark side of the force, and it's not "real" so you can't appeal to a person's IRL morality - you HAVE to do it with gameplay systems that help FORCE morality and "good" choices.
And that also makes it a LOT more interesting, and challenging, for the true PK that can hack it.
Another example is exploration. It's not inherently pve or pvp, but can easily consist of both. It should not be developed and tailored to Mr. "Keep PvP out my game!"
I think there's nothing wrong with a strictly pve game. If there's to be PvP, I like how Daoc did it Pre-ToA. You were safe behind your gates, but once you ventured out into the frontiers you were fair game. If you decided to go beyond the gates you knew it was a pvp zone with pve mobs all about, danger was everywhere once you left the safety of your home gates.
I love RvR done right, and ganking lowbies was never my thing. What good is it? I like a challenging fight were it could go either way, why would I want to pick on some lowbie I know I can beat? I've found that usually the people that like to lowbie gank are just terrible pvp'ers when up against equal opponents and just go kill lowbies since they know that's all they can defeat.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
Yup, seen it. Not really interested. Not interested in death penalties at all either.
This game will end up being a great illustration of the "PvP Truth". That is, there are plenty of people who say they want to be in PvP, but when it comes to games where you are actually confronted with people who are actually good at PvP, 90% of those people leave the game because they can't simply go and gank lowbies to blow off steam of their own suckyness.
I won't disagree, if I joined LiF, that's my own fault. That IS the game. My argument is that there are way more people who say they love PvP, but very few to whom "PvP" means fighting similarly-skilled foes. You might be one of those people who are actually good at PvP. I'm not here to judge your skills, but I'm saying that even the people who say they love PvP usually have a warped perception of what that actually means.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I've always felt like there is a bit of a cognitive dissonance when it comes to PvP as well.
It's like:
1. The game is telling us we are heroes/adventurers and are thus "special"
2. We are immortal because we are "special"
3. We are powerful and grow in power or amass more of it as we continue to adventure
4. Heroes and "special" people in literature, dating back forever, are more often than not victorious and only perish when it is epic or heroic to do so- going all the way back to Homer we are told heroes are heroes because they are NOT immortal
See where I am going with this?
So why do we, in MMOs, fling our bodies to death after death after death and still call it heroic?
Just a bunch of demi-gods killing each other over and over and over.
Shouldn't we just be normal, faceless soldiers?
But doesn't that go counter against us doing heroic deeds and growing in power?
And wouldn't normal soldier NOT have the kind of power and magical abilities of these ancient heroes?
It's an identity crises.
I'll take it a step further...when will devs stop trying to force pvpers to pve and force pvers to pvp? The devs need to make pve servers that only have consentual pvp and pvp servers that force pvp. So many games now try to appease both sides and no one is happy...sucks.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
If you make chocolate icecream, I bet most of your customer prefer chocolate
I think chocolate icecream is the easiest to make and maintain though.
one word ... e-sports.
I actually am a bandit. I go after single targets usually who are gathering. Do I kill for fun? Of course not... What's the point? Will I wait in the bushes watching you for 20 minutes till you are done mining and hopefully a bit encumbered and take full tactical advantage of your unguarded serfs? You bet your sweet bippy I will. A sheep that cries when wolf eats eat should have stayed closer to the flock.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Sorry OP but you obviously have not paid attention to what devs are saying and doing.
The creative roadblock is from the developer,they are NOT willing to hand craft a world anymore,they said it is just too costly.'
So HOW do you design a good pvp combat world unless you hand craft it?Then you need to put in the tiem and effort to make sure players have various skills to allow for all types of combat.
Guess what you actually end up with?
Open areas with some repeated tree models,a few hedge brushes,maybe some flowers,1 maybe 2 weapon choices,no actual weapon skills,just a few hot bar icons to click.So there you have it,a REALLY dull barren world with some added creatures dotted around the landscape.
The best pvp and probably always will be is in Arena settings because they are focused on pvp and almost always offer players various choice...see example Unreal Tournament 99.You have short range ,mid range,long range weapons,then you have versatile ,splash weapons and the superlative Shock Rifle that can shoot around corners and has a decent aoe range.
Simply running out in the open with your sword and hitting some hotbar icons is NOTHING to what real pvp should be,matter of fact it is what i would consider the lowest denominator for pvp.
I find it really odd that all i ever hear is players want large scale fights and meaningful fights,seems the ymiss the whole point of getting the combat right FIRST before moving onto anything else.
Bottom line is devs have had more than enough time to figure it out and get it right but have not come evern remotely clsoe to doing it,so imo give up on it,leave it to the fps devs who can do it MUCH better.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Why do you consider it a direct attack on you if a game is made that doesn't fit your exact playstyle? I can't begin to tell you how entitled you sound.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Look there is two ways to make PvP. PvP that caters to the PvP crowd and can be turned off on PvE only servers or PvP that caters to the PvE crowd which tends to make the PvP crowd unhappy.
What we get today is almost always the latter. We get these goofy PvP zones that offer no consequence and no real reason to the PvP that is there to appease those that dont' like real PvP but still want to be able to jump into it on a whim to have a different game experience.
This has effectively ruined PvP for the PvP crowd in all newer games.
I'd gladly see a game that just does PvE only content and doesn't try to draw the quasi PvP crowd as well as long as we also get a few major titles that try to make the PvP crowd without catering to the quasi PvP crowd as well. Unfortunately we just get one glop of crud meant for both.
I was involved in several 400 man+ city raids on Darkfall. So what was your point again exactly?
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Developing mmorpgs for the pvp/pve player will allow for the creation of any and all systems. Systems that can then be smoothed for balance with moderation in mind for the majority of players.
You might want to explain exactly what you are talking about, and how what you're describing is different from say, WoW, which includes content for PvEvP players. Would your target game be something like WoW, with more PvP content in the world, or something like Darkfall with more PvE content in the world? You are either going on about something that is already common, or what you're talking about has nothing at all to do with PvP or PvE players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And if most people wouldn't you have your answer as to why no one other than a few indie shops will make games like these.
Not the same thing, and you know it. The computer only kills the player when the player goes somewhere they aren't strong enough to be, picks a fight he can't win, etc. etc. Death in PvE happens as a result of the player making the wrong choices when confronted with NPCs that are only acting the way they are supposed to act according to their nature and the nature of the setting.
In games with FFA PvP, death is often the result of a disproportionate number of players being assholes purely for the sake of being assholes. Level 50s showing up in level 10 zones and killing everyone they see just because they can one shot them and think it's funny, roaming groups killing anybody they see soloing to "punish" them for "playing wrong," etc. etc. All because the games lack any real consequences for behavior which (in a realistic setting) would get you locked in a cell. (Or, in a reality where characters aren't functionally immortal, killed permanently.)
Most limitations imposed on PvP aren't imposed because the developers disagree in principle with the idea of FFA PvP enhancing a game, it's because they recognize the reality of the type of player most drawn to those systems, and they try to create limitations which allow the "good" PvP while preventing the "bad" PvP. Have any of these systems been ideal? No, but most of them are still better than FFA, which generally results in there being so much "bad" PvP that you don't even have enough players who stick around for the "good" PvP to be very well populated.
As other posters have mentioned, the ideal if someone could manage to do it well would be to have FFA PvP, but to have incredibly harsh in game consequences that are enforced by the game itself and it's NPCs, not just other players, when you engage in murderous behavior outside of designated "war" zones based around factional conflict. If someone likes to randomly kill people for "teh lulz," then that is a player who should eventually be considered an outlaw in every city, with NPC guards trying to arrest him whenever he is seen. His only options should be to surrender or resist arrest, and if he surrenders or dies fighting the guards he should end up in custody, with his only choices being to try to break out of prison, or let the sentence run it's course. And the sentences should be consecutive, not concurrent, more time for every murder committed. And with more time tacked on for every failed escape attempt.
A system like that, well implemented, would eventually accomplish one of two things; getting the asshats to quit playing, or training them to behave in a more civilized fashion. All while still technically having FFA PvP.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Really? Want proof? Just look with ANY game how many PVE servers they had to open and how many PVP. Usually ratio is 1:10 in favor of PVE. Exception are of course PVP only games. But there are none really valid.
That's really the point though, lots of people who like really niche gameplay will pretend that what they enjoy is really popular, be it PvP or permadeath or sandbox games, but at the end of the day, none of those things are popular, they're not getting more popular and the vast majority of MMO players wants nothing to do with them. Getting the enthusiasts to admit it though... that's another thing.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Weirdly enough, the only money I spent on MMO's in 2013 was to become an alpha backer of CU, and is the only Kickstarter I've ever funded.
And I don't really like to PVP that much.
But I did like the concept, a game made directly for the PVP only crowd and I wanted to see how it turned out. Heck, I might even grow to enjoy PVP a bit more, who knows?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I do not think you can point to a game like League of Legends and say that the popularity of a MOBA type game illustrates that people want more PvP than PvE. The reason for this is that in MoBA games a match has no lasting impact on your character. You are not looted or diminished ,what you earn is spent in the match itself when you buy the gear with what you earn in that match and you walk away able to participate again with little to no consequences to losing.
In an MMORPG you are investing hours and hours of time building up your character and if someone kills and loots you, you are losing something of value that an ordinary PvE player places value on. I must emphasize the word ordinary meaning a normal player places a value on what they do to build up their character. If you personally have no attachment does not mean every other PvE players has no such attachment. It is this attachment that causes PvE players to balk at being killed in a PvP game . Many find this sentiment to pixels difficult to understand but if you spend time and effort gathering resources building and maintaining your character that effort is what makes up a majority of a PvE player's satisfaction and motivation in the game. You cannot put a value or measure it individually but collectively PvE players place a great deal of emphasis on growth of their characters and it does not in many cases stand up to being destroyed by some slaphappy PvP player bent on destroying those hard worn items.Silly perhaps but different people play games for different reasons and you absolutely cannot force one type of style on another unless you want a recipe for failure.
bcbully is saying **I think** that the majority of Players participate in both pve and pvp, and so the majority is who you design MMOs for....
MMOs are not designed for Players that only PvP...
MMOs are not designed for Players that only PvE...
short version.... if you don't enjoy both PvP and PvE and are will to accept balancing for a MMO that caters to both then you are ignored as a customer.
I don't agree with this design philosophy, but then I have always been a misfit so I see value and importance in places others ignore.