Open PvP sucks, if you don't like having to be completely ready at all times. Sometimes I like to have a few bong hits and meander through whatever game I'm playing at the time. If you have ever been corpse camped you can understand how frustrating it can be to just want to finish a quest while some asshat kills you over and over to make his epeen grow. Some people just like watching the world burn.
Yup ths ^^. We Pvpers are superior attitude. last time I looked, fast reaction, in depth gameplay knowledge and an understanding of human psychology was what made a great player, not arrogance.
Ofc therse skills come into play in great pvp, but have no bearing on fankers and griefers.
This is a moot thread. Open zone pvp zones are fine, trying to represent an open pvp/pve shared is not - conflict of interests.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Is that really happening? I mean the way it's being presented here? A handful of PvP gankers are driving off people who would otherwise like the game? If so, why is the game setup to allow this to happen? It seems more likely to me that the people being driven off have an incorrect view of the game.
Yes, it is. UO has open world pvp .... EQ overtook it in a heart beat for this (and probably other reasons).
And newer games are set up WITHOUT open world pvp exactly to prevent this problem. There is no incorrect view of the game. The fact that most games don't have open world pvp (or an option to not participate) is pretty good evidence where the preference lies.
In fact, look at Eve .. it is a small game after so many years despite many think that it is great probably partly because of open world pvp.
Originally posted by funyahns Because it only takes a handful of idiots to drive off paying customers.
That's the main issue there.
Is that really happening? I mean the way it's being presented here? A handful of PvP gankers are driving off people who would otherwise like the game? If so, why is the game setup to allow this to happen? It seems more likely to me that the people being driven off have an incorrect view of the game.
I mean, if the developer doesn't want people to get chain killed, ganked, etc., they would ban the people doing it like Blizzard does on their PvP servers. In an anything goes type of game are players who should like the game being driven off, or are the people who really don't like an anything goes type of game being directed out of a game they don't actually like?
A big part of the problem is that the devs try to market their game by focusing on the other features of the game and try to downplay the the gankfest. eg EVE trying to market itself as a giant sandbox that features big fleet battles and neglecting to inform players of the extreme ganking that goes on in the game. I love the sandbox parts of EVE but I just cannot stomach the pointless FFA PvP.
When it comes to PvE content a player can really enjoy parts of the game while ignoring the features that he/she does not like. In a non-consensual PvP game, the PvP poisons everything in the game and it becomes a all-or-nothing proposition. No matter how much you love parts of the game, they are simply not enjoyable if you do not like the PvP.
Originally posted by Rhoklaw Theres all kinds of PvP games out there... they are called First Person Shooters.
Which is true and the point that we've made all along. There just isn't a big market for PvP in MMOs. The market is in other non-progression games like FPS. However, there is a small but vocal group of people who desperately want to PvP in MMOs and want to force others to play their way so they have people to gank.
Originally posted by Rhoklaw Theres all kinds of PvP games out there... they are called First Person Shooters.
Which is true and the point that we've made all along. There just isn't a big market for PvP in MMOs. The market is in other non-progression games like FPS. However, there is a small but vocal group of people who desperately want to PvP in MMOs and want to force others to play their way so they have people to gank.
How can you know how big the market is if there hasnt been any non-full-loot MMO with good pvp yet? They are feeding us with pve crap all the time, but zero serious pvp so far. So where did you find that theres no potential market for that?
Originally posted by Rhoklaw Theres all kinds of PvP games out there... they are called First Person Shooters.
Which is true and the point that we've made all along. There just isn't a big market for PvP in MMOs. The market is in other non-progression games like FPS. However, there is a small but vocal group of people who desperately want to PvP in MMOs and want to force others to play their way so they have people to gank.
How can you know how big the market is if there hasnt been any non-full-loot MMO with good pvp yet? They are feeding us with pve crap all the time, but zero serious pvp so far. So where did you find that theres no potential market for that?
Originally posted by Rhoklaw Theres all kinds of PvP games out there... they are called First Person Shooters.
Which is true and the point that we've made all along. There just isn't a big market for PvP in MMOs. The market is in other non-progression games like FPS. However, there is a small but vocal group of people who desperately want to PvP in MMOs and want to force others to play their way so they have people to gank.
How can you know how big the market is if there hasnt been any non-full-loot MMO with good pvp yet? They are feeding us with pve crap all the time, but zero serious pvp so far. So where did you find that theres no potential market for that?
Nobody makes them because, according to all of the market research that MMO developers do, there just isn't any significant call for it. Developers do significant research, then makes what that research suggests is most popular. If they haven't made OWPvP, that's why. There's no significant market.
How can you know how big the market is if there hasnt been any non-full-loot MMO with good pvp yet? They are feeding us with pve crap all the time, but zero serious pvp so far. So where did you find that theres no potential market for that?
by running surveys? By looking at wow data and how unpopular open world pvp is? By looking at the popularity of instanced pvp?
Originally posted by zzax How can you know how big the market is if there hasnt been any non-full-loot MMO with good pvp yet? They are feeding us with pve crap all the time, but zero serious pvp so far. So where did you find that theres no potential market for that?
by running surveys? By looking at wow data and how unpopular open world pvp is? By looking at the popularity of instanced pvp?
What surveys? I havent seen an dev made mmo survey once in my gaming career and I havent started from WoW.
Also , do you truly belive that wow data is accessible for anyone outside blizzard? I would understand them designing their game basing on their own data, but what about everyone else? What are they looking at? They know for sure that PVE market exists, but non-hardcore PVP? Its unknown, because none has made anything like that yet.
Originally posted by zzax How can you know how big the market is if there hasnt been any non-full-loot MMO with good pvp yet? They are feeding us with pve crap all the time, but zero serious pvp so far. So where did you find that theres no potential market for that?
by running surveys? By looking at wow data and how unpopular open world pvp is? By looking at the popularity of instanced pvp?
What surveys? I havent seen an dev made mmo survey once in my gaming career and I havent started from WoW.
Also , do you truly belive that wow data is accessible for anyone outside blizzard? I would understand them designing their game basing on their own data, but what about everyone else? What are they looking at? They know for sure that PVE market exists, but non-hardcore PVP? Its unknown, because none has made anything like that yet.
Who says you get to know? You are not making MMOs. As long as devs like Blizz know, that is good enough. Don't tell me you don't think MMO companies run surveys. They just don't share the data with you.
The fact that few dev is doing much of open world pvp is pretty good evidence that there is no market because they would have done the research, and they have the data.
MMORPGS are making the same game and selling it to the same people over and over. Market research on this group is useless. Catering to this group is the best way to keep everyone else away.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by Horusra Where is the risk if the game is not perma-death. People that bring up risk vs reward are lying if they do not want perma-death.
If you are hardcore gamer, then you are playing with permadeath. The devs can kill your motivation to play anytime they want. Just add panda.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
And newer games are set up WITHOUT open world pvp exactly to prevent this problem. There is no incorrect view of the game. The fact that most games don't have open world pvp (or an option to not participate) is pretty good evidence where the preference lies.
In fact, look at Eve .. it is a small game after so many years despite many think that it is great probably partly because of open world pvp.
Yep, indeed, EvE may represent the best idea in terms of mixing PvE and PvP with the hi-/low-/nullsec separation, but the far too easy ganking and griefing going on even in highsec - hell, there are entire corps ("guilds") that specialize in highsec piracy in EvE - drove me away despite the otherwise great sandbox.
Overall, I'd go with the mostly already mentioned arguments of
- Non-consensual PvPers preying on PvEers, which simply is most of the time an entirely unfair fight to begin with, be it to just to stroke their egos with easy kills or to feed off the frustration of having ruined another's gaming experience; sure it's a learning curve in some cases, but it can easily become more of a hurdle than a curve that drives people away who just don't like PvP
- No real negative consequences for immersion-breaking PvP; I'd be fine if non-con PKing (or stealing or whatever) were possible, but had serious drawbacks in the long run, maybe really long-term flagging (seen killing or stealing from some innocent adventurer, so for the next month (logged in and active, no 'sitting it out playing another alt' or so), everyone can claim a reward for bringing the killer/thief to justice.. Just a non-perfect example, NPC guards may be a somewhat better solution, or some other ideas mentioned before)
- Players who at least sometimes don't want to risk any PvP don't disturb the more extreme PvPers (apart from not agreeing to be their prey), while the more extreme PvPers all too obviously "need" the unprepared PvEers (which target is preferred in almost every case, the one that is quite apparently ready to flee or even fight back, or the one that is just merrily, carefreely hopping around - see the first argument). So going open-world PvP is catering fully to the non-con PvPers (small group causing a lot of havoc - that 'few people needed to ruin it for a lot of others'), is fine with the 'permanently on guard' crowd though it doesn't necessarily add to their enjoyment either (somewhat bigger group), and only has drawbacks for everyone else (the obviously majority of players judging from statistics and publisher decisions)
So..EVE is the paradigm of nom con pvp?..i have said this countless times. Place perpadeath in EVE, not clones, you get poded..you die period. Then we can see how many pros and hardcore pvpers left. Risk vs reward and adrenaline and all the rest of things that are said are just justifications of a "my fun is making your playtime miserable" attitude.
Originally posted by Rhoklaw Theres all kinds of PvP games out there... they are called First Person Shooters.
Which is true and the point that we've made all along. There just isn't a big market for PvP in MMOs. The market is in other non-progression games like FPS. However, there is a small but vocal group of people who desperately want to PvP in MMOs and want to force others to play their way so they have people to gank.
How can you know how big the market is if there hasnt been any non-full-loot MMO with good pvp yet? They are feeding us with pve crap all the time, but zero serious pvp so far. So where did you find that theres no potential market for that?
Nobody makes them because, according to all of the market research that MMO developers do, there just isn't any significant call for it. Developers do significant research, then makes what that research suggests is most popular. If they haven't made OWPvP, that's why. There's no significant market.
Yeah.. reasearches are really fine.. everyone knows all the time what he really wants, right?
In all honestly, we would not got any moba, no minecraft, nor dayz, if all devs would just listen to market researchs.. the most successful games, and trends are never part of a market research.
Star Citizen is another prove to this.. according to market research there is no place for a space game, there is no demand for it.. and nevertheless it is the highest funded kickstarter game of all time with now 40$ million+ and counting.
Originally posted by Rhoklaw Theres all kinds of PvP games out there... they are called First Person Shooters.
Which is true and the point that we've made all along. There just isn't a big market for PvP in MMOs. The market is in other non-progression games like FPS. However, there is a small but vocal group of people who desperately want to PvP in MMOs and want to force others to play their way so they have people to gank.
Non-progression FPS? Have you ever played Battlefield or Call of Duty? Without the unlocks you are a sheep to be slaughtered xD I heard that even Arma has some sort of progression. Progression is everywhere nowdays since devs figured it retains people for more than a week in their game.
Originally posted by Rhoklaw Theres all kinds of PvP games out there... they are called First Person Shooters.
Which is true and the point that we've made all along. There just isn't a big market for PvP in MMOs. The market is in other non-progression games like FPS. However, there is a small but vocal group of people who desperately want to PvP in MMOs and want to force others to play their way so they have people to gank.
Non-progression FPS? Have you ever played Battlefield or Call of Duty? Without the unlocks you are a sheep to be slaughtered xD I heard that even Arma has some sort of progression. Progression is everywhere nowdays since devs figured it retains people for more than a week in their game.
Progression works by creating a permanent weaker opponent. Devs have to dump their hardcore to make room for the next group. Sound familiar?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Because players want to be safe, because don't want to live story where they attacked an ennemy keep and where some ennemies, that where simply questing, tried to defend it. Because players doesn't know that frustration is part of the game, and that's why games like Dark Souls are praised.
Because players doesn't want to feel the war being everywhere. Because apparently, wars only happen in a restricted place and factions never tries to sneak into the heart of the other factions.
Because modern MMO players only wants to do the same type of quests over and over again without any interruption, without any "Your faction needs to take this fort if you want to continue your questing", without any troubles, without any stories, it's better to play alone than with others or against others.
How can you know how big the market is if there hasnt been any non-full-loot MMO with good pvp yet? They are feeding us with pve crap all the time, but zero serious pvp so far. So where did you find that theres no potential market for that?
by running surveys? By looking at wow data and how unpopular open world pvp is? By looking at the popularity of instanced pvp?
There is every reason to believe that developers within the industry have access to information that is telling them what the odds of success are for different types of games. If the only people making PvP MMORPGs are indie developers who have to crowd fund their games, then there is information telling the industry at large that they probably don't want to invest large amounts of money into those types of MMORPGs.
In short, it doesn't matter exactly how big the market is, they have enough information to tell this it isn't big enough. A better question is how can we, who are not in the industry, know these things?
We can start with Ultima Online. When Trammel was released, the majority of the population moved to Trammel. In part because it was new, but mostly because it was a chance to play in UO without having to worry about the PvP. Then we have the lackluster results offered by Mortal Online and Darkfall*. If the style of game play was something that would attract many people, it seems like these games would have more people playing them. Finally, we have Eve**, where half the players avoid PvP and it took CCP something like a decade to get the game running in the black. This isn't a lesson in success, it's a warning for anyone else who wants to base their MMORPG around OW/FFA PvP. Success is possible, but it's going to take a very long time, and the results are not going to be spectacular.
Compare this to a game like SWToR, which is as much of a WoW clone as it's possible to have, without actually calling the game WoW, which lost a huge number of players only three months out of the gate, and which is still making both tons of money and has a million people playing every month. LotRO has no PvP to speak of, and they've got tons of players too.
The big money in PvP isn't in MMORPGs. It's in MOBAs, FPS games or games where the scale is much smaller like Rust. Many, many players, but not MMORPG numbers of players per server.
Developers don't hate PvP, they just have to temper what they want to provide with what they think it will return.
* Relative to the industry as a whole. Aventurine was able to write a new game from what they earned off of Darkfall the First, with little or no outside investment. Darkfall and Aventurine are, I think, successful. Just not in a way that wows the industry into thinking more of those games need to be made.
** Before anyone cries about it, Eve is successful too. Very successful. Just not in a way where the rest of the industry is going to look at what they did and try to emulate it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Open world PvP is home to the absolute worst type of players. I'm not saying that all OWPvP players are the worst type of people, but that the worst type of people would feel most at home in an OWPvP environment. Why would anyone actually want to make a game that caters to the worst? It's kinda like having a Bed & Breakfast for the criminally insane.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Comments
Ofc therse skills come into play in great pvp, but have no bearing on fankers and griefers.
This is a moot thread. Open zone pvp zones are fine, trying to represent an open pvp/pve shared is not - conflict of interests.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Yes, it is. UO has open world pvp .... EQ overtook it in a heart beat for this (and probably other reasons).
And newer games are set up WITHOUT open world pvp exactly to prevent this problem. There is no incorrect view of the game. The fact that most games don't have open world pvp (or an option to not participate) is pretty good evidence where the preference lies.
In fact, look at Eve .. it is a small game after so many years despite many think that it is great probably partly because of open world pvp.
A big part of the problem is that the devs try to market their game by focusing on the other features of the game and try to downplay the the gankfest. eg EVE trying to market itself as a giant sandbox that features big fleet battles and neglecting to inform players of the extreme ganking that goes on in the game. I love the sandbox parts of EVE but I just cannot stomach the pointless FFA PvP.
When it comes to PvE content a player can really enjoy parts of the game while ignoring the features that he/she does not like. In a non-consensual PvP game, the PvP poisons everything in the game and it becomes a all-or-nothing proposition. No matter how much you love parts of the game, they are simply not enjoyable if you do not like the PvP.
Which is true and the point that we've made all along. There just isn't a big market for PvP in MMOs. The market is in other non-progression games like FPS. However, there is a small but vocal group of people who desperately want to PvP in MMOs and want to force others to play their way so they have people to gank.
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
How can you know how big the market is if there hasnt been any non-full-loot MMO with good pvp yet? They are feeding us with pve crap all the time, but zero serious pvp so far. So where did you find that theres no potential market for that?
This +1
Open world PvP is fine, but griefing/ganking/etc are different stories.
Also if I only have limited time and want to accomplish certain PvE task but get ganked, I'd be upset too.
Same way you know there is one.
Nobody makes them because, according to all of the market research that MMO developers do, there just isn't any significant call for it. Developers do significant research, then makes what that research suggests is most popular. If they haven't made OWPvP, that's why. There's no significant market.
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
by running surveys? By looking at wow data and how unpopular open world pvp is? By looking at the popularity of instanced pvp?
What surveys? I havent seen an dev made mmo survey once in my gaming career and I havent started from WoW.
Also , do you truly belive that wow data is accessible for anyone outside blizzard? I would understand them designing their game basing on their own data, but what about everyone else? What are they looking at? They know for sure that PVE market exists, but non-hardcore PVP? Its unknown, because none has made anything like that yet.
Who says you get to know? You are not making MMOs. As long as devs like Blizz know, that is good enough. Don't tell me you don't think MMO companies run surveys. They just don't share the data with you.
The fact that few dev is doing much of open world pvp is pretty good evidence that there is no market because they would have done the research, and they have the data.
MMORPGS are making the same game and selling it to the same people over and over. Market research on this group is useless. Catering to this group is the best way to keep everyone else away.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
If you are hardcore gamer, then you are playing with permadeath. The devs can kill your motivation to play anytime they want. Just add panda.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Yep, indeed, EvE may represent the best idea in terms of mixing PvE and PvP with the hi-/low-/nullsec separation, but the far too easy ganking and griefing going on even in highsec - hell, there are entire corps ("guilds") that specialize in highsec piracy in EvE - drove me away despite the otherwise great sandbox.
Overall, I'd go with the mostly already mentioned arguments of
- Non-consensual PvPers preying on PvEers, which simply is most of the time an entirely unfair fight to begin with, be it to just to stroke their egos with easy kills or to feed off the frustration of having ruined another's gaming experience; sure it's a learning curve in some cases, but it can easily become more of a hurdle than a curve that drives people away who just don't like PvP
- No real negative consequences for immersion-breaking PvP; I'd be fine if non-con PKing (or stealing or whatever) were possible, but had serious drawbacks in the long run, maybe really long-term flagging (seen killing or stealing from some innocent adventurer, so for the next month (logged in and active, no 'sitting it out playing another alt' or so), everyone can claim a reward for bringing the killer/thief to justice.. Just a non-perfect example, NPC guards may be a somewhat better solution, or some other ideas mentioned before)
- Players who at least sometimes don't want to risk any PvP don't disturb the more extreme PvPers (apart from not agreeing to be their prey), while the more extreme PvPers all too obviously "need" the unprepared PvEers (which target is preferred in almost every case, the one that is quite apparently ready to flee or even fight back, or the one that is just merrily, carefreely hopping around - see the first argument). So going open-world PvP is catering fully to the non-con PvPers (small group causing a lot of havoc - that 'few people needed to ruin it for a lot of others'), is fine with the 'permanently on guard' crowd though it doesn't necessarily add to their enjoyment either (somewhat bigger group), and only has drawbacks for everyone else (the obviously majority of players judging from statistics and publisher decisions)
Yeah.. reasearches are really fine.. everyone knows all the time what he really wants, right?
In all honestly, we would not got any moba, no minecraft, nor dayz, if all devs would just listen to market researchs.. the most successful games, and trends are never part of a market research.
Star Citizen is another prove to this.. according to market research there is no place for a space game, there is no demand for it.. and nevertheless it is the highest funded kickstarter game of all time with now 40$ million+ and counting.
Its a harsh open world with perma death and you are enable to loot the corpse of you dead opponent.
Its survival of the fittest in that survival MMORPG. PvP is very dangerous and come with deadly consequences.
Non-progression FPS? Have you ever played Battlefield or Call of Duty? Without the unlocks you are a sheep to be slaughtered xD I heard that even Arma has some sort of progression. Progression is everywhere nowdays since devs figured it retains people for more than a week in their game.
Progression works by creating a permanent weaker opponent. Devs have to dump their hardcore to make room for the next group. Sound familiar?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Because players want to be safe, because don't want to live story where they attacked an ennemy keep and where some ennemies, that where simply questing, tried to defend it. Because players doesn't know that frustration is part of the game, and that's why games like Dark Souls are praised.
Because players doesn't want to feel the war being everywhere. Because apparently, wars only happen in a restricted place and factions never tries to sneak into the heart of the other factions.
Because modern MMO players only wants to do the same type of quests over and over again without any interruption, without any "Your faction needs to take this fort if you want to continue your questing", without any troubles, without any stories, it's better to play alone than with others or against others.
Yes, I'm mad.
There is every reason to believe that developers within the industry have access to information that is telling them what the odds of success are for different types of games. If the only people making PvP MMORPGs are indie developers who have to crowd fund their games, then there is information telling the industry at large that they probably don't want to invest large amounts of money into those types of MMORPGs.
In short, it doesn't matter exactly how big the market is, they have enough information to tell this it isn't big enough. A better question is how can we, who are not in the industry, know these things?
We can start with Ultima Online. When Trammel was released, the majority of the population moved to Trammel. In part because it was new, but mostly because it was a chance to play in UO without having to worry about the PvP. Then we have the lackluster results offered by Mortal Online and Darkfall*. If the style of game play was something that would attract many people, it seems like these games would have more people playing them. Finally, we have Eve**, where half the players avoid PvP and it took CCP something like a decade to get the game running in the black. This isn't a lesson in success, it's a warning for anyone else who wants to base their MMORPG around OW/FFA PvP. Success is possible, but it's going to take a very long time, and the results are not going to be spectacular.
Compare this to a game like SWToR, which is as much of a WoW clone as it's possible to have, without actually calling the game WoW, which lost a huge number of players only three months out of the gate, and which is still making both tons of money and has a million people playing every month. LotRO has no PvP to speak of, and they've got tons of players too.
The big money in PvP isn't in MMORPGs. It's in MOBAs, FPS games or games where the scale is much smaller like Rust. Many, many players, but not MMORPG numbers of players per server.
Developers don't hate PvP, they just have to temper what they want to provide with what they think it will return.
* Relative to the industry as a whole. Aventurine was able to write a new game from what they earned off of Darkfall the First, with little or no outside investment. Darkfall and Aventurine are, I think, successful. Just not in a way that wows the industry into thinking more of those games need to be made.
** Before anyone cries about it, Eve is successful too. Very successful. Just not in a way where the rest of the industry is going to look at what they did and try to emulate it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
They have always been wrong.
Give players what they want (the experience not the actual implementation)
MMORPG pvp is completely rigged and circular. Developers have completely failed to up hold their end of the agreement.
Developers just need to add a way for the people who want to play the game, to be able to play the game.
And the people who want to progress can go progress, and those who want to pvp like an fps can go attack the backs of afk people. Everyone wins.
(player operated servers can do this)
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.