What DayZ shows us is that there is a huge potential to bring a big chunk of the FPS/shooter playerbase into the MMO fold and hopefully also interest them for MMORPGs.
Kinda off-topic for this discussion though, but a good thing none the less. Unless we assume we are not talking about owPvP in MMORPGs. In which case the thread is in the wrong sub-forum.
What DayZ shows us is that there is a huge potential to bring a big chunk of the FPS/shooter playerbase into the MMO fold and hopefully also interest them for MMORPGs.
Name the themeparks that are in development please.
Then name the sandboxes in development.
ESO and Wildstar are two themepark MMOS coming out this year. Then we have Warhammer 40K MMO. Blizzard"s Titan.
Archage is not themepark more like sandpark. EQNEXT again not a pure sandbox.
Not even going to pay any attention to the kickstarter indie MMOS because we all know how that turns out.
So what i see is mostly themepark MMOS + sandpark MMORPGS.
I suggest wake up if you think SANDBOX is the main thing being developed in future.
I'm trying give ESO a little credit but to be honest it will probably have to change it's sub model as well and this title is complete basically.
Wildstar is a reskinned WoW that will last about 6 to 9 months before ftp if that long it is basically complete as far as development.
The reason they stopped production on Titan was because they knew it was going to fail because it was slated to be a themepark.
Archeage is already developed and released and has had pvp extremely reduced from priginal concepts. They are avoiding the western markets because themeparks don't do well here anymore.
EQNext will most closely resemble EvE Online per Smed so I guess you will have a tiny safe area to rot in similar to what EvE has in place and the rest will be OWPVP if you believe Smed.
You still didn't tell me any themeparks that were in development.
The onus of proof is on you not me. You are the one claiming that SANDBOX is the main thing being developed in future even though majority of titles are sandparks and not pure sandbox.
And do you know anything about Blizzard? they are known to lake long time with their products and TITAN is no exception. I don't know what gave you an idea that Blizzard of all big gaming companies would release a pure Sandbox MMO. yeah sure as if that is gonna happen.
Once again ARCHAGE and EQNEXT not sandbox games but more like sandparks.
Now please go ahead and give us this list of AAA SANDBOX to prove that sanbox is the main thing being developed in future.
EQNext per Smed and also the new unnamed survival sandbox that Smed announced thru his twitter that Sony is developing.
World of Darkness by CCP will be an open world sandbox with full pvp by their press release statements.
Dare I mention DayZ which sold over 1 million units in the first month of an alpha that they said not to buy. An open world MMO with full open pvp and permadeath and also it is still in the top 5 in steam sales. I will say that their number of players per server is still undecided at this point.
I could mention the large list of mostly independently financed development studios. Some of them will end up taking home the prize because the AAA studios and publishers cannot innovate with the exception being Sony. Sony has done this because they were getting into the situation where they had a stable full of shit games that were aging and they rest garbage and knew they were dying.
So WOD and DayZ thats it? sorry but that hardly proves that SANDBOX are the main thing in future. if you had said sandpark i would have agreed though.
So WOD and DayZ thats it? sorry but that hardly proves that SANDBOX are the main thing in future. if you had said sandpark i would have agreed though.
yeah .. sandbox is just a tried and old idea. Sure there is always some attempts of revival. But the future belongs to innovation and new stuff like Destiny, and other forms of online games (like MOBA).
Yeah I actually want a sandpark and not a sandbox, I want a theme park that is a deep complicated game with many thing to learn and discover, but with the actual questing and storyline of a theme park. Pure sandboxes like eve online and even sim city get boring...
That is why in a pure sandbox they use pvp to keep people interested in Eve Online, but for those of us who despise pvp, we need to have a sandpark with quests and an actual storyline ip to hook us ...
As said earlier, most of us hate pvp because of gankers that kill lower level players and players with weaker equipment on... They'd take over any quest hub and kill any quest npcs that the developers allow them too, even if they give no rewards/loot just to hurt other players...
What DayZ shows us is that there is a huge potential to bring a big chunk of the FPS/shooter playerbase into the MMO fold and hopefully also interest them for MMORPGs.
Or that a lot of people like zombie games.
Or that people like OW/FFA PvP when it doesn't require a significant investment and the loss is negligible because of the non-persistent nature of the game play.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
What DayZ shows us is that there is a huge potential to bring a big chunk of the FPS/shooter playerbase into the MMO fold and hopefully also interest them for MMORPGs.
Or that a lot of people like zombie games.
Or that people like OW/FFA PvP when it doesn't require a significant investment and the loss is negligible because of the non-persistent nature of the game play.
What DayZ shows us is that there is a huge potential to bring a big chunk of the FPS/shooter playerbase into the MMO fold and hopefully also interest them for MMORPGs.
Or that a lot of people like zombie games.
Or that people like OW/FFA PvP when it doesn't require a significant investment and the loss is negligible because of the non-persistent nature of the game play.
Agreed. It's a good setup for FFA PvP.
Base building, vehicle ownership and keeping your full inventory seems pretty persistent gameplay the last time I checked. I don't believe the base building or vehicles are in yet but remember it is only in alpha. Pretty impressive sales figures for an alpha they tell people not to buy nonetheless.
edit - I forgot to mention the full crafting system and also farming and agriculture system as well.
What DayZ shows us is that there is a huge potential to bring a big chunk of the FPS/shooter playerbase into the MMO fold and hopefully also interest them for MMORPGs.
Or that a lot of people like zombie games.
Or that people like OW/FFA PvP when it doesn't require a significant investment and the loss is negligible because of the non-persistent nature of the game play.
Agreed. It's a good setup for FFA PvP.
Base building, vehicle ownership and keeping your full inventory seems pretty persistent gameplay the last time I checked. I don't believe the base building or vehicles are in yet but remember it is only in alpha. Pretty impressive sales figures for an alpha they tell people not to buy nonetheless.
edit - I forgot to mention the full crafting system and also farming and agriculture system as well.
The servers and the worlds are not persistent. There's no guarantee that the effort put into those things will be there tomorrow the same way that they will be there tomorrow in an MMORPG.
It could also be that the OW/FFA PvP, permadeath, etc. is more acceptable when there are only 64 people on the server. It is much more conducive to solo players getting around in the world rather than large groups.
The difference is the non-persistent nature of the worlds and servers, along with the very long player counts per world or server. There is some reason that OW PvP is very popular in games like Rust or DayZ, but not in MMORPGs. I can't think of any other real differences.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
What DayZ shows us is that there is a huge potential to bring a big chunk of the FPS/shooter playerbase into the MMO fold and hopefully also interest them for MMORPGs.
Or that a lot of people like zombie games.
Or that people like OW/FFA PvP when it doesn't require a significant investment and the loss is negligible because of the non-persistent nature of the game play.
Agreed. It's a good setup for FFA PvP.
Base building, vehicle ownership and keeping your full inventory seems pretty persistent gameplay the last time I checked. I don't believe the base building or vehicles are in yet but remember it is only in alpha. Pretty impressive sales figures for an alpha they tell people not to buy nonetheless.
edit - I forgot to mention the full crafting system and also farming and agriculture system as well.
The servers and the worlds are not persistent. There's no guarantee that the effort put into those things will be there tomorrow the same way that they will be there tomorrow in an MMORPG.
It could also be that the OW/FFA PvP, permadeath, etc. is more acceptable when there are only 64 people on the server. It is much more conducive to solo players getting around in the world rather than large groups.
The difference is the non-persistent nature of the worlds and servers, along with the very long player counts per world or server. There is some reason that OW PvP is very popular in games like Rust or DayZ, but not in MMORPGs. I can't think of any other real differences.
If that is the case why would they develop these systems? I think the target for server pop is at least 120 also. I'm inclined to believe the developers on persistence since they are spending huge amounts of development money on these systems and alot of those features are what drives the incredible sales for the title.
Or that people like OW/FFA PvP when it doesn't require a significant investment and the loss is negligible because of the non-persistent nature of the game play.
Agreed. It's a good setup for FFA PvP.
Base building, vehicle ownership and keeping your full inventory seems pretty persistent gameplay the last time I checked. I don't believe the base building or vehicles are in yet but remember it is only in alpha. Pretty impressive sales figures for an alpha they tell people not to buy nonetheless.
edit - I forgot to mention the full crafting system and also farming and agriculture system as well.
The servers and the worlds are not persistent. There's no guarantee that the effort put into those things will be there tomorrow the same way that they will be there tomorrow in an MMORPG.
It could also be that the OW/FFA PvP, permadeath, etc. is more acceptable when there are only 64 people on the server. It is much more conducive to solo players getting around in the world rather than large groups.
The difference is the non-persistent nature of the worlds and servers, along with the very long player counts per world or server. There is some reason that OW PvP is very popular in games like Rust or DayZ, but not in MMORPGs. I can't think of any other real differences.
If that is the case why would they develop these systems? I think the target for server pop is at least 120 also. I'm inclined to believe the developers on persistence since they are spending huge amounts of development money on these systems and alot of those features are what drives the incredible sales for the title.
I'd sum it up as:
- different target audience. What one rarget audience likes, doesn't necessarily work for an other.
- server-population sizes. Having small population sizes where people know each other generates very different social dynamics than a big MMO server with it's rather anonymous setup.
- world size and population. Different population densities will lead to different gameplay and interactions
- differences in persistence. The verdict is still out on this one, we need more info on DayZ's final setup.
- huge differences in progression. This is a big one. MMOs let you build your char and gear over days and weeks. Losing that is very different from losing stuff you reacquire in 30 minutes or an hour.
- different gameplay styles. This is also an important one. How deep is PvE in DayZ? Is it a game-segment that attracts an own audience? Because, if you use DayZ as an argument for FFA PvP being viable in MMOs (which are to a high percentage populated by PvE players), then DayZ would have to have a similar PvE population. Otherwise it's a quite irrelevant example. It's like saying "Gorillas love bananas, thus if we import bananas the squirrels here will absolutely love them." Well, maybe they will, I am not a squirrel expert, but the reasoning for importing the bananas is sketchy either way.
I do like where games like DayZ are heading and it's good if they help to make sandbox-ish non traditional setups more popular, but I am not convinced it translates well to the current MMO market if you want to keep FFA-PvP with looting or even permadeath.
Look at Dayz and Rust, open FFA PVP is very popular.
That's because they are pure PvP, nothing else, thus they attract only those looking for that PvP experience, resulting in lack of whine about someone being ganked. All the whining and issues with PvP usually stems with the clash of interests between PvEers and PvPers, remove one and the other can enjoy that feature to the fullest.
The servers and the worlds are not persistent. There's no guarantee that the effort put into those things will be there tomorrow the same way that they will be there tomorrow in an MMORPG.
So? Given how popular LoL and SC2 are, i doubt persistency is a must for many gamers.
One of the best solutions to Open world PvP in a MMO, in my opinion, has been in Neocron.
All Players start off with a LE chip implant (Law enforcement). With the implant in, you could never be attacked by another player. If you chose to, you could play your character like this indefinitely with 1 negative effect, that you would be using up 1 of your 4 implant slots. Since you only have 4 total, this could negatively affect your characters possible builds, especially in end-game. After a certain level (which they called rank) around 10 or so, you then had the ability to remove it, however once removed, you couldn't re-install for the remainder of your character existence.
You also had a breakup of 3 types of zones (The entire game world itself was broken up into maps sections, areas, whatever you want to call them, basically each section of the world was located on a different physical game server which handed your player over to the next portion of the game. It took about 6-10 mins to transverse a zone, and the world consisted of about 40 zones I believe). One which you couldn't draw any hostile weapon (very few locations had this), ones which you could attack another player with the exception that Cop-Bots would go after you immediately, and lastly, ones which it was completely open PvP
They implemented a "Soul-light" system, which is basically Karma. The color of your name-plate when targeted signified positive or negative soul light. If your soul light was positive (green name), then anyone who would kill you would suffer a negative hit to theirs. If your soul light was negative (red name), then players of neutral or enemy faction can kill you without a impact to theirs.
A enticing benefit of PvPing was that when a player died, they dropped a item on the ground called a belt. Your soul-light determined how many items you dropped (from 1 for green, and upto about 6 items for the worst I believe), as-well as the chance of the "Quality" of the items dropped. Your belt can be opened by someone with hacking skills (this also left them vulnerable to be attacked, since the hacking interface took up your entire screen), which your soul light determined how difficult the security on your belt is, the lower the easier. This would give you at-least a chance to return to where you died and retrieve your item.
Another solution to PvP was the dynamics of factions and the faction points system (i.e., how much the faction likes you on a scale from 1-100), which consisted of allied, neutral and hostile. For example, killing a player from your own or a allied faction causes you to lose a high % of faction points with your currently aligned faction, as well as a medium % of faction points with your faction allies, while lowering or raising a small % with neutral factions (depending on how that factions stance is with the faction of the person you killed), and increasing a medium % with enemy factions (I believe there was about 9 total factions)
Choosing your faction determined your characters starting location. Bonuses of factions was that you would be protected by their guards whenever you was near their HQ, faction exclusive missions / items, being able to have a clan ( guild ), and having allied factions which their players would help you. However there was 2 factions which had every other faction as enemies (the players of this faction was basically your bad guy PvPers). You could completely go faction-less, which was mainly for a few RPers, as everyone would just kill you.
Interestingly, there was also a PvP Arena, which was rarely ever used. The benefits of playing here was If you died, you would respawn full health, any ammo expended or items used (or aquired from another player from them dropping it or trading you) in the arena was not brought back with you when you left the to Arena's zone.
In the many years of playing MMOs, I have yet to see any game that has yet to implement such a simple, controlled yet open way of PvP that equals or surpasses Neocron's PvP system.
One of the best solutions to Open world PvP in a MMO, in my opinion, has been in Neocron. All Players start off with a LE chip implant (Law enforcement). With the implant in, you could never be attacked by another player. If you chose to, you could play your character like this indefinitely with 1 negative effect, that you would be using up 1 of your 4 implant slots. Since you only have 4 total, this could negatively affect your characters possible builds, especially in end-game. After a certain level (which they called rank) around 10 or so, you then had the ability to remove it, however once removed, you couldn't re-install for the remainder of your character existence.
You also had a breakup of 3 types of zones (maps, areas, whatever you want to call them). One which you couldn't withdraw any hostile weapon (very few locations had this), ones which you could attack another player with the exception that Cop-Bots would go after you immediately, and lastly, ones which it was completely open PvP
They implemented a "Soul-light" system, which is basically Karma. The color of your name-plate when targeted signified positive or negative soul light. If your soul light was positive (green name), then anyone who would kill you would suffer a negative hit to theirs. If your soul light was negative (red name), then players of neutral or enemy faction can kill you without a impact to theirs.
A enticing benefit of PvPing was that when a player died, they dropped a item on the ground called a belt. Your soul-light determined how many items you dropped (from 1 for green, and upto about 6 items for the worst I believe), as-well as the chance of the "Quality" of the items dropped. Your belt can be opened by someone with hacking skills (this also left them vulnerable to be attacked, since the hacking interface took up your entire screen), which your soul light determined how difficult the security on your belt is, the lower the easier. This would give you at-least a chance to return to where you died and retrieve your item.
Another solution to PvP was the dynamics of factions and the faction points system (i.e., how much the faction likes you on a scale from 1-100), which consisted of allied, neutral and hostile. For example, killing a player from your own or a allied faction causes you to lose a high % of faction points with your currently aligned faction, as well as a medium % of faction points with your faction allies, while lowering or raising a small % with neutral factions (depending on how that factions stance is with the faction of the person you killed), and increasing a medium % with enemy factions (I believe there was about 9 total factions)
Choosing your faction determined your characters starting location. Bonuses of factions was that you would be protected by their guards whenever you was near their HQ, faction exclusive missions / items, being able to have a clan ( guild ), and having allied factions which their players would help you. However there was 2 factions which had every other faction as enemies (the players of this faction was basically your bad guy PvPers). You could completely go faction-less, which was mainly for a few RPers, as everyone would just kill you.
Interestingly, there was also a PvP Arena, which was rarely ever used. The benefits of playing here was If you died, you would respawn full health, any ammo expended or items used (or aquired from another player from them dropping it or trading you) in the arena was not brought back with you when you left the to Arena's zone.
In the many years of playing MMOs, I have yet to see any game that has yet to implement such a simple, controlled yet open way of PvP that equals or surpasses Neocron's PvP system.
Well I'm going to vote with the majority and say that I don't think "the worst" should even be allowed to own a computer.
Well you can deal with the worst type in game, because that's were they play. It's the people who think they are special who trade people for loot. They hate everybody in the end.
As long as I don't have to play with anyone i don't like, why worry about how others play video games?
What DayZ shows us is that there is a huge potential to bring a big chunk of the FPS/shooter playerbase into the MMO fold and hopefully also interest them for MMORPGs.
Or that a lot of people like zombie games.
Or that people like OW/FFA PvP when it doesn't require a significant investment and the loss is negligible because of the non-persistent nature of the game play.
Agreed. It's a good setup for FFA PvP.
Base building, vehicle ownership and keeping your full inventory seems pretty persistent gameplay the last time I checked. I don't believe the base building or vehicles are in yet but remember it is only in alpha. Pretty impressive sales figures for an alpha they tell people not to buy nonetheless.
edit - I forgot to mention the full crafting system and also farming and agriculture system as well.
The servers and the worlds are not persistent. There's no guarantee that the effort put into those things will be there tomorrow the same way that they will be there tomorrow in an MMORPG.
It could also be that the OW/FFA PvP, permadeath, etc. is more acceptable when there are only 64 people on the server. It is much more conducive to solo players getting around in the world rather than large groups.
The difference is the non-persistent nature of the worlds and servers, along with the very long player counts per world or server. There is some reason that OW PvP is very popular in games like Rust or DayZ, but not in MMORPGs. I can't think of any other real differences.
If that is the case why would they develop these systems? I think the target for server pop is at least 120 also. I'm inclined to believe the developers on persistence since they are spending huge amounts of development money on these systems and alot of those features are what drives the incredible sales for the title.
The guys who wrote Rust and DayZ? Because what they are writing works. So far, it hasn't really worked well in an MMORPG. Not as well as it's working in Rust and DayZ anyway.
If you're talking about that list of games from above, you could put the budget for all of those games together, and would probably not reach the budget for Champions Online or Star Trek Online. They aren't even spending a lot of money on those games relative to published single player games. They are spending a lot of money on those games relative to other indie games, sure, but not compared to established studios.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Open world PvP is a bit of a relic from a time when your average server size was 500 players.
Sure, it was fantastic in DAOC but when the total population of all 3 factions is only 500 people, it kinda worked out OK.
These days.. well, you're talking potentially millions of players. It's impossible to balance and even worse to design around. How do you design around sometimes there might be 1000 players on screen and sometimes there might only be 10? How would you ensure keep sieges were kept fair for example?
On a personal note, I find it a half-assed definition of PvP these days. Any game I see that advocates "open world PvP" is a game that couldn't be bothered to put development time into something better.
Worst Online Communities: WoW/WoD(the OG MMO Trolls), DayZ/WarZ, SMITE/LoL/DOTA, EVE Online, APB "Im ready for All the comparisons I think its dumb and its embarrassing Im switching off No longer listening Ive had enough of persecution and conditioning Maybe its instinct- Were only animal" - Lily Allen, Sheezus
That's considerably harsher penalties for pvping. The "ideal" system that would have mass appeal would be ones that was balanced and which made compromises, which in the game you've linked, there doesn't seem to be any. PvP in that games basically seems to be either "get killed and lose alot" or "get killed and lose alittle".
The main hurdle in the acceptance of PvP in MMOs is that not everyone who plays the game WANTS to partake in PvP in the first place. So a system must be in place where a player could chose to or not, while also being able to coexist with the others.
Comments
You will see that Rust currently has more players than DayZ on Steam. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
What DayZ shows us is that there is a huge potential to bring a big chunk of the FPS/shooter playerbase into the MMO fold and hopefully also interest them for MMORPGs.
Kinda off-topic for this discussion though, but a good thing none the less. Unless we assume we are not talking about owPvP in MMORPGs. In which case the thread is in the wrong sub-forum.
Or that a lot of people like zombie games.
So WOD and DayZ thats it? sorry but that hardly proves that SANDBOX are the main thing in future. if you had said sandpark i would have agreed though.
yeah .. sandbox is just a tried and old idea. Sure there is always some attempts of revival. But the future belongs to innovation and new stuff like Destiny, and other forms of online games (like MOBA).
Yeah I actually want a sandpark and not a sandbox, I want a theme park that is a deep complicated game with many thing to learn and discover, but with the actual questing and storyline of a theme park. Pure sandboxes like eve online and even sim city get boring...
That is why in a pure sandbox they use pvp to keep people interested in Eve Online, but for those of us who despise pvp, we need to have a sandpark with quests and an actual storyline ip to hook us ...
As said earlier, most of us hate pvp because of gankers that kill lower level players and players with weaker equipment on... They'd take over any quest hub and kill any quest npcs that the developers allow them too, even if they give no rewards/loot just to hurt other players...
Or that people like OW/FFA PvP when it doesn't require a significant investment and the loss is negligible because of the non-persistent nature of the game play.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Agreed. It's a good setup for FFA PvP.
Base building, vehicle ownership and keeping your full inventory seems pretty persistent gameplay the last time I checked. I don't believe the base building or vehicles are in yet but remember it is only in alpha. Pretty impressive sales figures for an alpha they tell people not to buy nonetheless.
edit - I forgot to mention the full crafting system and also farming and agriculture system as well.
Life IS Feudal
The servers and the worlds are not persistent. There's no guarantee that the effort put into those things will be there tomorrow the same way that they will be there tomorrow in an MMORPG.
It could also be that the OW/FFA PvP, permadeath, etc. is more acceptable when there are only 64 people on the server. It is much more conducive to solo players getting around in the world rather than large groups.
The difference is the non-persistent nature of the worlds and servers, along with the very long player counts per world or server. There is some reason that OW PvP is very popular in games like Rust or DayZ, but not in MMORPGs. I can't think of any other real differences.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If that is the case why would they develop these systems? I think the target for server pop is at least 120 also. I'm inclined to believe the developers on persistence since they are spending huge amounts of development money on these systems and alot of those features are what drives the incredible sales for the title.
Life IS Feudal
I'd sum it up as:
- different target audience. What one rarget audience likes, doesn't necessarily work for an other.
- server-population sizes. Having small population sizes where people know each other generates very different social dynamics than a big MMO server with it's rather anonymous setup.
- world size and population. Different population densities will lead to different gameplay and interactions
- differences in persistence. The verdict is still out on this one, we need more info on DayZ's final setup.
- huge differences in progression. This is a big one. MMOs let you build your char and gear over days and weeks. Losing that is very different from losing stuff you reacquire in 30 minutes or an hour.
- different gameplay styles. This is also an important one. How deep is PvE in DayZ? Is it a game-segment that attracts an own audience? Because, if you use DayZ as an argument for FFA PvP being viable in MMOs (which are to a high percentage populated by PvE players), then DayZ would have to have a similar PvE population. Otherwise it's a quite irrelevant example. It's like saying "Gorillas love bananas, thus if we import bananas the squirrels here will absolutely love them." Well, maybe they will, I am not a squirrel expert, but the reasoning for importing the bananas is sketchy either way.
I do like where games like DayZ are heading and it's good if they help to make sandbox-ish non traditional setups more popular, but I am not convinced it translates well to the current MMO market if you want to keep FFA-PvP with looting or even permadeath.
That's because they are pure PvP, nothing else, thus they attract only those looking for that PvP experience, resulting in lack of whine about someone being ganked. All the whining and issues with PvP usually stems with the clash of interests between PvEers and PvPers, remove one and the other can enjoy that feature to the fullest.
So? Given how popular LoL and SC2 are, i doubt persistency is a must for many gamers.
One of the best solutions to Open world PvP in a MMO, in my opinion, has been in Neocron.
All Players start off with a LE chip implant (Law enforcement). With the implant in, you could never be attacked by another player. If you chose to, you could play your character like this indefinitely with 1 negative effect, that you would be using up 1 of your 4 implant slots. Since you only have 4 total, this could negatively affect your characters possible builds, especially in end-game. After a certain level (which they called rank) around 10 or so, you then had the ability to remove it, however once removed, you couldn't re-install for the remainder of your character existence.
You also had a breakup of 3 types of zones (The entire game world itself was broken up into maps sections, areas, whatever you want to call them, basically each section of the world was located on a different physical game server which handed your player over to the next portion of the game. It took about 6-10 mins to transverse a zone, and the world consisted of about 40 zones I believe). One which you couldn't draw any hostile weapon (very few locations had this), ones which you could attack another player with the exception that Cop-Bots would go after you immediately, and lastly, ones which it was completely open PvP
They implemented a "Soul-light" system, which is basically Karma. The color of your name-plate when targeted signified positive or negative soul light. If your soul light was positive (green name), then anyone who would kill you would suffer a negative hit to theirs. If your soul light was negative (red name), then players of neutral or enemy faction can kill you without a impact to theirs.
A enticing benefit of PvPing was that when a player died, they dropped a item on the ground called a belt. Your soul-light determined how many items you dropped (from 1 for green, and upto about 6 items for the worst I believe), as-well as the chance of the "Quality" of the items dropped. Your belt can be opened by someone with hacking skills (this also left them vulnerable to be attacked, since the hacking interface took up your entire screen), which your soul light determined how difficult the security on your belt is, the lower the easier. This would give you at-least a chance to return to where you died and retrieve your item.
Another solution to PvP was the dynamics of factions and the faction points system (i.e., how much the faction likes you on a scale from 1-100), which consisted of allied, neutral and hostile. For example, killing a player from your own or a allied faction causes you to lose a high % of faction points with your currently aligned faction, as well as a medium % of faction points with your faction allies, while lowering or raising a small % with neutral factions (depending on how that factions stance is with the faction of the person you killed), and increasing a medium % with enemy factions (I believe there was about 9 total factions)
Choosing your faction determined your characters starting location. Bonuses of factions was that you would be protected by their guards whenever you was near their HQ, faction exclusive missions / items, being able to have a clan ( guild ), and having allied factions which their players would help you. However there was 2 factions which had every other faction as enemies (the players of this faction was basically your bad guy PvPers). You could completely go faction-less, which was mainly for a few RPers, as everyone would just kill you.
Interestingly, there was also a PvP Arena, which was rarely ever used. The benefits of playing here was If you died, you would respawn full health, any ammo expended or items used (or aquired from another player from them dropping it or trading you) in the arena was not brought back with you when you left the to Arena's zone.
In the many years of playing MMOs, I have yet to see any game that has yet to implement such a simple, controlled yet open way of PvP that equals or surpasses Neocron's PvP system.
This http://lifeisfeudal.com/mmorpgsandLiF/Death-and-Alignment-in-sandbox-MMO-game-Life-is-Feudal is the best system I have seen so far and you don't have a carebear chip. Granted this is a sandbox so it is a little different considering there are no loot pinatas just standing around to kill.
edit- players in this title make their own factions.
Life IS Feudal
As long as I don't have to play with anyone i don't like, why worry about how others play video games?
The guys who wrote Rust and DayZ? Because what they are writing works. So far, it hasn't really worked well in an MMORPG. Not as well as it's working in Rust and DayZ anyway.
If you're talking about that list of games from above, you could put the budget for all of those games together, and would probably not reach the budget for Champions Online or Star Trek Online. They aren't even spending a lot of money on those games relative to published single player games. They are spending a lot of money on those games relative to other indie games, sure, but not compared to established studios.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Open world PvP is a bit of a relic from a time when your average server size was 500 players.
Sure, it was fantastic in DAOC but when the total population of all 3 factions is only 500 people, it kinda worked out OK.
These days.. well, you're talking potentially millions of players. It's impossible to balance and even worse to design around. How do you design around sometimes there might be 1000 players on screen and sometimes there might only be 10? How would you ensure keep sieges were kept fair for example?
On a personal note, I find it a half-assed definition of PvP these days. Any game I see that advocates "open world PvP" is a game that couldn't be bothered to put development time into something better.
Sonic Boom! I do believe this question was answered as accurately as it could be.
Loves: SMITE, WildStar, Project Zomboid, PSO2, DCUO,
Worst Online Communities: WoW/WoD(the OG MMO Trolls), DayZ/WarZ, SMITE/LoL/DOTA, EVE Online, APB
"Im ready for
All the comparisons
I think its dumb and its embarrassing
Im switching off
No longer listening
Ive had enough of persecution and conditioning
Maybe its instinct- Were only animal" - Lily Allen, Sheezus
That's considerably harsher penalties for pvping. The "ideal" system that would have mass appeal would be ones that was balanced and which made compromises, which in the game you've linked, there doesn't seem to be any. PvP in that games basically seems to be either "get killed and lose alot" or "get killed and lose alittle".
The main hurdle in the acceptance of PvP in MMOs is that not everyone who plays the game WANTS to partake in PvP in the first place. So a system must be in place where a player could chose to or not, while also being able to coexist with the others.
"The attacker gets the victims items and a minor alignment reduction; the victim walks home naked with his skill points intact. Everybody wins!"
Erm... what has the victim won?
Awfully retarded reasoning behind the alignment system. Alignment systems do not work and never did.