Originally posted by jonrd463 I'm surprised no one's commented on the idea of permadeath as an ultimate punishment for bad in-game behavior. As the discussion has unfolded, it seems to have focused on the idea of player behavior being the reason why things are the way they are, but what if the game had a system that acted somewhat as an advocate for the griefed player?
Yeah that's an idea I've been mentioning a few times before, and I believe things like this should be implemented.
Basically, the bottom line is:
Look at what works in "civilised" societies (where people aren't just killing each other) and try to emulate this in a way or another in the "open world game".
Again, the problem for "carebears" is that they have very few viable options in terms of retaliation against players more skilled than they are at PK (or simply much higher level).
I think games need to introduce more "concepts" that will allow a player mediocre/bad/unwilling at PvP (more "PvE-focused") to "punish" a PvP player. Bounties, I think would work... a ganker who has killed 1,000 low level players who all then put a bounty of 1 gold on his head ("I can't stand this dude, someone f'in kill him!!!") would be worth 1,000 gold - might be enough of an incentive for a "white knight" to come and kill the griefer.
With permadeath (or loss of lvl + perma-xp penatly) + bounties, I'm sure we could see some interesting action where the most wanted people (still alive) would actually be great players. The dude with 1M gold bounty on his head would be a legend, and the guy who would kill him too. And I would imagine you would see hunting parties organised to kill the dude.
PvP players on the other hand need to be able to continue to kill as long as they don't get caught.
One thing that really annoys me though is games a la WoW where a lvl 1 doesn't even scratch a level 60-70-80. In fact, 1,000 level 1 players cannot even do a scratch to a level 60 player. Ridiculous.
3-4 lowbies should be able to gang up and kill a "high level player" (a bit like a bunch of farmers against a "skilled" warrior).
These mechanics would make that the "carebears" would actually stand a fighting chance, and would probably encourage them to try a game of the sort.
Originally posted by jonrd463 I'm surprised no one's commented on the idea of permadeath as an ultimate punishment for bad in-game behavior. As the discussion has unfolded, it seems to have focused on the idea of player behavior being the reason why things are the way they are, but what if the game had a system that acted somewhat as an advocate for the griefed player?
Yeah that's an idea I've been mentioning a few times before, and I believe things like this should be implemented.
Basically, the bottom line is:
Look at what works in "civilised" societies (where people aren't just killing each other) and try to emulate this in a way or another in the "open world game".
Again, the problem for "carebears" is that they have very few viable options in terms of retaliation against players more skilled than they are at PK (or simply much higher level).
I think games need to introduce more "concepts" that will allow a player mediocre/bad/unwilling at PvP (more "PvE-focused") to "punish" a PvP player. Bounties, I think would work... a ganker who has killed 1,000 low level players who all then put a bounty of 1 gold on his head ("I can't stand this dude, someone f'in kill him!!!") would be worth 1,000 gold - might be enough of an incentive for a "white knight" to come and kill the griefer.
With permadeath (or loss of lvl + perma-xp penatly) + bounties, I'm sure we could see some interesting action where the most wanted people (still alive) would actually be great players. The dude with 1M gold bounty on his head would be a legend, and the guy who would kill him too. And I would imagine you would see hunting parties organised to kill the dude.
PvP players on the other hand need to be able to continue to kill as long as they don't get caught.
One thing that really annoys me though is games a la WoW where a lvl 1 doesn't even scratch a level 60-70-80. In fact, 1,000 level 1 players cannot even do a scratch to a level 60 player. Ridiculous.
3-4 lowbies should be able to gang up and kill a "high level player" (a bit like a bunch of farmers against a "skilled" warrior).
These mechanics would make that the "carebears" would actually stand a fighting chance, and would probably encourage them to try a game of the sort.
Games are not real society and why put in all that work when players can just simply go to games with no owpvp. If i dont like it, why would i care if pkers r published or not? I can simply go to a pve game and no pkers will ever get me.
Originally posted by jonrd463 I'm surprised no one's commented on the idea of permadeath as an ultimate punishment for bad in-game behavior. As the discussion has unfolded, it seems to have focused on the idea of player behavior being the reason why things are the way they are, but what if the game had a system that acted somewhat as an advocate for the griefed player?
Yeah that's an idea I've been mentioning a few times before, and I believe things like this should be implemented.
Basically, the bottom line is:
Look at what works in "civilised" societies (where people aren't just killing each other) and try to emulate this in a way or another in the "open world game".
Again, the problem for "carebears" is that they have very few viable options in terms of retaliation against players more skilled than they are at PK (or simply much higher level).
I think games need to introduce more "concepts" that will allow a player mediocre/bad/unwilling at PvP (more "PvE-focused") to "punish" a PvP player. Bounties, I think would work... a ganker who has killed 1,000 low level players who all then put a bounty of 1 gold on his head ("I can't stand this dude, someone f'in kill him!!!") would be worth 1,000 gold - might be enough of an incentive for a "white knight" to come and kill the griefer.
With permadeath (or loss of lvl + perma-xp penatly) + bounties, I'm sure we could see some interesting action where the most wanted people (still alive) would actually be great players. The dude with 1M gold bounty on his head would be a legend, and the guy who would kill him too. And I would imagine you would see hunting parties organised to kill the dude.
PvP players on the other hand need to be able to continue to kill as long as they don't get caught.
One thing that really annoys me though is games a la WoW where a lvl 1 doesn't even scratch a level 60-70-80. In fact, 1,000 level 1 players cannot even do a scratch to a level 60 player. Ridiculous.
3-4 lowbies should be able to gang up and kill a "high level player" (a bit like a bunch of farmers against a "skilled" warrior).
These mechanics would make that the "carebears" would actually stand a fighting chance, and would probably encourage them to try a game of the sort.
Games are not real society and why put in all that work when players can just simply go to games with no owpvp. If i dont like it, why would i care if pkers r published or not? I can simply go to a pve game and no pkers will ever get me.
Because there is a very nice balance when a true virtual world comes together.
My question- Why play an MMORPG to only have an arena gank fest when there are first person shooters and action games with pretty explosions to play? No worrying about the RPG details, just 100% balanced PVP.
The reason is, simply- Because a sandbox game is better if there is fully realized PVP system. The problem (that the OP is bringing up) is how the RPG seems to be missing from these mmorpgs since they end up being ONLY gank fests and PVP arenas with no consequence.
The idea is to discuss how the balance could work- For someone like you , you have a million games that fit your criteria across several genres . We dont. We are looking for more and trying to discuss how it could work. Does that mean we will solve the issue or even have any effect? No. That certainly does not mean it doesnt merit discussion though.
You are correct in the whole "why would a..." argument though0- Thats what we are trying to discuss and solve. As things stand- Why would a PVE player play MO, or DF? We want the excitment of the PVP game without it turning into an arena ONLY.
I play First Person Shooters for quick PVP matchs that are generally balanced- Jump in. Jump out. From a lobby. Good stuff... But there is a gaming void with the mmorpgs on this front.
A player that tends to his garden in a pvp zone or during war time must know getting PK'ed is a possibility therefore, no sympathy is given to poor decision making.
Players that make comments like "Look at this scrub" while engaging in a 4v1 is expected because they are cowards who would otherwise keep their mouths shut if the situation warranted an opportunity to lose.
A player that isn't looking for a fight must take the necessary precautions to avoid the fights instead of putting themselves in confrontational situation and wishing and hoping NOT to be engaged ... it doesn't work like that.
Exactly. The gardener made the poor decision of playing the game in the first place. If he/she wants to tend to a garden in peace, he/she should find a sandbox game without non-consensual PvP and play that instead. Non-consensual PvP games are designed specifically for gankers and people who do not like that playstyle should play other games.
So you're saying that if a game offered gardening as a viable leveling class or tradeskill, people shouldn't play it?
And to General-Zod (kickass name, btw), what if the game is open PVP with no safe zones? Is a player expected to build a fortress just to protect a small patch of land or that griefers should be able to raze that land with impunity?
(forgive me for the lateness, i'm at work)
No
I believe the number one issue with owpvp games is no tangible punishment for the pk'er. Another problem is there isn't enough tools for the player to properly defend homesteads, houses or forts from attackers. Structures are so hard and time consuming to build yet so easy to tear down.
A resolution for this all depends on the design of the game...
Completely agreed, and thus the entire premise for the OP
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
I believe the number one issue with owpvp games is no tangible punishment for the pk'er. Another problem is there isn't enough tools for the player to properly defend homesteads, houses or forts from attackers. Structures are so hard and time consuming to build yet so easy to tear down.
A resolution for this all depends on the design of the game...
Completely agreed, and thus the entire premise for the OP
So, back to my game idea, my solution would be similar in spirit to ArcheAge's trial system, but have hefty consequences in line with "an eye for an eye". After an arbitrary amount of player kills against non-combatants (would be flagged as such by their role, e.g. "Farmer", "Merchant", etc.), and those who are not in a state of guild/faction war with the PKer, the offender would be brought to trial and stripped of all their belongings as restitution, divided in terms of monetary value to the victims.
I believe after a single kill the player should be should be faced with consequences should the victim be a "farmer" or "merchant" but it has to be obvious. The player who made the conscience decision to attack, kill and loot a farmer or merchant made no mistake on his or her intent therefore should be punished accordingly. A clear distinction must be made between who's farming and who's in combat so there is no manipulation.
Obviously many do think it should be more popular because they keep coming up with different ways to try and get other little to play. Like this thread.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by jonrd463 I'm surprised no one's commented on the idea of permadeath as an ultimate punishment for bad in-game behavior. As the discussion has unfolded, it seems to have focused on the idea of player behavior being the reason why things are the way they are, but what if the game had a system that acted somewhat as an advocate for the griefed player?
Yeah that's an idea I've been mentioning a few times before, and I believe things like this should be implemented.
Basically, the bottom line is:
Look at what works in "civilised" societies (where people aren't just killing each other) and try to emulate this in a way or another in the "open world game".
Again, the problem for "carebears" is that they have very few viable options in terms of retaliation against players more skilled than they are at PK (or simply much higher level).
I think games need to introduce more "concepts" that will allow a player mediocre/bad/unwilling at PvP (more "PvE-focused") to "punish" a PvP player. Bounties, I think would work... a ganker who has killed 1,000 low level players who all then put a bounty of 1 gold on his head ("I can't stand this dude, someone f'in kill him!!!") would be worth 1,000 gold - might be enough of an incentive for a "white knight" to come and kill the griefer.
With permadeath (or loss of lvl + perma-xp penatly) + bounties, I'm sure we could see some interesting action where the most wanted people (still alive) would actually be great players. The dude with 1M gold bounty on his head would be a legend, and the guy who would kill him too. And I would imagine you would see hunting parties organised to kill the dude.
PvP players on the other hand need to be able to continue to kill as long as they don't get caught.
One thing that really annoys me though is games a la WoW where a lvl 1 doesn't even scratch a level 60-70-80. In fact, 1,000 level 1 players cannot even do a scratch to a level 60 player. Ridiculous.
3-4 lowbies should be able to gang up and kill a "high level player" (a bit like a bunch of farmers against a "skilled" warrior).
These mechanics would make that the "carebears" would actually stand a fighting chance, and would probably encourage them to try a game of the sort.
Games are not real society and why put in all that work when players can just simply go to games with no owpvp. If i dont like it, why would i care if pkers r published or not? I can simply go to a pve game and no pkers will ever get me.
Because there is a very nice balance when a true virtual world comes together.
My question- Why play an MMORPG to only have an arena gank fest when there are first person shooters and action games with pretty explosions to play? No worrying about the RPG details, just 100% balanced PVP.
The reason is, simply- Because a sandbox game is better if there is fully realized PVP system. The problem (that the OP is bringing up) is how the RPG seems to be missing from these mmorpgs since they end up being ONLY gank fests and PVP arenas with no consequence.
The idea is to discuss how the balance could work- For someone like you , you have a million games that fit your criteria across several genres . We dont. We are looking for more and trying to discuss how it could work. Does that mean we will solve the issue or even have any effect? No. That certainly does not mean it doesnt merit discussion though.
You are correct in the whole "why would a..." argument though0- Thats what we are trying to discuss and solve. As things stand- Why would a PVE player play MO, or DF? We want the excitment of the PVP game without it turning into an arena ONLY.
I play First Person Shooters for quick PVP matchs that are generally balanced- Jump in. Jump out. From a lobby. Good stuff... But there is a gaming void with the mmorpgs on this front.
I am not looking for a true virtual worlds, i look good good games. Ow pvp is never good for me.
Originally posted by jonrd463 I'm surprised no one's commented on the idea of permadeath as an ultimate punishment for bad in-game behavior. As the discussion has unfolded, it seems to have focused on the idea of player behavior being the reason why things are the way they are, but what if the game had a system that acted somewhat as an advocate for the griefed player?
Yeah that's an idea I've been mentioning a few times before, and I believe things like this should be implemented.
Basically, the bottom line is:
Look at what works in "civilised" societies (where people aren't just killing each other) and try to emulate this in a way or another in the "open world game".
Again, the problem for "carebears" is that they have very few viable options in terms of retaliation against players more skilled than they are at PK (or simply much higher level).
I think games need to introduce more "concepts" that will allow a player mediocre/bad/unwilling at PvP (more "PvE-focused") to "punish" a PvP player. Bounties, I think would work... a ganker who has killed 1,000 low level players who all then put a bounty of 1 gold on his head ("I can't stand this dude, someone f'in kill him!!!") would be worth 1,000 gold - might be enough of an incentive for a "white knight" to come and kill the griefer.
With permadeath (or loss of lvl + perma-xp penatly) + bounties, I'm sure we could see some interesting action where the most wanted people (still alive) would actually be great players. The dude with 1M gold bounty on his head would be a legend, and the guy who would kill him too. And I would imagine you would see hunting parties organised to kill the dude.
PvP players on the other hand need to be able to continue to kill as long as they don't get caught.
One thing that really annoys me though is games a la WoW where a lvl 1 doesn't even scratch a level 60-70-80. In fact, 1,000 level 1 players cannot even do a scratch to a level 60 player. Ridiculous.
3-4 lowbies should be able to gang up and kill a "high level player" (a bit like a bunch of farmers against a "skilled" warrior).
These mechanics would make that the "carebears" would actually stand a fighting chance, and would probably encourage them to try a game of the sort.
Games are not real society and why put in all that work when players can just simply go to games with no owpvp. If i dont like it, why would i care if pkers r published or not? I can simply go to a pve game and no pkers will ever get me.
Because there is a very nice balance when a true virtual world comes together.
My question- Why play an MMORPG to only have an arena gank fest when there are first person shooters and action games with pretty explosions to play? No worrying about the RPG details, just 100% balanced PVP.
The reason is, simply- Because a sandbox game is better if there is fully realized PVP system. The problem (that the OP is bringing up) is how the RPG seems to be missing from these mmorpgs since they end up being ONLY gank fests and PVP arenas with no consequence.
The idea is to discuss how the balance could work- For someone like you , you have a million games that fit your criteria across several genres . We dont. We are looking for more and trying to discuss how it could work. Does that mean we will solve the issue or even have any effect? No. That certainly does not mean it doesnt merit discussion though.
You are correct in the whole "why would a..." argument though0- Thats what we are trying to discuss and solve. As things stand- Why would a PVE player play MO, or DF? We want the excitment of the PVP game without it turning into an arena ONLY.
I play First Person Shooters for quick PVP matchs that are generally balanced- Jump in. Jump out. From a lobby. Good stuff... But there is a gaming void with the mmorpgs on this front.
I am not looking for a true virtual worlds, i look good good games. Ow pvp is never good for me.
Yeah- Open World (FFA) PVP isnt for me either due to the poor game mechanics. However, in the past I have played games where it worked very well (for a myriad of reasons) and I would like to see that return.
-The ganker takes his 10 free ganks, has a good chuckle and then either rolls a new toon, or says, screw this, this game sucks, I quit.
-The farmer, after being ganked for the tenth time and losing everything, says the same thing. I quit, this game sucks.
I think this post shows a fundimental problem in certain players in open world pvp games:
1- The griefers, the kind of players who don't want to truly pvp or even be real pirates or criminals, given the chance. They seek only to ruin the experience for everyone, and given the chance, they'll pk civilians, same faction members and basically use any means to keep avoiding problems, like making alts and different accounts.
2- The whiny non pvp'ers. Yup, whiny, because the reality of what i see from many players who are against pvp is that they over-react to getting ganked. The thing is, ganking isn't griefing, it's simpy attacking players provided the change. Unfortunatly, even if non pvp'ers don't lose anything, don't lose much time, and can't even suffer many consequences, they'll still over-react.
In the end, players ask for freedom, but can't either control themselves or deal with the reality of it. And by losing non pvp'ers,you end up mostly with a large scale pvp arena.
I think that for an owpvp mmo to truly work for more "mainstream" appeal, if would need to simply cut off pvp from pve. Not on a zoned level, but more on a flagged level. Otherwise, the complaining over a bunch of pixels would be huge.
Ok, how is it an overreaction to be upset, when many hours of work to improve your situation in game is destroyed in a few short seconds by some weeny little butthead whose only goal in the game is to destroy other peoples work?
Oh haha good for you!! You took all my hard work and threw it in the dumpster so you could have some shits and giggles! Haha I will get right back to work so you can come back and do it again. Damn this is fun!
On your other point I do agree though. PvP and PvE do not mix, in any world. If a person wants PvP fine. If someone does not , it should not be forced upon them.
Unfortunately it seems the PvP "whiners" are not happy with this either. So where does that leave your argument?
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
If you want to add safezones or other stuff a good way is to do like UO, you have a world that is very similar to the pvp one, so pvp haters go to world without pvp and play there and others continue on their world.
But some problems with UO thing:
1- Felluca is not 100% similar to trammel, some pvp haters will complain they want something from the pvp enabled zone and cant have it.
2-New world had only the pvp disabled version of it.
Someone will ask: "why not just make a pvp enabled server and a non pvp enabled server:
1-Some pvp haters would complain about starting a pvp enabled server because they didnt knew the game had the other server.
2-You could add server change option, but some will complain they would not be able to play with friends from other server after they changed the server. With my previous idea, you can just go to pvp or non pvp world, when you want to play with pvp hater or lover.
3-Your house or any other stuff you have will be on same server.
PS: Some will still complain that the game would be made based around being pvp enable and then would have the non pvp area.
You could add a new rule that the game would need to be made around non pvp (at the point of not caring at all about pvp, other than fixing bugs obviously, a thing they already care with usual safezone mmorpgs) and then just had the pvp area slapped there.
But they would or could complain "but then the pvp lovers will have a worse game?". A thing that some pvp lovers would not care, as to them this pvp style idea would be better than the usual safezones almost everywhere + small area enabled pvp.
You want a more realistic virtual world that includes OW FFA PvP?
Ok. How about this? You gank someone in a safety zone, and you get a ticket. Get 10 tickets and your account is deleted and your are banned for life from that game.
Too harsh? Awwwww. I thought you wanted realistic?
Originally posted by Prenho3 There are no problems in open world pvp games, the problem is all yours who can't stand it.
That makes no sense.
The problems are pretty clear. Many of us love the thrill of FFA PVP but hate the way it became the focus of "
sandbox" and open world games (for which PVP should be a small part of a bigger picture- Not the focus)- By focusing mainly on PVP (unrestricted and unmitigated) you dont have a sandbox game- You have a deathmatch arena between people of different levels in both skill and character.
If I want a deathmatch- There are games which fit that need and are fair- I want an RPG with the excitment of PVP but having PVP be just another feature not the entire "game" as we currently have.
I play Lineage 1 for years(NA retail are closed but I play on private servers whose admins get the newest version and translate it) and I see no problem, there are a lot of pledges wars over open world bosses and open spots and I and my clan enjoy it, fighting enemy clans over resources-open fields and world bosses while waiting for L1 sequel, Lineage Eternal.
Originally posted by Prenho3 There are no problems in open world pvp games, the problem is all yours who can't stand it.
That makes no sense.
The problems are pretty clear. Many of us love the thrill of FFA PVP but hate the way it became the focus of "
sandbox" and open world games (for which PVP should be a small part of a bigger picture- Not the focus)- By focusing mainly on PVP (unrestricted and unmitigated) you dont have a sandbox game- You have a deathmatch arena between people of different levels in both skill and character.
If I want a deathmatch- There are games which fit that need and are fair- I want an RPG with the excitment of PVP but having PVP be just another feature not the entire "game" as we currently have.
I play Lineage 1 for years(NA retail are closed but I play on private servers whose admins get the newest version and translate it) and I see no problem, there are a lot of pledges wars over open world bosses and open spots and I and my clan enjoy it, fighting enemy clans over resources-open fields and world bosses while waiting for L1 sequel, Lineage Eternal.
The problem is all yours, just stay in instance focused MMOs. (I missed edit button and clicked quote button by mistake)
Originally posted by Bladestrom Then you agree general-zod
I agree with owpvp games being niche... after all, the amount of wolves in the world is scarce
But pvp players think that open pvp zones should be more popular - Bladestrom
I do not agree
should qualify then, the pvp players that want to hunt in zones marked for PVE, wolves need fresh meat constantly, im looking at you high sec zone in eve.
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
Originally posted by Prenho3 There are no problems in open world pvp games, the problem is all yours who can't stand it.
That makes no sense.
The problems are pretty clear. Many of us love the thrill of FFA PVP but hate the way it became the focus of "
sandbox" and open world games (for which PVP should be a small part of a bigger picture- Not the focus)- By focusing mainly on PVP (unrestricted and unmitigated) you dont have a sandbox game- You have a deathmatch arena between people of different levels in both skill and character.
If I want a deathmatch- There are games which fit that need and are fair- I want an RPG with the excitment of PVP but having PVP be just another feature not the entire "game" as we currently have.
I play Lineage 1 for years(NA retail are closed but I play on private servers whose admins get the newest version and translate it) and I see no problem, there are a lot of pledges wars over open world bosses and open spots and I and my clan enjoy it, fighting enemy clans over resources-open fields and world bosses while waiting for L1 sequel, Lineage Eternal.
Sure, and thats fantastic. I never played Lineage so I cannot comment on specifics.
Sounds very much like a RvR or Faction/guild type PVP from what you wrote which is different from FFA PVP that is common in all the newer "sandbox games".
I am more talking about MO, DF and the plethora of new and upcoming (and KS) MMOs that claim to be sandbox but are really PVP arena.
EDIT- I would say Vendetta Online has a good system for PVP (but its not rreally a sandbox game)- You can attack anywhere at anytime and towards anyone- You can kill and loot all they have BUT there are 3 races (factions) and by commiting violence against your race you gain negative points towards their disposition. This results in higher prices and eventually Kill on sight from even NPCs until you fix your standing. The other factions you can fight with (same penalty but only with their specific race) or befriend. It seems to work very well (I am a new player) as I am confident that I am safe in my homeland from people of my faction (even though they have the option to kill me) but if I travel into certain ares its a fee for all.
Originally posted by Prenho3 There are no problems in open world pvp games, the problem is all yours who can't stand it.
That makes no sense.
The problems are pretty clear. Many of us love the thrill of FFA PVP but hate the way it became the focus of "
sandbox" and open world games (for which PVP should be a small part of a bigger picture- Not the focus)- By focusing mainly on PVP (unrestricted and unmitigated) you dont have a sandbox game- You have a deathmatch arena between people of different levels in both skill and character.
If I want a deathmatch- There are games which fit that need and are fair- I want an RPG with the excitment of PVP but having PVP be just another feature not the entire "game" as we currently have.
I play Lineage 1 for years(NA retail are closed but I play on private servers whose admins get the newest version and translate it) and I see no problem, there are a lot of pledges wars over open world bosses and open spots and I and my clan enjoy it, fighting enemy clans over resources-open fields and world bosses while waiting for L1 sequel, Lineage Eternal.
Sure, and thats fantastic. I never played Lineage so I cannot comment on specifics.
Sounds very much like a RvR or Faction/guild type PVP from what you wrote which is different from FFA PVP that is common in all the newer "sandbox games".
I am more talking about MO, DF and the plethora of new and upcoming (and KS) MMOs that claim to be sandbox but are really PVP arena.
The focus of Lineage is world clan war, your clan can remain neutral or choose to enter a war against any other clan. the pvp rules are made in order to prevent random gank, but you can gank a neutral, but it you do that, you become pk, a pk is banned from cities, and can drop items if he dies.
Originally posted by Prenho3 There are no problems in open world pvp games, the problem is all yours who can't stand it.
That makes no sense.
The problems are pretty clear. Many of us love the thrill of FFA PVP but hate the way it became the focus of "
sandbox" and open world games (for which PVP should be a small part of a bigger picture- Not the focus)- By focusing mainly on PVP (unrestricted and unmitigated) you dont have a sandbox game- You have a deathmatch arena between people of different levels in both skill and character.
If I want a deathmatch- There are games which fit that need and are fair- I want an RPG with the excitment of PVP but having PVP be just another feature not the entire "game" as we currently have.
I play Lineage 1 for years(NA retail are closed but I play on private servers whose admins get the newest version and translate it) and I see no problem, there are a lot of pledges wars over open world bosses and open spots and I and my clan enjoy it, fighting enemy clans over resources-open fields and world bosses while waiting for L1 sequel, Lineage Eternal.
Sure, and thats fantastic. I never played Lineage so I cannot comment on specifics.
Sounds very much like a RvR or Faction/guild type PVP from what you wrote which is different from FFA PVP that is common in all the newer "sandbox games".
I am more talking about MO, DF and the plethora of new and upcoming (and KS) MMOs that claim to be sandbox but are really PVP arena.
The focus of Lineage is world clan war, your clan can remain neutral or choose to enter a war against any other clan. the pvp rules are made in order to prevent random gank, but you can gank a neutral, but it you do that, you become pk, a pk is banned from cities, and can drop items if he dies.
Yeah that sounds awesome. That, I would be down for.
I edited my above post to provide another example of this working well (seemingly) but that is a bit different from FFA PVP games.
Originally posted by Prenho3 There are no problems in open world pvp games, the problem is all yours who can't stand it.
That makes no sense.
The problems are pretty clear. Many of us love the thrill of FFA PVP but hate the way it became the focus of "
sandbox" and open world games (for which PVP should be a small part of a bigger picture- Not the focus)- By focusing mainly on PVP (unrestricted and unmitigated) you dont have a sandbox game- You have a deathmatch arena between people of different levels in both skill and character.
If I want a deathmatch- There are games which fit that need and are fair- I want an RPG with the excitment of PVP but having PVP be just another feature not the entire "game" as we currently have.
I play Lineage 1 for years(NA retail are closed but I play on private servers whose admins get the newest version and translate it) and I see no problem, there are a lot of pledges wars over open world bosses and open spots and I and my clan enjoy it, fighting enemy clans over resources-open fields and world bosses while waiting for L1 sequel, Lineage Eternal.
Sure, and thats fantastic. I never played Lineage so I cannot comment on specifics.
Sounds very much like a RvR or Faction/guild type PVP from what you wrote which is different from FFA PVP that is common in all the newer "sandbox games".
I am more talking about MO, DF and the plethora of new and upcoming (and KS) MMOs that claim to be sandbox but are really PVP arena.
The focus of Lineage is world clan war, your clan can remain neutral or choose to enter a war against any other clan. the pvp rules are made in order to prevent random gank, but you can gank a neutral, but it you do that, you become pk, a pk is banned from cities, and can drop items if he dies.
Yeah that sounds awesome. That, I would be down for.
I edited my above post to provide another example of this working well (seemingly) but that is a bit different from FFA PVP games.
Basic pvp rules in Lineage:
1 - PvP without war:
If player A wants to kill player B but player B is not at war with him(player B belongs to a clan that is not at war with player A clan, or simply doesn't belong to any clan).
Player A starts attacking, so his name changes from White(normal state) to purple(flagged state), so 2 things can happen depending if player B will react or not:
a - Player B doesn't react: if player B doesn't want to react and player A kills him, it means that he killed a player with white name(normal state), so player A will gain karma and his name will change to red color(it means that he became pk, pks are banned from towns, he can't enter cities or talk to npcs, and if someone dies while in pk state, he can lose some(or all) items(as his weapon or armor).
A pk player needs to kill monters of his gap of level until he cleans his karma and his name becomes white again. Anyone can kill a pk without worrying, pks can be killed and the killer won't become pk, just will have a change to loot some items from pk after killing him.
A(white name) atks B(white name) = A becomes purple name
A(purple name) kills B(white name) = A becomes red name(pk) gain karma because he killed a white name.
b - Player B reacts: player B decides to fight back, so player B will become a purple name too, both players are purple, so this fight will end up and nobody will become pk, because both players are flagged, the winner will just have to wait some time until his name turns white again.
A(white name) atks B(white name) = A becomes purple name
B(white name) atks back = B becomes purple name
Both palyer are flagged, so it doesn't matter who wins, nobody will become pk because both players opened flag.
2 - PVP with war
Player A finds player B and he notices that player B belongs to a clan that is at war with his clan(there is a sword above his nickname), in this case, the rule above does not work anymore, because both players are at war, so no matter if player A kills player B without player B reacts or not, you can kill him without worrying about becoming pk, the winner will gain pvp point and clan reputation(you can use special clan skills with reputation). So the players make their own alliances and enemies, while a poor faction game, there are only 2(or 3) factions.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Then you agree general-zod
I agree with owpvp games being niche... after all, the amount of wolves in the world is scarce
But pvp players think that open pvp zones should be more popular - Bladestrom
I do not agree
should qualify then, the pvp players that want to hunt in zones marked for PVE, wolves need fresh meat constantly, im looking at you high sec zone in eve.
Regardless of the stereotypes about pvpers there are a great number of us who do consider ourselves gladiators receiving great honor fighting and winning against the odds. People seem to think i'm saying there are no situations where a player has preyed on the weak and innocent... i'm not saying that.
When I said there are less wolves out there i'm speaking about the players that find themselves in situations where the attacker is more powerful or the attackers outnumber the player but he still tries to figure out how a way to overcome instead of giving up.
Comments
Yeah that's an idea I've been mentioning a few times before, and I believe things like this should be implemented.
Basically, the bottom line is:
Look at what works in "civilised" societies (where people aren't just killing each other) and try to emulate this in a way or another in the "open world game".
Again, the problem for "carebears" is that they have very few viable options in terms of retaliation against players more skilled than they are at PK (or simply much higher level).
I think games need to introduce more "concepts" that will allow a player mediocre/bad/unwilling at PvP (more "PvE-focused") to "punish" a PvP player. Bounties, I think would work... a ganker who has killed 1,000 low level players who all then put a bounty of 1 gold on his head ("I can't stand this dude, someone f'in kill him!!!") would be worth 1,000 gold - might be enough of an incentive for a "white knight" to come and kill the griefer.
With permadeath (or loss of lvl + perma-xp penatly) + bounties, I'm sure we could see some interesting action where the most wanted people (still alive) would actually be great players. The dude with 1M gold bounty on his head would be a legend, and the guy who would kill him too. And I would imagine you would see hunting parties organised to kill the dude.
PvP players on the other hand need to be able to continue to kill as long as they don't get caught.
One thing that really annoys me though is games a la WoW where a lvl 1 doesn't even scratch a level 60-70-80. In fact, 1,000 level 1 players cannot even do a scratch to a level 60 player. Ridiculous.
3-4 lowbies should be able to gang up and kill a "high level player" (a bit like a bunch of farmers against a "skilled" warrior).
These mechanics would make that the "carebears" would actually stand a fighting chance, and would probably encourage them to try a game of the sort.
Games are not real society and why put in all that work when players can just simply go to games with no owpvp. If i dont like it, why would i care if pkers r published or not? I can simply go to a pve game and no pkers will ever get me.
Playing Now: The Secret World, Guild Wars 2, Neverwinter
Playing soon: Landmark beta, Swordman beta
Because there is a very nice balance when a true virtual world comes together.
My question- Why play an MMORPG to only have an arena gank fest when there are first person shooters and action games with pretty explosions to play? No worrying about the RPG details, just 100% balanced PVP.
The reason is, simply- Because a sandbox game is better if there is fully realized PVP system. The problem (that the OP is bringing up) is how the RPG seems to be missing from these mmorpgs since they end up being ONLY gank fests and PVP arenas with no consequence.
The idea is to discuss how the balance could work- For someone like you , you have a million games that fit your criteria across several genres . We dont. We are looking for more and trying to discuss how it could work. Does that mean we will solve the issue or even have any effect? No. That certainly does not mean it doesnt merit discussion though.
You are correct in the whole "why would a..." argument though0- Thats what we are trying to discuss and solve. As things stand- Why would a PVE player play MO, or DF? We want the excitment of the PVP game without it turning into an arena ONLY.
I play First Person Shooters for quick PVP matchs that are generally balanced- Jump in. Jump out. From a lobby. Good stuff... But there is a gaming void with the mmorpgs on this front.
Completely agreed, and thus the entire premise for the OP
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
I agree with owpvp games being niche... after all, the amount of wolves in the world is scarce
But pvp players think that open pvp zones should be more popular - Bladestrom
I do not agree
So, back to my game idea, my solution would be similar in spirit to ArcheAge's trial system, but have hefty consequences in line with "an eye for an eye". After an arbitrary amount of player kills against non-combatants (would be flagged as such by their role, e.g. "Farmer", "Merchant", etc.), and those who are not in a state of guild/faction war with the PKer, the offender would be brought to trial and stripped of all their belongings as restitution, divided in terms of monetary value to the victims.
I believe after a single kill the player should be should be faced with consequences should the victim be a "farmer" or "merchant" but it has to be obvious. The player who made the conscience decision to attack, kill and loot a farmer or merchant made no mistake on his or her intent therefore should be punished accordingly. A clear distinction must be made between who's farming and who's in combat so there is no manipulation.
I am not looking for a true virtual worlds, i look good good games. Ow pvp is never good for me.
Yeah- Open World (FFA) PVP isnt for me either due to the poor game mechanics. However, in the past I have played games where it worked very well (for a myriad of reasons) and I would like to see that return.
Will it?
Probably not. =(
Ok, how is it an overreaction to be upset, when many hours of work to improve your situation in game is destroyed in a few short seconds by some weeny little butthead whose only goal in the game is to destroy other peoples work?
Oh haha good for you!! You took all my hard work and threw it in the dumpster so you could have some shits and giggles! Haha I will get right back to work so you can come back and do it again. Damn this is fun!
On your other point I do agree though. PvP and PvE do not mix, in any world. If a person wants PvP fine. If someone does not , it should not be forced upon them.
Unfortunately it seems the PvP "whiners" are not happy with this either. So where does that leave your argument?
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
There are a few simple problems here:
1 PVE players entering a FFA game and being annoyed by ganking.
2. PVP Gankers entering a PVE game and being annoyed by the lack of ganking opportunities.
3. Games developers promoting a PVP game to PVE players and vice versa (good example Eve)
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
PS: talking about pvp here and not RVR.
If you want to add safezones or other stuff a good way is to do like UO, you have a world that is very similar to the pvp one, so pvp haters go to world without pvp and play there and others continue on their world.
But some problems with UO thing:
1- Felluca is not 100% similar to trammel, some pvp haters will complain they want something from the pvp enabled zone and cant have it.
2-New world had only the pvp disabled version of it.
Someone will ask: "why not just make a pvp enabled server and a non pvp enabled server:
1-Some pvp haters would complain about starting a pvp enabled server because they didnt knew the game had the other server.
2-You could add server change option, but some will complain they would not be able to play with friends from other server after they changed the server. With my previous idea, you can just go to pvp or non pvp world, when you want to play with pvp hater or lover.
3-Your house or any other stuff you have will be on same server.
PS: Some will still complain that the game would be made based around being pvp enable and then would have the non pvp area.
You could add a new rule that the game would need to be made around non pvp (at the point of not caring at all about pvp, other than fixing bugs obviously, a thing they already care with usual safezone mmorpgs) and then just had the pvp area slapped there.
But they would or could complain "but then the pvp lovers will have a worse game?". A thing that some pvp lovers would not care, as to them this pvp style idea would be better than the usual safezones almost everywhere + small area enabled pvp.
You want a more realistic virtual world that includes OW FFA PvP?
Ok. How about this? You gank someone in a safety zone, and you get a ticket. Get 10 tickets and your account is deleted and your are banned for life from that game.
Too harsh? Awwwww. I thought you wanted realistic?
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Wolves my ass! But even wolves attack in packs and prey on the weak.
PvP players are more like Hyenas.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I play Lineage 1 for years(NA retail are closed but I play on private servers whose admins get the newest version and translate it) and I see no problem, there are a lot of pledges wars over open world bosses and open spots and I and my clan enjoy it, fighting enemy clans over resources-open fields and world bosses while waiting for L1 sequel, Lineage Eternal.
The problem is all yours, just stay in instance focused MMOs. (I missed edit button and clicked quote button by mistake)
should qualify then, the pvp players that want to hunt in zones marked for PVE, wolves need fresh meat constantly, im looking at you high sec zone in eve.
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
Sure, and thats fantastic. I never played Lineage so I cannot comment on specifics.
Sounds very much like a RvR or Faction/guild type PVP from what you wrote which is different from FFA PVP that is common in all the newer "sandbox games".
I am more talking about MO, DF and the plethora of new and upcoming (and KS) MMOs that claim to be sandbox but are really PVP arena.
EDIT- I would say Vendetta Online has a good system for PVP (but its not rreally a sandbox game)- You can attack anywhere at anytime and towards anyone- You can kill and loot all they have BUT there are 3 races (factions) and by commiting violence against your race you gain negative points towards their disposition. This results in higher prices and eventually Kill on sight from even NPCs until you fix your standing. The other factions you can fight with (same penalty but only with their specific race) or befriend. It seems to work very well (I am a new player) as I am confident that I am safe in my homeland from people of my faction (even though they have the option to kill me) but if I travel into certain ares its a fee for all.
The focus of Lineage is world clan war, your clan can remain neutral or choose to enter a war against any other clan. the pvp rules are made in order to prevent random gank, but you can gank a neutral, but it you do that, you become pk, a pk is banned from cities, and can drop items if he dies.
Yeah that sounds awesome. That, I would be down for.
I edited my above post to provide another example of this working well (seemingly) but that is a bit different from FFA PVP games.
Basic pvp rules in Lineage:
1 - PvP without war:
If player A wants to kill player B but player B is not at war with him(player B belongs to a clan that is not at war with player A clan, or simply doesn't belong to any clan).
Player A starts attacking, so his name changes from White(normal state) to purple(flagged state), so 2 things can happen depending if player B will react or not:
a - Player B doesn't react: if player B doesn't want to react and player A kills him, it means that he killed a player with white name(normal state), so player A will gain karma and his name will change to red color(it means that he became pk, pks are banned from towns, he can't enter cities or talk to npcs, and if someone dies while in pk state, he can lose some(or all) items(as his weapon or armor).
A pk player needs to kill monters of his gap of level until he cleans his karma and his name becomes white again. Anyone can kill a pk without worrying, pks can be killed and the killer won't become pk, just will have a change to loot some items from pk after killing him.
A(white name) atks B(white name) = A becomes purple name
A(purple name) kills B(white name) = A becomes red name(pk) gain karma because he killed a white name.
b - Player B reacts: player B decides to fight back, so player B will become a purple name too, both players are purple, so this fight will end up and nobody will become pk, because both players are flagged, the winner will just have to wait some time until his name turns white again.
A(white name) atks B(white name) = A becomes purple name
B(white name) atks back = B becomes purple name
Both palyer are flagged, so it doesn't matter who wins, nobody will become pk because both players opened flag.
2 - PVP with war
Player A finds player B and he notices that player B belongs to a clan that is at war with his clan(there is a sword above his nickname), in this case, the rule above does not work anymore, because both players are at war, so no matter if player A kills player B without player B reacts or not, you can kill him without worrying about becoming pk, the winner will gain pvp point and clan reputation(you can use special clan skills with reputation). So the players make their own alliances and enemies, while a poor faction game, there are only 2(or 3) factions.
Regardless of the stereotypes about pvpers there are a great number of us who do consider ourselves gladiators receiving great honor fighting and winning against the odds. People seem to think i'm saying there are no situations where a player has preyed on the weak and innocent... i'm not saying that.
When I said there are less wolves out there i'm speaking about the players that find themselves in situations where the attacker is more powerful or the attackers outnumber the player but he still tries to figure out how a way to overcome instead of giving up.