Several posters here have argued, more or less, that there's nothing a game can do to attract non-PKers to a PK game. And yet, I found PK--even PK with permadeath--existed quite nicely in the MUSH era with little complaint. Why was this so?
I think it had a lot to do with changing expectations about the purpose of online roleplaying games. We can say that they are "fun" or "entertaining," but that doesn't tell us much. It's what the fun is supposed to be that's the real question.
In the MUSH days and even on through to Second Life, the "fun" of online roleplaying games was in the character play...what was fun about it was that you lived as a character in a fictional world that operated like a real world. The fun was in the intrigue, the characters and their personalities building a story in an immersive environment to bring life to the lore.
PK can work in an environment like that; indeed, PK is essential in a world like that. It is essential because PK is an engine around which the entire game moves. A character dies, murdered in a public gathering. Where is the assassin? Was it an inside job? Did one of the bodyguards get paid off? Is there a traitor? Was it house A or house B who wanted the person dead? You can't have that if you can't have PK.
But because the games were about roleplay, PKers had what we might call a 'hermeneutic restraint' on their PK: they didn't "do it for the lulz," they did it because they played their characters seriously, and so wouldn't just kill somebody "because I want to pwn all."
In those days, a so-called 'carebear' could reasonably expect to be safe from most PK, as long as he didn't give anybody any cause to get killed. If he was just a scribe, he'd be safe...unless he used his scribe position to betray his lord and was caught. But then, knowing this, he was subtle.
It really was a different time, because few--if any--players today even come to the games expecting to have a deep roleplaying experience. Those that tried often found that a new kind of gamer, the powergamer, had a much different kind of expectation...he really could give a damn about intrigue or playing a role. He just wanted to collect ears (old UO concept) as "Im2sexy," and didn't really care--one way or another--if it spoiled the scene. One might even say that this new kind of player, born of Counterstrike, played the MMORPGs specifically to spoil the scene...'for the lulz" as we would say.
And so, when some guy who just wants to play in character gets owned by some stranger, simply because he could, the PK gets in the way of what interests him, rather than facilitates it.
Which is why I think that there isn't "nothing" the games can do to make PKing attractive to non PKers, but the things the games--and its players--can do might be more than the PKers want to accept. For if the PKers can actually restrain themselves enough to PK sparingly, for roleplay reasons in the spirit of the lore, I don't see any reason why anyone who is serious about online roleplaying games would object to that.
Tragically, however, I'm not sure that PKers--the PKers like the OP--would really accept that. They don't seem to want to be the assassin who plays in character, taking out targets in accordance with what major players in the game want. They seem to want to be 1m2sexy, who "does it for the lulz" and does it for the ears.
Does that help?
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
"What can you do to hook carebears to FFA pvp games?"
LOL...wow
Why do you need to? Can't hang with your own kind? So you need sheep to pad your stats?
^^^This. What does a PvPer want in a FFA PvP game? Not other PvPers.
Another post stated that true PvP types play MOBAs, FPS, and RTS. Those who seek FFA PvP in an RPG are the poor skill types. Those who can't cut it in true PvP. They think RPGs should be easy targets. When they find they are not, they complain about faceroll and how simple the combat is and demand more action in their RPGs. When in fact Tab Targeting (RPG Combat) is still beyond their level of mastery, this means they fail at it.
If someone makes a good FFA PvP game, it will momentarily be filled with sheep. But quickly the wolves will come. And the sheep will leave. And what do wolves hate? Other wolves, so the wolves will leave. And all that time and money spent on making a good FFA PvP game, will be wasted time and money.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Several posters here have argued, more or less, that there's nothing a game can do to attract non-PKers to a PK game. And yet, I found PK--even PK with permadeath--existed quite nicely in the MUSH era with little complaint. Why was this so?
Does that help?
Your basic point is essentially MUSH is such a small small niche that only the right players are playing.
There is really nothing anyone can do if it needs a larger audience.
Another post stated that true PvP types play MOBAs, FPS, and RTS. Those who seek FFA PvP in an RPG are the poor skill types.
I don't think it is the skill levels.
I think e-sport games are just perceived as more fair, and provide a better "feel good" when you beat someone.
In addition, it does not have the problem of when someone just want to pve, pvp is imposed on him. If you play MOBAs, MP FPS, or RTS, you are set out to compete. So there is no complaint if a player decides to fight you ... as opposed to a pve/pvp hybrid game.
The genre itself has grown too much, and those who enjoy being ganked by talentless max levels who only prey on lower levels have -- big shock -- been severely outnumbered to the point of obscurity in favor of 2v2, 3v3, 5v5 and so on and so forth. Even playing fields, and a hatred of P2W tactics as a whole (when it comes to cash shops in games).
Back when Ultima Online was going, the community was niche enough to make it work. Most people were rather helpful, and there were four factions you could join and leave at any given time. Guilds could wage war on each other, the factions fought, as well as there being red PKers. Full loot PvP.
But there were also various other systems that were soon implemented like Knights of Justice, PKers being unable to enter towns, nobody getting PK marks from killing pickpockets or PKers... bounties for Pkers. So on and so forth. All out war was your main fight, and there were a few randoms that endured constantly being hunted by people on the same "level" as them -- who they had really no idea how to fight as they normally picked on lower "levels" (I say levels so people better understand as opposed to going into the skill system) -- so they could get virtue points among other things.
Game worlds tend not to have pure Anarchy in terms of lore and societies, and therefore severe punishments must be given to PKers. Even to the point of massive rewards for the 99% of other people who might then hunt them in Inquisitions. The Pkers or "Reds" as they were called, still benefited from having a character that was such. They could ambush trade routes or miners and the like, getting all of their ore and weapons and armor if they were also blacksmiths. Still be feared by every newbie in the game. But they were true outlaws and were hunted and treated as such. Farmed for points for the "virtuous" even to the point where guild mates would create a red for their friends to farm or to find out where other reds hid or had houses, forcing them to sell their house or quit the game due to the Inquisition.
"Those who enjoy being ganked" has always been a near-empty demographic. Almost nobody enjoys being ganked by skillless max-level opponents. The growth of the genre has nothing to do with it: it's just not a popular feature for a game to offer.
So UO's limited popularity occurred in spite of ganking. It was popular for all of its other features, so people suffered through the ganking. That said, if it hadn't had ganking it would've been more popular (since one of the reasons players stopped playing UO wouldn't have existed.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The genre itself has grown too much, and those who enjoy being ganked by talentless max levels who only prey on lower levels have -- big shock -- been severely outnumbered to the point of obscurity in favor of 2v2, 3v3, 5v5 and so on and so forth. Even playing fields, and a hatred of P2W tactics as a whole (when it comes to cash shops in games).
Back when Ultima Online was going, the community was niche enough to make it work. Most people were rather helpful, and there were four factions you could join and leave at any given time. Guilds could wage war on each other, the factions fought, as well as there being red PKers. Full loot PvP.
But there were also various other systems that were soon implemented like Knights of Justice, PKers being unable to enter towns, nobody getting PK marks from killing pickpockets or PKers... bounties for Pkers. So on and so forth. All out war was your main fight, and there were a few randoms that endured constantly being hunted by people on the same "level" as them -- who they had really no idea how to fight as they normally picked on lower "levels" (I say levels so people better understand as opposed to going into the skill system) -- so they could get virtue points among other things.
Game worlds tend not to have pure Anarchy in terms of lore and societies, and therefore severe punishments must be given to PKers. Even to the point of massive rewards for the 99% of other people who might then hunt them in Inquisitions. The Pkers or "Reds" as they were called, still benefited from having a character that was such. They could ambush trade routes or miners and the like, getting all of their ore and weapons and armor if they were also blacksmiths. Still be feared by every newbie in the game. But they were true outlaws and were hunted and treated as such. Farmed for points for the "virtuous" even to the point where guild mates would create a red for their friends to farm or to find out where other reds hid or had houses, forcing them to sell their house or quit the game due to the Inquisition.
"Those who enjoy being ganked" has always been a near-empty demographic. Almost nobody enjoys being ganked by skillless max-level opponents. The growth of the genre has nothing to do with it: it's just not a popular feature for a game to offer.
So UO's limited popularity occurred in spite of ganking. It was popular for all of its other features, so people suffered through the ganking. That said, if it hadn't had ganking it would've been more popular (since one of the reasons players stopped playing UO wouldn't have existed.)
I agree there are far too many games for us to play rather than becoming someone's target. Once upon a time there were far too few games and we had little choice now we are spoilt for choice so why would I play in a FFA PvP game .
Too bad for those who enjoy being wolves but why don't you hunt other wolves ?
Just once I would love for all the 'Wolves' who want 'FFA PvP' to be attractive to 'sheep' to own up to wanting it because they suck at PvP.
If you really wanted to have 'tense', 'skillful', 'risk vs reward' PvP what is stopping you fighting all the other bored 'wolves' rather then complaining about the lack of sheep.
Good PvP'ers are either playing PvP games or.....help me with another option people.
Just once I would love for all the 'Wolves' who want 'FFA PvP' to be attractive to 'sheep' to own up to wanting it because they suck at PvP.
If you really wanted to have 'tense', 'skillful', 'risk vs reward' PvP what is stopping you fighting all the other bored 'wolves' rather then complaining about the lack of sheep.
Good PvP'ers are either playing PvP games or.....help me with another option people.
There's too much ego on the line for that to happen. Competitive PvP is too hardcore for them.
It is quite peculiar that the so called "hardcore PvP" is more casual in the sense that it doesn't have ranked ladders and/or tournaments when "casual PvP" games have all that. I know most FFA PvP fans would rather die than admit that competitive PvP takes more skill than FFA PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Wow. Most people I know who want FFA PvP do not in fact want carebears in their game either. All we're asking for is a new game to play in. We understand a lot of people enjoy PvE, so play your PvE games. No one is trying to make you join up with an FFA PvP game if you don't want to. There is in fact a large market for them. This website even has them all listed for you. #2 for hype under development, Crowfall, #3 Albion online, #4 Gloria victis, #5 Camelot Unchained. All of them are FFA PvP games and most have huge followings even though they're not close to release. That's proof enough that many people do, in fact, enjoy this type of game.
Wow. Most people I know who want FFA PvP do not in fact want carebears in their game either. All we're asking for is a new game to play in. We understand a lot of people enjoy PvE, so play your PvE games. No one is trying to make you join up with an FFA PvP game if you don't want to. There is in fact a large market for them. This website even has them all listed for you. #2 for hype under development, Crowfall, #3 Albion online, #4 Gloria victis, #5 Camelot Unchained. All of them are FFA PvP games and most have huge followings even though they're not close to release. That's proof enough that many people do, in fact, enjoy this type of game.
Lets be honest: They don't have "huge" followings. Its rather small niche.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
They actually do have large followings. Both Camelot Unchained and Crowfall are funded through kickstarters. Not too many gamers are willing to shell out a collective $6 million dollars to develop something that they don't want. And before you rattle off that's not that much money to develop a game, it is when both games will be having zero, I repeat, zero PvE experience.
Wow. Most people I know who want FFA PvP do not in fact want carebears in their game either. All we're asking for is a new game to play in. We understand a lot of people enjoy PvE, so play your PvE games. No one is trying to make you join up with an FFA PvP game if you don't want to. There is in fact a large market for them. This website even has them all listed for you. #2 for hype under development, Crowfall, #3 Albion online, #4 Gloria victis, #5 Camelot Unchained. All of them are FFA PvP games and most have huge followings even though they're not close to release. That's proof enough that many people do, in fact, enjoy this type of game.
"Many" is misleading.
A single pure PVP game League of Legends has 67 million monthly players and regularly exceeds 5 million concurrents. When you include all the other pure PVP games (Battlefield, CoD, DOTA2, TF2, CS:GO, SC2, etc) the overall audience for pure PVP games is gigantic.
Meanwhile EVE's 500k monthly players and 36k concurrents is one of the larger FFA PVP games. Then include all the other FFA PVP games (small MMORPGs like Darkfall, and games like DayZ, ARK (65k concurrent), etc)
When you add up all those FFA PVPers there's probably at least 1-2 million players playing those types of games. You could call that "many". But compared with the players playing pure PVP games it's really not many at all, so calling it "many" is misleading.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Wow. Most people I know who want FFA PvP do not in fact want carebears in their game either. All we're asking for is a new game to play in. We understand a lot of people enjoy PvE, so play your PvE games. No one is trying to make you join up with an FFA PvP game if you don't want to. There is in fact a large market for them. This website even has them all listed for you. #2 for hype under development, Crowfall, #3 Albion online, #4 Gloria victis, #5 Camelot Unchained. All of them are FFA PvP games and most have huge followings even though they're not close to release. That's proof enough that many people do, in fact, enjoy this type of game.
"Many" is misleading.
A single pure PVP game League of Legends has 67 million monthly players and regularly exceeds 5 million concurrents. When you include all the other pure PVP games (Battlefield, CoD, DOTA2, TF2, CS:GO, SC2, etc) the overall audience for pure PVP games is gigantic.
Meanwhile EVE's 500k monthly players and 36k concurrents is one of the larger FFA PVP games. Then include all the other FFA PVP games (small MMORPGs like Darkfall, and games like DayZ, ARK (65k concurrent), etc)
When you add up all those FFA PVPers there's probably at least 1-2 million players playing those types of games. You could call that "many". But compared with the players playing pure PVP games it's really not many at all, so calling it "many" is misleading.
You do realize that this website is called MMORPG? 1-2 million is a significant number of players for any MMORPG to survive and in fact thrive.
"What can you do to hook carebears to FFA pvp games?"
LOL...wow
Why do you need to? Can't hang with your own kind? So you need sheep to pad your stats?
^^^This. What does a PvPer want in a FFA PvP game? Not other PvPers.
Another post stated that true PvP types play MOBAs, FPS, and RTS. Those who seek FFA PvP in an RPG are the poor skill types. Those who can't cut it in true PvP. They think RPGs should be easy targets. When they find they are not, they complain about faceroll and how simple the combat is and demand more action in their RPGs. When in fact Tab Targeting (RPG Combat) is still beyond their level of mastery, this means they fail at it.
If someone makes a good FFA PvP game, it will momentarily be filled with sheep. But quickly the wolves will come. And the sheep will leave. And what do wolves hate? Other wolves, so the wolves will leave. And all that time and money spent on making a good FFA PvP game, will be wasted time and money.
You couldn't be more wrong. We want other PvP'ers. What you all always fail to appreciate is that we like challenges, just like you guys do in PvE games or in PvP/PvE games. You want to be challenged by the new raid boss, you don't want it to just fall over and spit out loot. We're the same about PvP. Most of us have done all the other PvP forms you all mention and say we suck because we don't try. Most forms of competitive pvp are fun, they just get redundant very quickly. FFA PvP is so attractive because it doesn't lose it's luster as quickly. The fights will always be different, and hopefully always be against another person who is out for blood. Arena PvP is a joke. Flavor of the month compositions come out of the woodwork nearly instantly and you end up fighting the same composition over and over. If I thought that was fun I would PvE.
"Those who enjoy being ganked" has always been a near-empty demographic. Almost nobody enjoys being ganked by skillless max-level opponents. The growth of the genre has nothing to do with it: it's just not a popular feature for a game to offer.
So UO's limited popularity occurred in spite of ganking. It was popular for all of its other features, so people suffered through the ganking. That said, if it hadn't had ganking it would've been more popular (since one of the reasons players stopped playing UO wouldn't have existed.)
Perhaps a failure to articulate on my part. It always sucks to be ganked and to lose everything you worked for due to full looting and the like. But the fear of such -- which drove you to make precautions, be smart and only carry the bare necessities -- was a part that I probably enjoyed. It's probably the same appeal as gambling has, as gambling would be boring if you always won; the payout would be non-existent as well since the house makes nothing to fund such.
Though I would have to disagree with the general notion that the growth of the genre -- meaning the number of games that has come out as a result and the number of players increasing -- was not a factor. Though part of that might be tied to the growth of gaming itself, as in... they aren't just considered "nerd" anymore. It's a relatively widespread pass time now and not just some guy with his brand new pentium in the 90s and the new-fangled instant message service that was just released with no cell phones existing.
The increase of people wanting to troll others has essentially made controlling said population a bit more difficult. More voices, more mob mentality and more complaints. Heck, I remember when DOTA had a fairly good community until LoL exploded. The increase of people playing MMOs also increased the amount of games that are being released by comparison. It was really hard to get an MMO funded back in the day. Many of which I was looking forward to, but failed to get started as a whole or had to stop mid-way.
Now that there are a lot of games and a lot of gamers, the voices -- the money -- of those who didn't like the idea of "right of passage" to becoming a high level player actually have a voice. They also have options, whereas the former is still as small as ever. PvE realms always being full and PvP being near empty. Now, the assertion can be made (and I've made it many times) that the game should make systems that promote good behavior since the "solo" and "every man for himself" theme has kicked in with MMOs. With the days of working as groups ala UO and FFXI being far behind us since it allows more people into a game due to time constraints or general want to not associate.
To put simply: More players = more money invested = more games = more choice = higher chance of failure to cater to a small group. Which is essentially what you were getting at in that certain things were tolerated. But there are also factors of behavior nowadays in that people -look- for games where they can be "wolves" as opposed to just playing a PvP game. Their fun is to make others miserable. And other high levels have fun with various ways, and it tends to get tedious hunting others down now. As they don't fear penalties and their sole purpose is just to camp low levels. I've never run across that in my times with UO (that I remember). Unless they person in question was a jerk to begin with. This results in a notoriously bad community reputation and people leaving the game. And communication and social media make this well known almost instantly, with how many people indulge in them in gaming (including reddit forums).
I'd surmise that high amounts of people form general ways to behave. A mob mentality of sorts, as mentioned before. Followed by a reputation and you "knowing" what you are getting into by joining a game such as LoL (if you know it's a place of salt and you see a lot of people being salty, you're likely to become salty as well). Even WoW molded much of the community and how MMO players treat others and different games when it became the first mmo of tens of millions of people. When Ultima Online was pretty much the only one of its kind, and thus the small community formed it's own way until WoW's "themepark" model became standard. In essence, we could say that by today's standards UO was a success in spite of the PvP... though it was one of the first of its kind. There was no real thing to compare it to. It was essentially a world in itself where you could be a knight, a blacksmith, a miner, logger, fisher, trader, tamer, bard... etc. Actual pick pocketed. Murder. Politics. Guards and law. It was essentially a sandbox with rules to punish people who became PKers or reds. Then trammel came out and it was a PvE game with a "Dark World" for reds and PvPers and wars. With the worlds looking completely different in some areas with dead trees and the like.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
You do realize that this website is called MMORPG? 1-2 million is a significant number of players for any MMORPG to survive and in fact thrive.
No single FFA PVP MMORPG has those 1-2 million players. Those 1-2 million players include a ton of survival gameplayers, and generously includes historic players (ie EVE's 500k) who may not actually be interested in FFA PVP anymore.
For example the most popular FFA PVP MMORPG is EVE. We know it's monthly peak was around 500k, and if we use the concurrent chart and make some safe assumptions we get:
The peak 500k players probably happened in Jan '11 and probably saw similar peak near Jan '13 with 36k concurrents.
Given that concurrent:monthly ratio, Jan 2015's 21.5k concurrents would imply 299k monthly players.
Given the slope of the decline, it would imply that in Jan 2016 they might see as low as 11k concurrents with 150k monthly players. (Though I think it'll flatten out before this, as player decline usually doesn't plummet straight to zero, instead flattening out over time as the most avid players stick around until the game closes down.)
So those 1-2 million players aren't a single wildly popular FFA PVP game, but rather spread across a lot of games (many of which aren't MMORPGs, like the survival genre; DayZ, H1N1, and ARK making up a big portion of those players.) The biggest FFA PVP MMORPG (EVE) is somewhat anemic as MMORPGs go.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
They actually do have large followings. Both Camelot Unchained and Crowfall are funded through kickstarters. Not too many gamers are willing to shell out a collective $6 million dollars to develop something that they don't want. And before you rattle off that's not that much money to develop a game, it is when both games will be having zero, I repeat, zero PvE experience.
No they don't. They have a small number of whales.
I just checked. CU has 14873 backers and CF has 16936. That is tiny in gaming, not even 2% of a million players.
They actually do have large followings. Both Camelot Unchained and Crowfall are funded through kickstarters. Not too many gamers are willing to shell out a collective $6 million dollars to develop something that they don't want. And before you rattle off that's not that much money to develop a game, it is when both games will be having zero, I repeat, zero PvE experience.
No they don't. They have a small number of whales.
I just checked. CU has 14873 backers and CF has 16936. That is tiny in gaming, not even 2% of a million players.
Yeah, I'm one of the "whales"yet I'm not sure I even will play it.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"What can you do to hook carebears to FFA pvp games?"
LOL...wow
Why do you need to? Can't hang with your own kind? So you need sheep to pad your stats?
It's like asking
"Do you want to come to our party? We need someone we can make fun of."
And some PVP players wonder why open world PVP died.
I knew the open PVP genre would die when I saw it in some games. People making fun of others on forums for killing them, people killing new players over and over until those people started complaining on the forums. Ruining other people's fun by ganging up on them until those people left the games in disgust. Juveniles and juvenile acts, it is those things that killed open world PVP.
In fact, in PVE games it is usually former PVP players demanding that there be no PVP whatsoever on the PVE forums.
It is the horrible experiences people had on PVP games, thanks to the terrible PVP communitites, that guaranteed open world PVP died.
"What can you do to hook carebears to FFA pvp games?"
LOL...wow
Why do you need to? Can't hang with your own kind? So you need sheep to pad your stats?
It's like asking
"Do you want to come to our party? We need someone we can make fun of."
And some PVP players wonder why open world PVP died.
Some of you literally have the IQ of a small rodent.
I knew the open PVP genre would die when I saw it in some games. People making fun of others on forums for killing them, people killing new players over and over until those people started complaining on the forums. Ruining other people's fun by ganging up on them until those people left the games in disgust. Juveniles and juvenile acts, it is those things that killed open world PVP.
Wait, as I understand things controlled scenario PVP such as in MOBAs have many of same issues, just have a more restrictive set of rules to control players behavior.
Just as in professional wrestling, no one plays the "good guy" anymore.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Wait, as I understand things controlled scenario PVP such as in MOBAs have many of same issues, just have a more restrictive set of rules to control players behavior.
Just as in professional wrestling, no one plays the "good guy" anymore.
People don't mind controlled PVP scenarios, what most people don't like is being taken advantage of. And this happens with open world PVP.
In fact, you could see this happen in early online FPS.
I remember a developer of Unreal Tournament explaining the main reason why people stopped logging in:
As players got better and better, players who didn't play a lot and weren't as good, started leaving the game.
This is one of the reasons why many online FPS nowadays make sure that the more experienced players are seperated from the beginners.
Also, this creates a snowball effect.
The second most killed player will become the most killed once the most killed leaves the game. Then that player leaves the game, and so, and so on...until your game is drained of players.
This happend in open world PVP MMO too.
In PVE MMO this isn't a problem since people have free choices in which content they will tackle.
IT worked in UO because there was basically no other online game to play until EQ came along 2 years later....Even that game had to create Trammell where people could actually somewhat enjoy the game and not get raped all day.
They actually do have large followings. Both Camelot Unchained and Crowfall are funded through kickstarters. Not too many gamers are willing to shell out a collective $6 million dollars to develop something that they don't want. And before you rattle off that's not that much money to develop a game, it is when both games will be having zero, I repeat, zero PvE experience.
No they don't. They have a small number of whales.
I just checked. CU has 14873 backers and CF has 16936. That is tiny in gaming, not even 2% of a million players.
Another backer here. I backed because I believed that a successful kickstarter game would lead to good kickstarter projects. I will never play CU because of the PvP, but I do want it to succeed.
Comments
I think it had a lot to do with changing expectations about the purpose of online roleplaying games. We can say that they are "fun" or "entertaining," but that doesn't tell us much. It's what the fun is supposed to be that's the real question.
In the MUSH days and even on through to Second Life, the "fun" of online roleplaying games was in the character play...what was fun about it was that you lived as a character in a fictional world that operated like a real world. The fun was in the intrigue, the characters and their personalities building a story in an immersive environment to bring life to the lore.
PK can work in an environment like that; indeed, PK is essential in a world like that. It is essential because PK is an engine around which the entire game moves. A character dies, murdered in a public gathering. Where is the assassin? Was it an inside job? Did one of the bodyguards get paid off? Is there a traitor? Was it house A or house B who wanted the person dead? You can't have that if you can't have PK.
But because the games were about roleplay, PKers had what we might call a 'hermeneutic restraint' on their PK: they didn't "do it for the lulz," they did it because they played their characters seriously, and so wouldn't just kill somebody "because I want to pwn all."
In those days, a so-called 'carebear' could reasonably expect to be safe from most PK, as long as he didn't give anybody any cause to get killed. If he was just a scribe, he'd be safe...unless he used his scribe position to betray his lord and was caught. But then, knowing this, he was subtle.
It really was a different time, because few--if any--players today even come to the games expecting to have a deep roleplaying experience. Those that tried often found that a new kind of gamer, the powergamer, had a much different kind of expectation...he really could give a damn about intrigue or playing a role. He just wanted to collect ears (old UO concept) as "Im2sexy," and didn't really care--one way or another--if it spoiled the scene. One might even say that this new kind of player, born of Counterstrike, played the MMORPGs specifically to spoil the scene...'for the lulz" as we would say.
And so, when some guy who just wants to play in character gets owned by some stranger, simply because he could, the PK gets in the way of what interests him, rather than facilitates it.
Which is why I think that there isn't "nothing" the games can do to make PKing attractive to non PKers, but the things the games--and its players--can do might be more than the PKers want to accept. For if the PKers can actually restrain themselves enough to PK sparingly, for roleplay reasons in the spirit of the lore, I don't see any reason why anyone who is serious about online roleplaying games would object to that.
Tragically, however, I'm not sure that PKers--the PKers like the OP--would really accept that. They don't seem to want to be the assassin who plays in character, taking out targets in accordance with what major players in the game want. They seem to want to be 1m2sexy, who "does it for the lulz" and does it for the ears.
Does that help?
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
What does a PvPer want in a FFA PvP game? Not other PvPers.
Another post stated that true PvP types play MOBAs, FPS, and RTS. Those who seek FFA PvP in an RPG are the poor skill types. Those who can't cut it in true PvP. They think RPGs should be easy targets. When they find they are not, they complain about faceroll and how simple the combat is and demand more action in their RPGs. When in fact Tab Targeting (RPG Combat) is still beyond their level of mastery, this means they fail at it.
If someone makes a good FFA PvP game, it will momentarily be filled with sheep. But quickly the wolves will come. And the sheep will leave. And what do wolves hate? Other wolves, so the wolves will leave. And all that time and money spent on making a good FFA PvP game, will be wasted time and money.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
There is really nothing anyone can do if it needs a larger audience.
I don't think it is the skill levels.
I think e-sport games are just perceived as more fair, and provide a better "feel good" when you beat someone.
In addition, it does not have the problem of when someone just want to pve, pvp is imposed on him. If you play MOBAs, MP FPS, or RTS, you are set out to compete. So there is no complaint if a player decides to fight you ... as opposed to a pve/pvp hybrid game.
So UO's limited popularity occurred in spite of ganking. It was popular for all of its other features, so people suffered through the ganking. That said, if it hadn't had ganking it would've been more popular (since one of the reasons players stopped playing UO wouldn't have existed.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Too bad for those who enjoy being wolves but why don't you hunt other wolves ?
Just once I would love for all the 'Wolves' who want 'FFA PvP' to be attractive to 'sheep' to own up to wanting it because they suck at PvP.
If you really wanted to have 'tense', 'skillful', 'risk vs reward' PvP what is stopping you fighting all the other bored 'wolves' rather then complaining about the lack of sheep.
Good PvP'ers are either playing PvP games or.....help me with another option people.
It is quite peculiar that the so called "hardcore PvP" is more casual in the sense that it doesn't have ranked ladders and/or tournaments when "casual PvP" games have all that. I know most FFA PvP fans would rather die than admit that competitive PvP takes more skill than FFA PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
A single pure PVP game League of Legends has 67 million monthly players and regularly exceeds 5 million concurrents. When you include all the other pure PVP games (Battlefield, CoD, DOTA2, TF2, CS:GO, SC2, etc) the overall audience for pure PVP games is gigantic.
Meanwhile EVE's 500k monthly players and 36k concurrents is one of the larger FFA PVP games. Then include all the other FFA PVP games (small MMORPGs like Darkfall, and games like DayZ, ARK (65k concurrent), etc)
When you add up all those FFA PVPers there's probably at least 1-2 million players playing those types of games. You could call that "many". But compared with the players playing pure PVP games it's really not many at all, so calling it "many" is misleading.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You do realize that this website is called MMORPG? 1-2 million is a significant number of players for any MMORPG to survive and in fact thrive.
You couldn't be more wrong. We want other PvP'ers. What you all always fail to appreciate is that we like challenges, just like you guys do in PvE games or in PvP/PvE games. You want to be challenged by the new raid boss, you don't want it to just fall over and spit out loot. We're the same about PvP. Most of us have done all the other PvP forms you all mention and say we suck because we don't try. Most forms of competitive pvp are fun, they just get redundant very quickly. FFA PvP is so attractive because it doesn't lose it's luster as quickly. The fights will always be different, and hopefully always be against another person who is out for blood. Arena PvP is a joke. Flavor of the month compositions come out of the woodwork nearly instantly and you end up fighting the same composition over and over. If I thought that was fun I would PvE.
Though I would have to disagree with the general notion that the growth of the genre -- meaning the number of games that has come out as a result and the number of players increasing -- was not a factor. Though part of that might be tied to the growth of gaming itself, as in... they aren't just considered "nerd" anymore. It's a relatively widespread pass time now and not just some guy with his brand new pentium in the 90s and the new-fangled instant message service that was just released with no cell phones existing.
The increase of people wanting to troll others has essentially made controlling said population a bit more difficult. More voices, more mob mentality and more complaints. Heck, I remember when DOTA had a fairly good community until LoL exploded. The increase of people playing MMOs also increased the amount of games that are being released by comparison. It was really hard to get an MMO funded back in the day. Many of which I was looking forward to, but failed to get started as a whole or had to stop mid-way.
Now that there are a lot of games and a lot of gamers, the voices -- the money -- of those who didn't like the idea of "right of passage" to becoming a high level player actually have a voice. They also have options, whereas the former is still as small as ever. PvE realms always being full and PvP being near empty. Now, the assertion can be made (and I've made it many times) that the game should make systems that promote good behavior since the "solo" and "every man for himself" theme has kicked in with MMOs. With the days of working as groups ala UO and FFXI being far behind us since it allows more people into a game due to time constraints or general want to not associate.
To put simply: More players = more money invested = more games = more choice = higher chance of failure to cater to a small group. Which is essentially what you were getting at in that certain things were tolerated. But there are also factors of behavior nowadays in that people -look- for games where they can be "wolves" as opposed to just playing a PvP game. Their fun is to make others miserable. And other high levels have fun with various ways, and it tends to get tedious hunting others down now. As they don't fear penalties and their sole purpose is just to camp low levels. I've never run across that in my times with UO (that I remember). Unless they person in question was a jerk to begin with. This results in a notoriously bad community reputation and people leaving the game. And communication and social media make this well known almost instantly, with how many people indulge in them in gaming (including reddit forums).
I'd surmise that high amounts of people form general ways to behave. A mob mentality of sorts, as mentioned before. Followed by a reputation and you "knowing" what you are getting into by joining a game such as LoL (if you know it's a place of salt and you see a lot of people being salty, you're likely to become salty as well). Even WoW molded much of the community and how MMO players treat others and different games when it became the first mmo of tens of millions of people. When Ultima Online was pretty much the only one of its kind, and thus the small community formed it's own way until WoW's "themepark" model became standard. In essence, we could say that by today's standards UO was a success in spite of the PvP... though it was one of the first of its kind. There was no real thing to compare it to. It was essentially a world in itself where you could be a knight, a blacksmith, a miner, logger, fisher, trader, tamer, bard... etc. Actual pick pocketed. Murder. Politics. Guards and law. It was essentially a sandbox with rules to punish people who became PKers or reds. Then trammel came out and it was a PvE game with a "Dark World" for reds and PvPers and wars. With the worlds looking completely different in some areas with dead trees and the like.
For example the most popular FFA PVP MMORPG is EVE. We know it's monthly peak was around 500k, and if we use the concurrent chart and make some safe assumptions we get:
- The peak 500k players probably happened in Jan '11 and probably saw similar peak near Jan '13 with 36k concurrents.
- Given that concurrent:monthly ratio, Jan 2015's 21.5k concurrents would imply 299k monthly players.
- Given the slope of the decline, it would imply that in Jan 2016 they might see as low as 11k concurrents with 150k monthly players. (Though I think it'll flatten out before this, as player decline usually doesn't plummet straight to zero, instead flattening out over time as the most avid players stick around until the game closes down.)
So those 1-2 million players aren't a single wildly popular FFA PVP game, but rather spread across a lot of games (many of which aren't MMORPGs, like the survival genre; DayZ, H1N1, and ARK making up a big portion of those players.) The biggest FFA PVP MMORPG (EVE) is somewhat anemic as MMORPGs go."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I just checked. CU has 14873 backers and CF has 16936. That is tiny in gaming, not even 2% of a million players.
I donated mostly for funzies.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"Do you want to come to our party? We need someone we can make fun of."
And some PVP players wonder why open world PVP died.
I knew the open PVP genre would die when I saw it in some games. People making fun of others on forums for killing them, people killing new players over and over until those people started complaining on the forums. Ruining other people's fun by ganging up on them until those people left the games in disgust. Juveniles and juvenile acts, it is those things that killed open world PVP.
In fact, in PVE games it is usually former PVP players demanding that there be no PVP whatsoever on the PVE forums.
It is the horrible experiences people had on PVP games, thanks to the terrible PVP communitites, that guaranteed open world PVP died.
Just as in professional wrestling, no one plays the "good guy" anymore.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
In fact, you could see this happen in early online FPS.
I remember a developer of Unreal Tournament explaining the main reason why people stopped logging in:
As players got better and better, players who didn't play a lot and weren't as good, started leaving the game.
This is one of the reasons why many online FPS nowadays make sure that the more experienced players are seperated from the beginners.
Also, this creates a snowball effect.
The second most killed player will become the most killed once the most killed leaves the game. Then that player leaves the game, and so, and so on...until your game is drained of players.
This happend in open world PVP MMO too.
In PVE MMO this isn't a problem since people have free choices in which content they will tackle.
"Gather the tears of the gameless gankers, and let me revel in their misery, just as they had reveled in their empty acheivements. "
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.