Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Open world full-loot PVP a must for all "sandboxes"

1235

Comments

  • General-ZodGeneral-Zod Member UncommonPosts: 868
    Iselin said:
    Muke said:
    Iselin said:
    botrytis said:
    Kyleran said:
    Iselin said:
    Horusra said:
    not entirely true.  When you know the other is controlled by a person and you attack them for the simple purpose of screwing with another person that is a psychological issue.
    I would call a "psychological issue" someone attacking you in real life because of what happened in a video game. I know that's happened before but that's not what we are talking about here.

    We are talking about a players "character" attacking another players "character" in a video game designed for players characters to attack each other.
    No it's not the character that attacks another character. It's the person controlling the character that is doing it to the person controlling the other character.







    Just so everybody's on the same page, i'll say it again.

    I know
    the discussion is about whether or not sandboxes need to have full loot pvp but i'm not talking about that. I never comment on any thread without reading through all the post beforehand. While I was reading through the comments here I saw words being thrown around such as sociopath, psychopath and murder. Which is probably no big deal because it's the internet but at my job I deal with people that have real psychological issues and I can assure you it's not because they ruined peoples "video game" experience.

    I'm not trying to be preachy, I just want to broaden the scope a little bit.

    The video Iseline posted was by known Darkfall losers and anybody that has played Darkfall or Unholy wars long enough will tell you that. A similar tactic was done to me at the bank in Red Moon (afk) but they were unsuccessful. With that being said, spawn killing still doesn't mean you need to see a psychiatrist no matter how many people agree with you. Spawn killing just means you're an asshole.

    O
    ne could go so far as to say it's the unhealthy attachment to these virtual characters could be the reason why people feel so strongly about grief... but that's another thread entirely.
    You may want to not put a psychological label on people who are "assholes" to others in game or real life, but there is something wrong with these folks.

    You will never convince me its acceptable to take pleasure in preying on the weak or spoiling other players just for the sake of it.

    Nor will I accept its just a game or they are just pixels. I play them as virtual worlds and my character is a representation of myself in real life.

    I always assume the other person's is pretty much representational of them in real life, outside of the fact real life has controls to force them to mask their abberent behaviors.

    TLDR: If you behave as an asshole in a game (or forum for that matter) you are most likely one in real life.

    If I ran the world asshole behavior would be soundly and severely punished wherever it was observed. ;)

    The US President -Elect would like to have a word with you...... :dizzy:
    Yeah I've noticed that being an asshole is now considered a good thing in some circles.

    I've always thought of the term as just being vernacular shorthand for a whole range of aberrant personality traits.

    For the purposes of this particular thread, the video I linked above is an example of a specific type of asshole that gets enjoyment from stalking and harassing other players in a virtual world. The Germans (bless their love of specificity and order) even gave that type of assholeish behavior a name: they call it schadenfreude.
    So if you agree to join a PVP centric MMO and you get stalked for pvp it makes the other guy an Ahole.
    Dude... I PVP all the time in all games. I love PVP. But what you saw in that video is not the typical PVPer. That was an asshole being an asshole.
    I like you  ;)

    image
  • Joseph_KerrJoseph_Kerr Member RarePosts: 1,113
    Iselin said:
    Horusra said:
    not entirely true.  When you know the other is controlled by a person and you attack them for the simple purpose of screwing with another person that is a psychological issue.
    I would call a "psychological issue" someone attacking you in real life because of what happened in a video game. I know that's happened before but that's not what we are talking about here.

    We are talking about a players "character" attacking another players "character" in a video game designed for players characters to attack each other.
    No it's not the character that attacks another character. It's the person controlling the character that is doing it to the person controlling the other character.







    These guys obviously have some inadequacy issues. I wonder if they were surprised when DF shut down.
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    On a personal level I perceive it as the case that if a sandbox game wants to push the principle that player action and choice dictates the content of the game, then participation in content of the game has to itself be offered in terms of choices instead of forced. 

    IE, PvP can certainly be a thing, but if it's a forced experience then player choice is no longer the prevalent driver of the experience.
  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,771
    Iselin said:
    Horusra said:
    not entirely true.  When you know the other is controlled by a person and you attack them for the simple purpose of screwing with another person that is a psychological issue.
    I would call a "psychological issue" someone attacking you in real life because of what happened in a video game. I know that's happened before but that's not what we are talking about here.

    We are talking about a players "character" attacking another players "character" in a video game designed for players characters to attack each other.
    No it's not the character that attacks another character. It's the person controlling the character that is doing it to the person controlling the other character.







    Just so everybody's on the same page, i'll say it again.

    I know
    the discussion is about whether or not sandboxes need to have full loot pvp but i'm not talking about that. I never comment on any thread without reading through all the post beforehand. While I was reading through the comments here I saw words being thrown around such as sociopath, psychopath and murder. Which is probably no big deal because it's the internet but at my job I deal with people that have real psychological issues and I can assure you it's not because they ruined peoples "video game" experience.

    I'm not trying to be preachy, I just want to broaden the scope a little bit.

    The video Iseline posted was by known Darkfall losers and anybody that has played Darkfall or Unholy wars long enough will tell you that. A similar tactic was done to me at the bank in Red Moon (afk) but they were unsuccessful. With that being said, spawn killing still doesn't mean you need to see a psychiatrist no matter how many people agree with you. Spawn killing just means you're an asshole.

    O
    ne could go so far as to say it's the unhealthy attachment to these virtual characters could be the reason why people feel so strongly about grief... but that's another thread entirely.

    I personally believe that it would be a benefit to society to have some people with those spawn killing or other specific in game tendencies to be examined by psychologists.  Just in case.  I believe games can expose those people.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194
    waynejr2 said:

    I personally believe that it would be a benefit to society to have some people with those spawn killing or other specific in game tendencies to be examined by psychologists.  Just in case.  I believe games can expose those people.
    What you are saying is that those kind of people are actual sociopaths?
    That never crossed my mind........

  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 9,404
    edited December 2016
    I am not making any psychological analysis but as a person when I play knowing there are human beings on the other side of the keyboard I would not want to constantly hurt someone like that but that does not mean that if I like doing that it is because I am sociopath either.

    Basically I am just not cut out to PvP I like cooperative games so my fun lies elsewhere.
    Garrus Signature
  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,771
    ste2000 said:
    waynejr2 said:

    I personally believe that it would be a benefit to society to have some people with those spawn killing or other specific in game tendencies to be examined by psychologists.  Just in case.  I believe games can expose those people.
    What you are saying is that those kind of people are actual sociopaths?
    That never crossed my mind........

    Ha ha nice try.  All apples are fruit but not all fruit are apples.  You just implied that I tried to say all fruits are apples.  Have a professionally trained expert check them out and remove the crazies from society.  Put them in mental hospital for life if you have to.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • Params7Params7 Member UncommonPosts: 212
    Agreed. A sandbox isn't a sandbox if it has limitations ranging from safe zones or full loot. That said, it won't appeal to the mainstream. But that doesn't mean there is no market for such games. There is a huge player base very hungry for such games because right now there are little to no games which cater to such market. Every major mmo today is more or less a themepark. 
  • anemoanemo Member RarePosts: 1,903
    edited December 2016
    A PvEer should be able to use their reputation to get someone banned from all towns in a region, even the seedy if they know the right people.

    A crafter should be able to make weapons that any merchant would recognize as stolen and get any character that touched the item banned from every town/mine/shop in the entire region.

    Someone who practices magic should be able to damage someone's character by increasing their death penalties, slowing their leveling, and similar.   After an unprovoked attack.

    Someone who wants to play the bounty hunter should be able to track down murderer/thieves and force the character to log on to be serve justice to said character (even if the player doesn't).

    Someone who worships the right gods should be able put an enemy character under hate of said gods.   With NPCs that are normally passive becoming aggressive, their mail arriving late, gear randomly failing in combat, and similar.

    ______________________________________

    Attacking a player should be frightening to both sides of the conflict, win or lose.   A murder doesn't just end at murder, as a matter of fact murder is the start of so many great stories...   Should be the same for any game that claims to be an RPG.

    Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.

    "At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."

  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    bcbully said:
    Full loot is not necessary. Heck im not a fan of it. There needs to be something lost and something gained though. Or the potential of something lost and something gained.
    Yeah there needs to be a lot of change possible otherwise the V-World is too static and you get a theme park MMO without the quests. 

    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    ste2000 said:
    d_20 said:

    A "sandbox" is about freedom. Therefore, players should have the freedom to kill other players (and loot them because risk v reward).

    A Sandbox is about freedom so players are free to behave like dicks.
    It make perfect sense.......
    I hate that part too, but it seems to be a necessary evil to some degree. The only check I can think of is like what CoE is planning to use: a meta punishment for griefing/murder. 

    I feel like what Non-PvP Sandbox people want is really just a building/crafting game with PvE for combat. That would be a sweet game, but I feel it could not have enough interesting change to be a good v-world.

    Without having an incentive for violence the game would descend into placid peace, which is great for head down grinding, but boring for the virtual history of the game world.  
    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    waynejr2 said:
    Iselin said:
    Horusra said:
    not entirely true.  When you know the other is controlled by a person and you attack them for the simple purpose of screwing with another person that is a psychological issue.
    I would call a "psychological issue" someone attacking you in real life because of what happened in a video game. I know that's happened before but that's not what we are talking about here.

    We are talking about a players "character" attacking another players "character" in a video game designed for players characters to attack each other.
    No it's not the character that attacks another character. It's the person controlling the character that is doing it to the person controlling the other character.







    Just so everybody's on the same page, i'll say it again.

    I know
    the discussion is about whether or not sandboxes need to have full loot pvp but i'm not talking about that. I never comment on any thread without reading through all the post beforehand. While I was reading through the comments here I saw words being thrown around such as sociopath, psychopath and murder. Which is probably no big deal because it's the internet but at my job I deal with people that have real psychological issues and I can assure you it's not because they ruined peoples "video game" experience.

    I'm not trying to be preachy, I just want to broaden the scope a little bit.

    The video Iseline posted was by known Darkfall losers and anybody that has played Darkfall or Unholy wars long enough will tell you that. A similar tactic was done to me at the bank in Red Moon (afk) but they were unsuccessful. With that being said, spawn killing still doesn't mean you need to see a psychiatrist no matter how many people agree with you. Spawn killing just means you're an asshole.

    O
    ne could go so far as to say it's the unhealthy attachment to these virtual characters could be the reason why people feel so strongly about grief... but that's another thread entirely.

    I personally believe that it would be a benefit to society to have some people with those spawn killing or other specific in game tendencies to be examined by psychologists.  Just in case.  I believe games can expose those people.
    You might argue these are the people who actually make the game fun.  Otherwise everyone would just be nice to one another and the whole point of the game is defeated.  I actually believe even in cooperative games now that the fun factor is gone because there aren't enough bad guys around to make things interesting and meaningful.  There are times in society where most people would be considered sociopaths and the rest of society would be considered in need of help or become easy prey.  When I was growing up it was pretty normal for kids to fight with each other physically and try to show dominance that way.  In a lot of interesting books and movies you will find a lot of deplorable characters.  With that said I have generally had enough of being ganked and harassed in both my youth and in Ultima Online.
  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    Gruug said:
    I don't mind PvP in a game but if there are no consequences for just killing other players then I am out. You kill someone and get caught, you go to jail (or worse). You run the risk of being caught when entering NPC towns and so on. Otherwise, PvP is nothing but one sided murder.
    Gruug said:
    I don't mind PvP in a game but if there are no consequences for just killing other players then I am out. You kill someone and get caught, you go to jail (or worse). You run the risk of being caught when entering NPC towns and so on. Otherwise, PvP is nothing but one sided murder.
    I agree and I don't. I feel like the game would be better with realistic murder penalties (a big risk from reprisal for murder) but it needs to be contextual to the actual situation. If you are in a land of barbarians then you should be able to be attacked and killed without check, but in a place with laws (or lawful gods) you have to weigh whether killing is worth it.

    If there were such a thing as character mental/emotional consequences from killing that might help too. The player can kill with wild abandon, but if the character experienced consequences of killing, that would be great. There should be some psychology modeled, and if there is a perq for being a sociopath then it should have the downside of unavoidable compulsion to act out in perceived self interest in an anti-social manner.

    I feel like the player wants stuff to be happening, and the internet anonymity/lack of consequence facilitates ganking as the easiest way to make it happen. The fear of anything being able to happen is a useful game design tool, but I think it needs some tweaking to make it controlled and purposeful rather than just a tool of the idle mischievous types.
    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • LynxJSALynxJSA Member RarePosts: 3,334
    Params7 said:
     A sandbox isn't a sandbox if it has limitations ranging from safe zones or full loot. 
    If some of you ever sat in a real sandbox, the first words out of your mouth would probably be "This sucks. There's nothing but sand here."


    -- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG 
    RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? 
    FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?  
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Flyte27 said:
    You might argue these are the people who actually make the game fun.  Otherwise everyone would just be nice to one another and the whole point of the game is defeated.  I actually believe even in cooperative games now that the fun factor is gone because there aren't enough bad guys around to make things interesting and meaningful.  There are times in society where most people would be considered sociopaths and the rest of society would be considered in need of help or become easy prey.  When I was growing up it was pretty normal for kids to fight with each other physically and try to show dominance that way.  In a lot of interesting books and movies you will find a lot of deplorable characters.  With that said I have generally had enough of being ganked and harassed in both my youth and in Ultima Online.
    I kinda think there need to be a balance. The thing with bad guys is that there is a tipping point and if you hit that people will move to a nicer neighborhood leaving only the bad boys and turning the whole place into a slum.

    Also, bad guys that hunt the same poor noob for hours and days don't really spread the fun. Bandits that try to rob anyone walking or caravaning a  mountain path without enough guards can indeed make the game more fun and add excitement but some people only have fun when making others miserable, preferably by target certain specific weak individuals.

    But that is not really my main problem with that type of MMOs, it is that I first can't win most fights and then don't loose most (teaming up with people around my powerlevel, anything else tend to get boring), I don't see how that is exciting at all, both those things suck equally good.

    I just don't get the fun of fighting fights I can't loose or win because when only one possible outcome exist why bother at all? If Parker Lewis can't loose the mechanics are not good enough.

    When you can't just look on a player and see that he/she is a certain kill that tend to calm down many people a bit.

    Then again, I preferred Meridian 59 to UO at the time so maybe I don't get what you are talking about, but neither does it seems, do most of the MMO players. FFA PvP MMOs (not confused with faction based) never seems to come near UO since and are the smallest niche, particularly when you add full loot. 
  • BitterClingerBitterClinger Member UncommonPosts: 439
    Is there such a thing as a single-player open world sandbox game?
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Is there such a thing as a single-player open world sandbox game?
    Minecraft?
  • ArchlyteArchlyte Member RarePosts: 1,405
    edited December 2016
    waynejr2 said:
    d_20 said:
    Horusra said:
    You could fix full looting by using strict rules on how much you can carry.  You want to carry around 2 sets of platemail...have fun cause you are not going to move very fast.
    True enough. I wore a chainmail shirt once at a medieval fair and I can tell you there would no swimming with that on. Forget about the great sword and battleaxe.

    Another advantage to chainmail bikinis!
    The great sword is essentially a pole arm, it cannot easily be sheathed and harnessed, and must be carried much like a spear. A great axe (like a Dane Axe) isn't quite that big, but the things that are depicted in most games are too big to model a realistic great axe and would probably have to be carried two handed at all times making swimming impossible. 

    To your great points, there should be realistic carrying restrictions so that people want to have beasts of burden and carts and such. 800,000 gold pieces would have to be moved in chests on a wagon instead of in your invisible inventory pocket dimension. 
    MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
  • LynxJSALynxJSA Member RarePosts: 3,334
    Is there such a thing as a single-player open world sandbox game?

    GTA
    Skyrim
    Fallout

    I know that violates the sensibilities of some, but those fall into that category. 
    -- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG 
    RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? 
    FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?  
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    Loke666 said:
    Flyte27 said:
    You might argue these are the people who actually make the game fun.  Otherwise everyone would just be nice to one another and the whole point of the game is defeated.  I actually believe even in cooperative games now that the fun factor is gone because there aren't enough bad guys around to make things interesting and meaningful.  There are times in society where most people would be considered sociopaths and the rest of society would be considered in need of help or become easy prey.  When I was growing up it was pretty normal for kids to fight with each other physically and try to show dominance that way.  In a lot of interesting books and movies you will find a lot of deplorable characters.  With that said I have generally had enough of being ganked and harassed in both my youth and in Ultima Online.
    I kinda think there need to be a balance. The thing with bad guys is that there is a tipping point and if you hit that people will move to a nicer neighborhood leaving only the bad boys and turning the whole place into a slum.

    Also, bad guys that hunt the same poor noob for hours and days don't really spread the fun. Bandits that try to rob anyone walking or caravaning a  mountain path without enough guards can indeed make the game more fun and add excitement but some people only have fun when making others miserable, preferably by target certain specific weak individuals.

    But that is not really my main problem with that type of MMOs, it is that I first can't win most fights and then don't loose most (teaming up with people around my powerlevel, anything else tend to get boring), I don't see how that is exciting at all, both those things suck equally good.

    I just don't get the fun of fighting fights I can't loose or win because when only one possible outcome exist why bother at all? If Parker Lewis can't loose the mechanics are not good enough.

    When you can't just look on a player and see that he/she is a certain kill that tend to calm down many people a bit.

    Then again, I preferred Meridian 59 to UO at the time so maybe I don't get what you are talking about, but neither does it seems, do most of the MMO players. FFA PvP MMOs (not confused with faction based) never seems to come near UO since and are the smallest niche, particularly when you add full loot. 
    When I was younger playing in Ultima Online and it was new I thought it was fairly exciting for a while. The world was so dangerous and full of criminal activity.  I also often was killed and looted by groups of PKers in unfair fights.  I didn't even have anything good to steal most of the time.  I did join other's who were victims and we would often fight against said players together.  I think to be successful in such a survival game you have to have the desire to band together with others and fight against the PKers generally plan things out so they have a big advantage over their victims.  The rest of the player base has to want to band together and strategize.  If there is no one banding together and preparing for their attacks the game will fail IMO.  The world will just be entirely overrun by PKers.  Part of the problem with these games is people have an option now to go to another game.  There is no incentive to put in the effort to fight against the PKers unless that is something you really want to do.
  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194
    Archlyte said:
    ste2000 said:

    I hate that part too, but it seems to be a necessary evil to some degree. The only check I can think of is like what CoE is planning to use: a meta punishment for griefing/murder. 

    I feel like what Non-PvP Sandbox people want is really just a building/crafting game with PvE for combat. That would be a sweet game, but I feel it could not have enough interesting change to be a good v-world.

    Without having an incentive for violence the game would descend into placid peace, which is great for head down grinding, but boring for the virtual history of the game world.  
    But you can have good meaningful PvP in the form of RvR and GvG, and maybe something like Good vs Evil (Pirates/Criminals vs everyone else).
    What destroy those kind of Sandboxes is the lack of any restriction so it becomes everyone vs everyone.
    That's not fun because it  turns the game into a huge Arena.

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Archlyte said:
    waynejr2 said:
    d_20 said:
    Horusra said:
    You could fix full looting by using strict rules on how much you can carry.  You want to carry around 2 sets of platemail...have fun cause you are not going to move very fast.
    True enough. I wore a chainmail shirt once at a medieval fair and I can tell you there would no swimming with that on. Forget about the great sword and battleaxe.

    Another advantage to chainmail bikinis!
    The great sword is essentially a pole arm, it cannot easily be sheathed and harnessed, and must be carried much like a spear. A great axe (like a Dane Axe) isn't quite that big, but the things that are depicted in most games are too big to model a realistic great axe and would probably have to be carried two handed at all times making swimming impossible. 

    To your great points, there should be realistic carrying restrictions so that people want to have beasts of burden and carts and such. 800,000 gold pieces would have to be moved in chests on a wagon instead of in your invisible inventory pocket dimension. 

    I think that these are, probably, just assumed in games in order to remove the sheer tedium or having to walk back and forth to town continuously. I don't think anyone assumes that someone is carrying 2 whole sets of armor and 3 weapons with them and is still fighting effectively, or at all. 

    Also, I don't know that this would, necessarily, fix full looting, it would simply mean that after killing you, someone would carry your shit to some undisclosed location and drop it in the woods. I don't think that full looting is broken because of the game mechanic as much as it is broken by the people. I've said it before, we live in a society which rewards being an asshole (Twitch, YouTube, etc), so there is more motivation than ever to be one, lol.

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • TalulaRoseTalulaRose Member RarePosts: 1,247
    The pvp'rs who want a competitive atmosphere are in minority.

    Those that want a scorched earth atmosphere are the majority.

    That is why many of the pvp centric games end up as niche.

    I wish all the mmorpg's were niche, they were better when they were.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Flyte27 said:
    When I was younger playing in Ultima Online and it was new I thought it was fairly exciting for a while. The world was so dangerous and full of criminal activity.  I also often was killed and looted by groups of PKers in unfair fights.  I didn't even have anything good to steal most of the time.  I did join other's who were victims and we would often fight against said players together.  I think to be successful in such a survival game you have to have the desire to band together with others and fight against the PKers generally plan things out so they have a big advantage over their victims.  The rest of the player base has to want to band together and strategize.  If there is no one banding together and preparing for their attacks the game will fail IMO.  The world will just be entirely overrun by PKers.  Part of the problem with these games is people have an option now to go to another game.  There is no incentive to put in the effort to fight against the PKers unless that is something you really want to do.
    Also, the PKers are the best banding together today.

    But the reason people play should not be that they never heard of Meridian 59 and the Realm, the game needs to be fun and not just for the top 3 PvP guilds.

    I did fight lot of PKers a few years later in Lineage though but for some reason was it more fun there. Maybe it was because player loot was just a single piece of gear every fourth time or so when you died or maybe because the pladgewar mechanics were a step up.

    Lineage have still over 3 million active subscribers even if almost all of them lives in Korea, but I still think that gives us a few hints. It is the second P2P game after Wow 16 years old while UO is played by a handful players.

    I am pretty sure it is the huge powergap that is responsibly for a lot of the aversion for PvP. When people tell you to grind for at least 6 weeks (often months) to be of much use to the newly joined guild many people just close the game and never opens it again. Those people seems to move their PvP to Mobas and PvP but I am sure there is a golden line of powergap a game can hit while still have progression but also fun combat.

    I think that powergap is close to Guildwars: Prophesies. First a short bit of powering up followed by a wide progression. I might of course be wrong, it might be more or less but it is nowhere near the regular FFA PvP MMO gap. 
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    Loke666 said:
    Flyte27 said:
    When I was younger playing in Ultima Online and it was new I thought it was fairly exciting for a while. The world was so dangerous and full of criminal activity.  I also often was killed and looted by groups of PKers in unfair fights.  I didn't even have anything good to steal most of the time.  I did join other's who were victims and we would often fight against said players together.  I think to be successful in such a survival game you have to have the desire to band together with others and fight against the PKers generally plan things out so they have a big advantage over their victims.  The rest of the player base has to want to band together and strategize.  If there is no one banding together and preparing for their attacks the game will fail IMO.  The world will just be entirely overrun by PKers.  Part of the problem with these games is people have an option now to go to another game.  There is no incentive to put in the effort to fight against the PKers unless that is something you really want to do.
    Also, the PKers are the best banding together today.

    But the reason people play should not be that they never heard of Meridian 59 and the Realm, the game needs to be fun and not just for the top 3 PvP guilds.

    I did fight lot of PKers a few years later in Lineage though but for some reason was it more fun there. Maybe it was because player loot was just a single piece of gear every fourth time or so when you died or maybe because the pladgewar mechanics were a step up.

    Lineage have still over 3 million active subscribers even if almost all of them lives in Korea, but I still think that gives us a few hints. It is the second P2P game after Wow 16 years old while UO is played by a handful players.

    I am pretty sure it is the huge powergap that is responsibly for a lot of the aversion for PvP. When people tell you to grind for at least 6 weeks (often months) to be of much use to the newly joined guild many people just close the game and never opens it again. Those people seems to move their PvP to Mobas and PvP but I am sure there is a golden line of powergap a game can hit while still have progression but also fun combat.

    I think that powergap is close to Guildwars: Prophesies. First a short bit of powering up followed by a wide progression. I might of course be wrong, it might be more or less but it is nowhere near the regular FFA PvP MMO gap. 
    That does sound a bit daunting.  At least when I played Ultima Online I don't recall it taking that long to skill up and replacing your gear wasn't usually that difficult.  The only thing I can recall missing a lot was all the regents that were lost for casting spells and also the materials I spent a lot of time collecting like ore.

    I wouldn't want to play a game with a long level grind or a harsh experience penalty and have open world PvP.
Sign In or Register to comment.