Yes I do agree I dislike jacked up stats and HP on bosses it just prolongs fights and makes them sponges and adds no real tactic or strategy just whittle away .
It's neigh impossible to balance a class for both PvE and PvP Play.
One way to negate this issue, is how they did it for SWG.
They made abilities do different damage in PvP than they did in PvE.
That way, any change's made to benefit PvP balance, had no detrimental effect on PvE, and vice versa.
Another way is to actually create challenging AI. The reason there is an issue is that in today's games in order to make a PvE challenging, developers rely on giving insane HP to the adversaries. The best example of this would be "human" boss mobs that literally have 100 times the HP of a max level player character. Instead, if the "boss" mob was actually an intelligent AI that could react like another player maybe the fight between my party and him and his guards would actually resemble a fight between 2 groups of players. Even look at non-boss mobs in most games and how insane their HP get.
That is the real reason for the issues between PvE and PvP skills. Let the challenge come from intelligently responding enemies that don't stand in a room and allow you to "pull" and fight them one at a time literally 30 feet away.
While I do agree to a certain extent, is it actually possible to program AI in such a way?
When you think of all the possible actions a group of player's could take in a given encounter, such as movement, placement, and skill use, can Dev's really make a mob react intelligently to every possible player action?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
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
It's neigh impossible to balance a class for both PvE and PvP Play.
One way to negate this issue, is how they did it for SWG.
They made abilities do different damage in PvP than they did in PvE.
That way, any change's made to benefit PvP balance, had no detrimental effect on PvE, and vice versa.
Another way is to actually create challenging AI. The reason there is an issue is that in today's games in order to make a PvE challenging, developers rely on giving insane HP to the adversaries. The best example of this would be "human" boss mobs that literally have 100 times the HP of a max level player character. Instead, if the "boss" mob was actually an intelligent AI that could react like another player maybe the fight between my party and him and his guards would actually resemble a fight between 2 groups of players. Even look at non-boss mobs in most games and how insane their HP get.
That is the real reason for the issues between PvE and PvP skills. Let the challenge come from intelligently responding enemies that don't stand in a room and allow you to "pull" and fight them one at a time literally 30 feet away.
While I do agree to a certain extent, is it actually possible to program AI in such a way?
When you think of all the possible actions a group of player's could take in a given encounter, such as movement, placement, and skill use, can Dev's really make a mob react intelligently to every possible player action?
I doubt it, but that is really the root of the issue between PvP and PvE skills. It's not because PvP exists and needs something special. It's because the PvE mobs are utterly lacking in any real intelligence and developers need to compensyfor that by exponentially increasing HP.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Enforced mixing of pvp and pve sure worked well for Aion "the next big AAA mmo!"
Oh hold on, correction - It didn't. Not at all in fact.
The game turned into a gank fest with lvl 40 players one shotting lvl 18's when they got to the first of the games' much vaunted pvpve areas. With these 'hardcore' players then repeatedly suiciding so they wouldn't out level the lower area zones.
Subs rapidly dwindled in the face of this player stupidity - and I use this term intentionally - and what is left now? A shell of a ftp existence, with the game just about forgotten in mainstream gaming media.
When in fact Aion should be remembered - as a lesson in what not to do with pvp and pve.
uh noooo. you say people died in pvp areas!?
well, since you named the abyss, there have been plenty of way to "safely" lvl up to your enemies lvl, since aion was PVPVE and never pvp.
you actually could do quests in the abyss to get your ranking, and those areas were pretty save. and by pretty i do not mean "WoW PvP flag off" save. because THAT, dear sir, never was the intention of pvp.
aion worked quite well, till your kind came around crying why people could rift and kill you while leveling....
seriously, this is EXACTLY the reason PvPvE does not work, bc people think it's without risk. it is not. go back to your pve zone, ty
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
It's neigh impossible to balance a class for both PvE and PvP Play.
One way to negate this issue, is how they did it for SWG.
They made abilities do different damage in PvP than they did in PvE.
That way, any change's made to benefit PvP balance, had no detrimental effect on PvE, and vice versa.
That is one way to handle the issue, but, that only addresses damage, what about other abilities like stun, or redirection, or for example. Do they modify them to be more balanced in PvP, which brings us back to the burden on the developers side to pretty much have to make two games.
While maybe a nifty idea, it pretty much boils down to twice the cost for the same content.
It's neigh impossible to balance a class for both PvE and PvP Play.
One way to negate this issue, is how they did it for SWG.
They made abilities do different damage in PvP than they did in PvE.
That way, any change's made to benefit PvP balance, had no detrimental effect on PvE, and vice versa.
Another way is to actually create challenging AI. The reason there is an issue is that in today's games in order to make a PvE challenging, developers rely on giving insane HP to the adversaries. The best example of this would be "human" boss mobs that literally have 100 times the HP of a max level player character. Instead, if the "boss" mob was actually an intelligent AI that could react like another player maybe the fight between my party and him and his guards would actually resemble a fight between 2 groups of players. Even look at non-boss mobs in most games and how insane their HP get.
That is the real reason for the issues between PvE and PvP skills. Let the challenge come from intelligently responding enemies that don't stand in a room and allow you to "pull" and fight them one at a time literally 30 feet away.
While I do agree to a certain extent, is it actually possible to program AI in such a way?
When you think of all the possible actions a group of player's could take in a given encounter, such as movement, placement, and skill use, can Dev's really make a mob react intelligently to every possible player action?
Given that no game has taken this route, I am gonna bet.. that it is either, way too costly to even try to do something like this, or they don't quite have an advanced enough AI system yet. With current technology where it is at, I am gonna bet its a mix of the two, with cost being the biggest factor.
Eldurian, could you name me one game that fits your viewpoint of Open World PvP? I'm sorry but I think it will be easier and healthier if you type something instead of pasting previous pages, could you do that for me?
I'm genuinely interested in your point.
The discussion started with his assertion LOTRO is an open world PVP game.
All downhill from there.
I think this dude is the second coming of Narius, only his crusade is not about tearing down the meaning of "MMO", but to dilute the meaning of OWPVP. Strange.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
You claim LoTRO has Open World PvP because it has the Ettenmoor's (you do not mention The Sundering of Osgiliath), which is a map/zone where freep's can fight against creep's in PvMP.
The Ettenmoor's is roughly the same size as The Shire.
Look at that list of zone's in LoTRO, they make up the WORLD.
Still think PvMP in two zone's is Open World PvP?
If you do, think about this, as a Freep, you need to be at least level 20 before you can travel to one of the PvMP area's, and if you travel to one, you are SCALED/BOOSTED to level cap (which is 105 just now).
If you want to Creep, you need to be level 10 on a Freep before you can PvMP, and the Creep you make is automatically at the level cap (which is 105 just now)
Does this really sound like Open World PvP to you? or does it sound more like a Battleground?
How many Open World PvP MMORPG's automatically scale or boost character's to level cap so they can take part in the Open World PvP?
Think hard before replying.
I didn't address these questions because they are irrelevant to the subject.
Are these zones instanced? No Are they Open World? Yes Can you freely PvP in them? Yes
Apply those questions to any game or section of a game ever. If the answers are the same they are Open World PvP zones. If the answer are different they are not.
Try applying them to a Battleground:
Are these zones instanced? Yes Are they Open World? No Can you freely PvP in them? Yes
Only 1 of 3 conditions to be Open World PvP is satisfied. That is why a battleground is not Open World PvP.
They are like me asking "But are there consequences for dying in PvP?" A meaningful question to some discussions but totally irrelevant to whether or not the conditions for Open World PvP are satisfied. Why should I waste my time answering questions that have no bearing on the subject at hand?
Eldurian, could you name me one game that fits your viewpoint of Open World PvP? I'm sorry but I think it will be easier and healthier if you type something instead of pasting previous pages, could you do that for me?
I'm genuinely interested in your point.
The discussion started with his assertion LOTRO is an open world PVP game.
All downhill from there.
I think this dude is the second coming of Narius, only his crusade is not about tearing down the meaning of "MMO", but to dilute the meaning of OWPVP. Strange.
In all fairness as I thought through some of the arguments, and did a bit of research I see where I and some others have understood open world pvp to encompass the entire game world, usually with regards to FFA PVP as well.
Others have a different perspective, they start with arena or battle ground PVP (structured) and feel any game with a persistent zone (s) of unstructured PVP to have or be open world.
Likely the differences of opinion are related to the style of games players started out with or played more often.
I personally have always viewed games such as L1/L2, SB, EVE, UO, DF, and DAOC Red servers as open world MMOs being most familiar with them.
Even WOWs PVP servers seemed to partially qualify despite the safety some zones offered low level players.
Others disagree and its once again one of those terms with no official source to establish a definition.
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
It's neigh impossible to balance a class for both PvE and PvP Play.
One way to negate this issue, is how they did it for SWG.
They made abilities do different damage in PvP than they did in PvE.
That way, any change's made to benefit PvP balance, had no detrimental effect on PvE, and vice versa.
That is one way to handle the issue, but, that only addresses damage, what about other abilities like stun, or redirection, or for example. Do they modify them to be more balanced in PvP, which brings us back to the burden on the developers side to pretty much have to make two games.
While maybe a nifty idea, it pretty much boils down to twice the cost for the same content.
The way it worked in SWG, was that skill's/abilities did less damage in PvP, CC did not last as long in PvP, as it did in PvE.
While it does involve a bit more coding (obviously), I doubt it would equate to making two game's.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Eldurian, could you name me one game that fits your viewpoint of Open World PvP? I'm sorry but I think it will be easier and healthier if you type something instead of pasting previous pages, could you do that for me?
I'm genuinely interested in your point.
The discussion started with his assertion LOTRO is an open world PVP game.
All downhill from there.
I think this dude is the second coming of Narius, only his crusade is not about tearing down the meaning of "MMO", but to dilute the meaning of OWPVP. Strange.
In all fairness as I thought through some of the arguments, and did a bit of research I see where I and some others have understood open world pvp to encompass the entire game world, usually with regards to FFA PVP as well.
Others have a different perspective, they start with arena or battle ground PVP (structured) and feel any game with a persistent zone (s) of unstructured PVP to have or be open world.
Likely the differences of opinion are related to the style of games players started out with or played more often.
I personally have always viewed games such as L1/L2, SB, EVE, UO, DF, and DAOC Red servers as open world MMOs being most familiar with them.
Even WOWs PVP servers seemed to partially qualify despite the safety some zones offered low level players.
Others disagree and its once again one of those terms with no official source to establish a definition.
All comes down to what players want to believe.
I actually played Runescape as my first MMO though Freelancer was my first experience with Open World PvP.
The issue is that all current MMOs are by nature, Open World games. No set objective, freedom to explore, etc.
Instances are the exception to this rule. They are non Open World spaces within the Open Worlds of MMOs.
So any zone enabled for PvP outside of an instance is an Open World PvP zone. It originally was not a meaningful term as all PvP was Open World PvP until instances came along. But when the market became saturated with WoW clones and battleground knock offs it's a term that rose to popularity as a way to make a distinction between instanced PvP and non-instanced PvP out in the open world.
Now apparently there are people on these boards trying to narrow the definition for some reason. It's never been a narrow definition in the past.
Get me a more reliable source than mine if you expect me to consider your definition. I don't mean attack my source. I mean find a better or equivalent one backing up your position.
you do understand that your defintion , removes players from the world , seperates them from each other .... Only allows in a certain number ... I wonder what the rest of the World is doing .. well they arent participating in this Open World event .. Because they cant .. because its not a fuggin open world event .. its a close event .. Specifcally closed by your own defintion restricted to group/and or number of players ...
ANd go figure in the first paragraph of the defintion you link , they say that instances lower the risk of pvp enviroments .. lmao .. and huh Koster and McQuaid dont agree with it ..
You're just arguing to be right at this point.
Does it generate a new copy of the location for each group or for a certain numbers of players, that enter the area? No
So it's not an instance. End of story.
"Only allows in a certain number"
False. There are not restrictions on the number of players that can enter the Ettenmoors.
"its a close event"
False. With the possible exception of level requirements (I seem to recall a level 40 requirement to enter way back when they first released) there is no restrictions on who can and can't enter.
"Specifcally closed by your own defintion restricted to group/and or number of players"
You obviously don't know anything about what you are talking about.
"Open world, free roam, or (more loosely) sandbox are terms for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in regard to how and when to approach particular objectives, as opposed to other video games that have a more linear structure to their gameplay.[1][2]
Video games with open or free-roaming worlds typically lack the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations imposed by a game's linearity.[3] Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) or in single-player games adhering to the open world concept such as the Fallout series. The main appeal of open world gameplay is that they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behavior in the direction of their choosing. In these cases, there is often no concrete goal or end to the game."
There we go. This term seems to fit much better:
"considerable freedom in regard to how and when to approach particular objectives"
Thats true. You can roam around the zone questing, fight over keeps, hunt for random ganks etc.
"there is often no concrete goal or end to the game"
Absolutely. While taking the keeps tend to be a major focus it is not a win condition that ends the scenario.
"Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations imposed by a game's linearity."
Cool. So you don't need 100% freedom in all things to satisfy the conditions.
_________________________________
Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?
lol .. there are walls all around ettenmoors , you run across in under 5 minutes and hit a wall ... Not so open is it...Very small arena would be a better description ..And Ettenmmors can only handle a certain number ... of players before it lags ,fails crashes ,(been there done that) ..It is an instance its seperate from the entire Lotro world .. matter a fact if you go to the LOTRO site and click on world it lists every area in the game .........
So even the devs of LOTRO dont consider it part of the world ....There are no real conditions for victory , like say DAOC , because what happens in that INSTANCE has next to 0 effect on the actual GAME WORLD
Its a very small instanced zone for players to pvp in .....
It's neigh impossible to balance a class for both PvE and PvP Play.
One way to negate this issue, is how they did it for SWG.
They made abilities do different damage in PvP than they did in PvE.
That way, any change's made to benefit PvP balance, had no detrimental effect on PvE, and vice versa.
That is one way to handle the issue, but, that only addresses damage, what about other abilities like stun, or redirection, or for example. Do they modify them to be more balanced in PvP, which brings us back to the burden on the developers side to pretty much have to make two games.
While maybe a nifty idea, it pretty much boils down to twice the cost for the same content.
The way it worked in SWG, was that skill's/abilities did less damage in PvP, CC did not last as long in PvP, as it did in PvE.
While it does involve a bit more coding (obviously), I doubt it would equate to making two game's.
From the players end, it is much easier, however, from the designers end, each skill and ability needs to be calibrated, calculated, balanced, tweaked, and set up, for it's respective play style, thus literally, each skill takes twice the work to design and balance. Depending on the builds and set up, it could be easier.. to much harder to play the balance act.
Also, again this does not address all the other issues I brought up, like Power Disparity between levels, and classes being Interdependent.
So even if one problem was resolved in this manner.. it's one.. of many, that will not be fixed so easy.
Others disagree and its once again one of those terms with no official source to establish a definition.
All comes down to what players want to believe.
If this is the case, then it' a pointless term, since it's meaning and application are purely a matter of personal interpretation there is no way to use the term viably in a discussion, as it can mean any number of things to any number of people. as such it's better to use more accurate terms, and disregard anyone that tries to use the term OWVP, as quite literally, no one would have any real idea a what they were actually referring to.
Others disagree and its once again one of those terms with no official source to establish a definition.
All comes down to what players want to believe.
If this is the case, then it' a pointless term, since it's meaning and application are purely a matter of personal interpretation there is no way to use the term viably in a discussion, as it can mean any number of things to any number of people. as such it's better to use more accurate terms, and disregard anyone that tries to use the term OWVP, as quite literally, no one would have any real idea a what they were actually referring to.
Your saying nothing about nothing
" Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who Would Threaten It " MAGA
@Scorchien - Ok so the Ettenmoors are separate from the rest of the world. You can run between most zones in in LOTRO and enter into the next zone by simply walking to it (With some notable exceptions such as Moria). The Ettenmoors you have to teleport to. It's separate. I'll give you that.
Remember that time you flew from one EVE system to the other EVE system by flying to the edge of the zone? Neither do I. I remember jumping. A process in which my ship leaves one system and I actually load into an entirely new system. Essentially teleportation. The same way you travel between the Ettenmoors and the rest of the world in LOTRO.
So if we are going to go by "seperate" as the criteria for what is an isn't an instance then EVE is not an Open World game. It is a game 7930 instances. Not Open World = Not Open World PVP.
So now lets examine EVE under the ACTUAL definition of instances:
Does it generate a new copy of the location for each group or for a certain numbers of players, that enter the area?
Nope. Like the Ettenmoors it gets pretty laggy if too many people are in the same area as anyone who's travelled through Jita can attest. Like the Ettenmoors each system is it's own separate little micro-world that requires a form of teleportation to reach.
But like the Ettenmoors, it does not generate a new copy of the system for each group or a certain number of players that enter the area.
That is why EVE is considered to be 7930 Open World Zones as opposed to 7930 instances.
That is why the Ettenmoors is considered to be an open world zone as opposed to an instance. And as an open world zone that allows for free PvP between factions... it's an Open World PvP Zone.
@Scorchien - Ok so the Ettenmoors are separate from the rest of the world. You can run between most zones in in LOTRO and enter into the next zone by simply walking to it (With some notable exceptions such as Moria). The Ettenmoors you have to teleport to. It's separate. I'll give you that.
Remember that time you flew from one EVE system to the other EVE system by flying to the edge of the zone? Neither do I. I remember jumping. A process in which my ship leaves one system and I actually load into an entirely new system. Essentially teleportation. The same way you travel between the Ettenmoors and the rest of the world in LOTRO.
So if we are going to go by "seperate" as the criteria for what is an isn't an instance then EVE is not an Open World game. It is a game 7930 instances. Not Open World = Not Open World PVP.
So now lets examine EVE under the ACTUAL definition of instances:
Does it generate a new copy of the location for each group or for a certain numbers of players, that enter the area?
Nope. Like the Ettenmoors it gets pretty laggy if too many people are in the same area as anyone who's travelled through Jita can attest. Like the Ettenmoors each system is it's own separate little micro-world that requires a form of teleportation to work.
But like the Ettenmoors, it does not generate a new copy of the system for each group or a certain number of players that enter the area.
That is why EVE is considered to be 7930 Open World Zones as opposed to 7930 instances.
That is why the Ettenmoors is considered to be an open world zone as opposed to an instance. And as an open world zone that allows for free PvP between factions... it's an Open World PvP Zone.
umm i can kill you every single part of Eves UNIVERSE , anywehre you go in there WORLD i can kill you ............because its an OPEN WORLD PVP game
Others disagree and its once again one of those terms with no official source to establish a definition.
All comes down to what players want to believe.
If this is the case, then it' a pointless term, since it's meaning and application are purely a matter of personal interpretation there is no way to use the term viably in a discussion, as it can mean any number of things to any number of people. as such it's better to use more accurate terms, and disregard anyone that tries to use the term OWVP, as quite literally, no one would have any real idea a what they were actually referring to.
Your saying nothing about nothing
'm sorry I sued too many word for you.. Let me make it simple: If it can mean any old damn thing someone wants it to mean.. what the hell good is it?
Others disagree and its once again one of those terms with no official source to establish a definition.
All comes down to what players want to believe.
If this is the case, then it' a pointless term, since it's meaning and application are purely a matter of personal interpretation there is no way to use the term viably in a discussion, as it can mean any number of things to any number of people. as such it's better to use more accurate terms, and disregard anyone that tries to use the term OWVP, as quite literally, no one would have any real idea a what they were actually referring to.
Your saying nothing about nothing
'm sorry I sued too many word for you.. Let me make it simple: If it can mean any old damn thing someone wants it to mean.. what the hell good is it?
It isn't which is why we should go by the general definition that consistently pops up in all the top results of an unbiased search of "Define Open World PvP" over counting agrees on a forum renowned throughout the gaming community for it's ignorance and toxicity.
""Open World PvP" is an amalgamation of two separate thoughts: "open world" and "PvP."
An open world in a game is a game space in which players are not limited to a set path. They are free to explore the edges of the map in any order they choose, generally speaking. The map is generally on the larger side, but not every one needs to be massive like in WoW.
PvP is obviously "Player vs Player." That encompasses anything where two players compete with one another within the mechanics of the game. This colloquiallly applies primarily to RTS, RPG, and FPS games, but really it can apply to anything.
So "open world PvP" is really just any game that satisfies those two conditions."
"'Open World' is of course anything that takes place in the open world - ie: you don't need to load into an instance, it's part of the rest of the game world and take place anywhere within it.
By definition then, Open World PVP is PVP that takes place within the world itself rather than shut away in an instance. If you can PVP in the persistent world, and others can witness/see it while going about their business then it's open world. I did a quick Google and found a similar definition of it on"
"Combat can occur between players in a non-instanced fashion anywhere in the game world where permitted by the server ruleset. Virtually all Open World PvP games place some limit on where and/or when this type of PvP can occur. This is typically done by zone, area, or character level. Regardless of restriction, if this type of combat can occur, it is considered Open World PvP."
I'm sure I can sit here and continue to come up with supporting definition after support definition for hours, and hours and hours.
""Open World PvP" is an amalgamation of two separate thoughts: "open world" and "PvP."
An open world in a game is a game space in which players are not limited to a set path. They are free to explore the edges of the map in any order they choose, generally speaking. The map is generally on the larger side, but not every one needs to be massive like in WoW.
PvP is obviously "Player vs Player." That encompasses anything where two players compete with one another within the mechanics of the game. This colloquiallly applies primarily to RTS, RPG, and FPS games, but really it can apply to anything.
So "open world PvP" is really just any game that satisfies those two conditions."
"'Open World' is of course anything that takes place in the open world - ie: you don't need to load into an instance, it's part of the rest of the game world and take place anywhere within it.
By definition then, Open World PVP is PVP that takes place within the world itself rather than shut away in an instance. If you can PVP in the persistent world, and others can witness/see it while going about their business then it's open world. I did a quick Google and found a similar definition of it on"
"Combat can occur between players in a non-instanced fashion anywhere in the game world where permitted by the server ruleset. Virtually all Open World PvP games place some limit on where and/or when this type of PvP can occur. This is typically done by zone, area, or character level. Regardless of restriction, if this type of combat can occur, it is considered Open World PvP."
I'm sure I can sit here and continue to come up with supporting definition after support definition for hours, and hours and hours. And still be wrong ..
Let's do a quick analogy that should help this make more sense if there is any getting through to you.
Open World PvP = Burger Open World PvP Game = Burger Joint
You do not have to be a burger joint to serve a burger. Serving a burger does not make you a burger joint. A burger served somewhere other than a burger joint is still a burger.
You don't have to be an Open World PvP Game to have Open World PvP. Having Open World PvP does not make you an Open World PvP Game. Open World PvP outside an Open World PvP Game is still Open World PvP.
EVE is an Open World PvP Game. The Ettenmoors is an Open World PvP Zone. LOTRO is not an Open World PvP Game. The Ettenmoors is still an Open World PvP Zone.
Let's do a quick analogy that should help this make more sense if there is any getting through to you.
Open World PvP = Burger Open World PvP Game = Burger Joint
You do not have to be a burger joint to serve a burger. Serving a burger does not make you a burger joint. A burger served somewhere other than a burger joint is still a burger.
You don't have to be an Open World PvP Game to have Open World PvP. Having Open World PvP does not make you an Open World PvP Game. Open World PvP outside an Open World PvP Game is still Open World PvP.
EVE is an Open World PvP Game. The Ettenmoors is an Open World PvP Zone. LOTRO is not an Open World PvP Game. The Ettenmoors is still an Open World PvP Zone.
lol... im done here , I understand you are working with everything God gave you , but you still ...
@Scorchien - Ok so the Ettenmoors are separate from the rest of the world. You can run between most zones in in LOTRO and enter into the next zone by simply walking to it (With some notable exceptions such as Moria). The Ettenmoors you have to teleport to. It's separate. I'll give you that.
Remember that time you flew from one EVE system to the other EVE system by flying to the edge of the zone? Neither do I. I remember jumping. A process in which my ship leaves one system and I actually load into an entirely new system. Essentially teleportation. The same way you travel between the Ettenmoors and the rest of the world in LOTRO.
So if we are going to go by "seperate" as the criteria for what is an isn't an instance then EVE is not an Open World game. It is a game 7930 instances. Not Open World = Not Open World PVP.
So now lets examine EVE under the ACTUAL definition of instances:
Does it generate a new copy of the location for each group or for a certain numbers of players, that enter the area?
Nope. Like the Ettenmoors it gets pretty laggy if too many people are in the same area as anyone who's travelled through Jita can attest. Like the Ettenmoors each system is it's own separate little micro-world that requires a form of teleportation to work.
But like the Ettenmoors, it does not generate a new copy of the system for each group or a certain number of players that enter the area.
That is why EVE is considered to be 7930 Open World Zones as opposed to 7930 instances.
That is why the Ettenmoors is considered to be an open world zone as opposed to an instance. And as an open world zone that allows for free PvP between factions... it's an Open World PvP Zone.
umm i can kill you every single part of Eves UNIVERSE , anywehre you go in there WORLD i can kill you ............because its an OPEN WORLD PVP game
can you say the same for LOTRO
Well, you cant kill anyone in station nor citadel, so it isnt true "everywhere"
But I understand what you mean and agree why EVE really is an open world PVP game and LOTRO and DAOC are not.
For me and others the important distinction is PVP is enabled in every zone, is not instanced, (which calls into question mega server design) even if there might be a few small, safe havens within the world.
Albion Online is a FFA PVP game but with so many safe zones not really fair to call it an open world PVP game.
Then we get into trying to determine what % constitutes open world, ugh.
I'd call LOTROs PVP unstructured, or freeform if we must differentiate between battlegrounds or arenas.
But it just isn't in the same league as titles where most of the world is a PVP zone.
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
lol... im done here , I understand you are working with everything God gave you , but you still ...
Cant Understand Normal Thinking...
Yes I am working with everything god gave me. And given I'm considered to be a borderline genius how normal people can think some of the things they do is confounding to me sometimes. Most people are gullible, susceptible to manipulation, highly illogical and lack critical thinking skills.
Comments
When you think of all the possible actions a group of player's could take in a given encounter, such as movement, placement, and skill use, can Dev's really make a mob react intelligently to every possible player action?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
"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
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
well, since you named the abyss, there have been plenty of way to "safely" lvl up to your enemies lvl, since aion was PVPVE and never pvp.
you actually could do quests in the abyss to get your ranking, and those areas were pretty save. and by pretty i do not mean "WoW PvP flag off" save. because THAT, dear sir, never was the intention of pvp.
aion worked quite well, till your kind came around crying why people could rift and kill you while leveling....
seriously, this is EXACTLY the reason PvPvE does not work, bc people think it's without risk. it is not. go back to your pve zone, ty
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
While maybe a nifty idea, it pretty much boils down to twice the cost for the same content.
Given that no game has taken this route, I am gonna bet.. that it is either, way too costly to even try to do something like this, or they don't quite have an advanced enough AI system yet. With current technology where it is at, I am gonna bet its a mix of the two, with cost being the biggest factor.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I didn't address these questions because they are irrelevant to the subject.
Are these zones instanced? No
Are they Open World? Yes
Can you freely PvP in them? Yes
Apply those questions to any game or section of a game ever. If the answers are the same they are Open World PvP zones. If the answer are different they are not.
Try applying them to a Battleground:
Are these zones instanced? Yes
Are they Open World? No
Can you freely PvP in them? Yes
Only 1 of 3 conditions to be Open World PvP is satisfied. That is why a battleground is not Open World PvP.
They are like me asking "But are there consequences for dying in PvP?" A meaningful question to some discussions but totally irrelevant to whether or not the conditions for Open World PvP are satisfied. Why should I waste my time answering questions that have no bearing on the subject at hand?
Others have a different perspective, they start with arena or battle ground PVP (structured) and feel any game with a persistent zone (s) of unstructured PVP to have or be open world.
Likely the differences of opinion are related to the style of games players started out with or played more often.
I personally have always viewed games such as L1/L2, SB, EVE, UO, DF, and DAOC Red servers as open world MMOs being most familiar with them.
Even WOWs PVP servers seemed to partially qualify despite the safety some zones offered low level players.
Others disagree and its once again one of those terms with no official source to establish a definition.
All comes down to what players want to believe.
"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
While it does involve a bit more coding (obviously), I doubt it would equate to making two game's.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
The issue is that all current MMOs are by nature, Open World games. No set objective, freedom to explore, etc.
Instances are the exception to this rule. They are non Open World spaces within the Open Worlds of MMOs.
So any zone enabled for PvP outside of an instance is an Open World PvP zone. It originally was not a meaningful term as all PvP was Open World PvP until instances came along. But when the market became saturated with WoW clones and battleground knock offs it's a term that rose to popularity as a way to make a distinction between instanced PvP and non-instanced PvP out in the open world.
Now apparently there are people on these boards trying to narrow the definition for some reason. It's never been a narrow definition in the past.
Guess which one is excluded ..........thats right Ettenmoors .. because its not part of it ... https://www.lotro.com/en/explore/world#_enedwaith
So even the devs of LOTRO dont consider it part of the world ....There are no real conditions for victory , like say DAOC , because what happens in that INSTANCE has next to 0 effect on the actual GAME WORLD
Its a very small instanced zone for players to pvp in .....
Also, again this does not address all the other issues I brought up, like Power Disparity between levels, and classes being Interdependent.
So even if one problem was resolved in this manner.. it's one.. of many, that will not be fixed so easy.
Your saying nothing about nothing
MAGA
Remember that time you flew from one EVE system to the other EVE system by flying to the edge of the zone? Neither do I. I remember jumping. A process in which my ship leaves one system and I actually load into an entirely new system. Essentially teleportation. The same way you travel between the Ettenmoors and the rest of the world in LOTRO.
So if we are going to go by "seperate" as the criteria for what is an isn't an instance then EVE is not an Open World game. It is a game 7930 instances. Not Open World = Not Open World PVP.
So now lets examine EVE under the ACTUAL definition of instances:
Does it generate a new copy of the location for each group or for a certain numbers of players, that enter the area?
Nope. Like the Ettenmoors it gets pretty laggy if too many people are in the same area as anyone who's travelled through Jita can attest. Like the Ettenmoors each system is it's own separate little micro-world that requires a form of teleportation to reach.
But like the Ettenmoors, it does not generate a new copy of the system for each group or a certain number of players that enter the area.
That is why EVE is considered to be 7930 Open World Zones as opposed to 7930 instances.
That is why the Ettenmoors is considered to be an open world zone as opposed to an instance. And as an open world zone that allows for free PvP between factions... it's an Open World PvP Zone.
can you say the same for LOTRO
Open World PvP = Burger
Open World PvP Game = Burger Joint
You do not have to be a burger joint to serve a burger. Serving a burger does not make you a burger joint. A burger served somewhere other than a burger joint is still a burger.
You don't have to be an Open World PvP Game to have Open World PvP. Having Open World PvP does not make you an Open World PvP Game. Open World PvP outside an Open World PvP Game is still Open World PvP.
EVE is an Open World PvP Game.
The Ettenmoors is an Open World PvP Zone.
LOTRO is not an Open World PvP Game.
The Ettenmoors is still an Open World PvP Zone.
Cant Understand Normal Thinking...
But I understand what you mean and agree why EVE really is an open world PVP game and LOTRO and DAOC are not.
For me and others the important distinction is PVP is enabled in every zone, is not instanced, (which calls into question mega server design) even if there might be a few small, safe havens within the world.
Albion Online is a FFA PVP game but with so many safe zones not really fair to call it an open world PVP game.
Then we get into trying to determine what % constitutes open world, ugh.
I'd call LOTROs PVP unstructured, or freeform if we must differentiate between battlegrounds or arenas.
But it just isn't in the same league as titles where most of the world is a PVP zone.
Open world light?
"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
Have fun thinking normally.