When a person resorts to an absurdist argument such as "killing non-player characters is the same as killing players" then they've shown that the real justification is "because I want to, so there." It would be better to simply admit that's the case. "I really, really enjoy it and you're trying to spoil the pleasure I get from killing other players."
Going round and round isn't going to change the opinion on either side of the spectrum.
For me the only PvP I will play is consensual and if it is not I will try to convince the developers otherwise but if that fails I don't play the game. I don't see the drama about this at all.
When a person resorts to an absurdist argument such as "killing non-player characters is the same as killing players" then they've shown that the real justification is "because I want to, so there." It would be better to simply admit that's the case. "I really, really enjoy it and you're trying to spoil the pleasure I get from killing other players."
The absurdist argument is actually going into a game that has PvP and complaining that it's non-consensual. As far as I know, nobody has ever been forced to play a PvP game against their will. There is no PvP mafia that extorts you to play. THAT is the absurdist argument.
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
When a person resorts to an absurdist argument such as "killing non-player characters is the same as killing players" then they've shown that the real justification is "because I want to, so there." It would be better to simply admit that's the case. "I really, really enjoy it and you're trying to spoil the pleasure I get from killing other players."
The absurdist argument is actually going into a game that has PvP and complaining that it's non-consensual. As far as I know, nobody has ever been forced to play a PvP game against their will. There is no PvP mafia that extorts you to play. THAT is the absurdist argument.
That's why we don't play it. Don't see any issue with that.
Unfortunately people always try to come here and convince people to play when they have driven away their player base with wanton ganking. Always a hoot when they do that. Then there is what Bless is trying.They are pathetically trying to get the players that don't want to play a non consensual game and offer them a ten minute immunity. Pitiful attempt.
Or when a player from Darkfall tries to convince players to come try their game.
Like I said before the game is released we try to convince the developer but after that I just avoid the game or try to find a way around it. There is nothing hypocritical about that.
The best power we have is our wallet. Just don't support the game.
Notice how BDO kept pushing the level limit you stayed immune. The developers need us.
Keep rewarding the games that give us consensual PvP. That is the only way to push what we want.
Developers are always talking about trying to ease people into PvP games. Why are they doing that because unlike you the player they want our money. So yes I can demand what I want too before I decide to spend my money on it.
Developers are the ones your beef is with. Not the players that ask for consensual PvP. Naturally we ask for the type of game we want and why ever not. If developers are courting non PvP players then they should cater to us too. Otherwise they can do without the money we bring in.
I have no problem playing League of Legends and I enjoyed it a lot until I discovered I was not very good at it but the PvP was totally fair in that game.
It just feels too often like "hey we dont have any content so why dont you all just kill each other!"
That is my take on the OP's comment. The raft of games where the developers have just said, 'here's the end level content - it's you lot, here's some ground to run around on, now off you go'. 'Oh, and here's some cash shop items - not p2w at all, but you might be interested in them as they boost you'.
And the latest of these is about to hit the hype-to-gripe pathway, our third time's a charm - Bless.
End level environment - I'm posting in it.
At least they got the title nearly right, just need to remove the B
When a person resorts to an absurdist argument such as "killing non-player characters is the same as killing players" then they've shown that the real justification is "because I want to, so there." It would be better to simply admit that's the case. "I really, really enjoy it and you're trying to spoil the pleasure I get from killing other players."
The absurdist argument is actually going into a game that has PvP and complaining that it's non-consensual. As far as I know, nobody has ever been forced to play a PvP game against their will. There is no PvP mafia that extorts you to play. THAT is the absurdist argument.
Well there may not be a mafia extorting you but there sure as hell are plenty of developers marketing and selling the PVE portion of open world PVP games to PVErs with things like "No PVP until level 50" (BDO) or even selling you items that make you PK immune for 10 minutes (Bless.)
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
When a person resorts to an absurdist argument such as "killing non-player characters is the same as killing players" then they've shown that the real justification is "because I want to, so there." It would be better to simply admit that's the case. "I really, really enjoy it and you're trying to spoil the pleasure I get from killing other players."
The absurdist argument is actually going into a game that has PvP and complaining that it's non-consensual. As far as I know, nobody has ever been forced to play a PvP game against their will. There is no PvP mafia that extorts you to play. THAT is the absurdist argument.
Well there may not be a mafia extorting you but there sure as hell are plenty of developers marketing and selling the PVE portion of open world PVP games to PVErs with things like "No PVP until level 50" (BDO) or even selling you items that make you PK immune for 10 minutes (Bless.)
If developers weren't trying to get PvE players to try their game then they would not be trying stuff like this. They are hoping a PvE player will be invested enough to move into the paying real money part of the equation to avoid PvP. Having paid they hope these players will be loath to lose their characters. It's end game because by then you are invested.
See when you talk about non consensual we are not referring to the actual decision to buy and play such a game. I think sometimes words get tangled up with the point we are trying to make. A game that has a mechanic that does not allow you to choose to PvP is nonconsensual by its nature it is not referring to the player's decision to play the game.
Good thing I don't see a lot of players spending time murdering green/grey con mobs, then.
Red in many modern MMOs are also defenseless. In fact I cannot remember the last time mob in a MMO killed my character. Probably it was when I learned how to play MMOs. If I compare with DS, well I actually can't.
Okay, then post a video of your aggroing a red con mob and standing there. If he's defenseless, it shouldn't be able to injure your character or, god forbid, kill you. If it can, your argument falls apart completely.
So defenseless is now only defined by the lack of ability to damage a character? This seems a bit pedantic when you know he is referring to the mob's ability to actually kill him. In a game where your injuries magically seal up seconds after you sit down any injury that is not fatal is inconsequential.
Yeah the red mob can reduce your arbitrary HP numbers but unless it can kill you without relying on you falling asleep at the keyboard then it is by all reasonable measures defenseless.
This is like saying that a man who is 30 feet away with a sword while you have a shotgun is able to defend himself.
"Well if you hold still and don't move he could kill you!"
Yes, he could; but I'm not just going to stand there and every single time you run that scenario he's going to come out the loser. He is for all practical purposes defenseless.
What? You're putting a lot of stuff into my comment that was not included. We're talking about PvE here, mob AI is fairly simple. Why are you trying to put all this extra critical thinking into it when half the equation is literally mindless code script?
It's a relative equation, which was the entire argument. An analogous comparison to the relative threat level of low level players or mobs.
When a person resorts to an absurdist argument such as "killing non-player characters is the same as killing players" then they've shown that the real justification is "because I want to, so there." It would be better to simply admit that's the case. "I really, really enjoy it and you're trying to spoil the pleasure I get from killing other players."
The absurdist argument is actually going into a game that has PvP and complaining that it's non-consensual. As far as I know, nobody has ever been forced to play a PvP game against their will. There is no PvP mafia that extorts you to play. THAT is the absurdist argument.
Well there may not be a mafia extorting you but there sure as hell are plenty of developers marketing and selling the PVE portion of open world PVP games to PVErs with things like "No PVP until level 50" (BDO) or even selling you items that make you PK immune for 10 minutes (Bless.)
If developers weren't trying to get PvE players to try their game then they would not be trying stuff like this. They are hoping a PvE player will be invested enough to move into the paying real money part of the equation to avoid PvP. Having paid they hope these players will be loath to lose their characters. It's end game because by then you are invested.
See when you talk about non consensual we are not referring to the actual decision to buy and play such a game. I think sometimes words get tangled up with the point we are trying to make. A game that has a mechanic that does not allow you to choose to PvP is nonconsensual by its nature it is not referring to the player's decision to play the game.
Yeah I know the difference and it's why I typically play only consensual PVP MMOs (DAoC, WAR, GW2, ESO.) I am a PVPer but only when I'm in the mood.
But some people who do not want to PVP non-consensually do get sucked in to play non-consensual PVP games falling for the marketing hype that tries to sell them on the idea that they will be able to just PVE in them. Once they realize that they actually can't or that the game is very limited if you don't, they get mad and start lobbying for changes.
There's more to that story than "well you should have known that it's an open world PVP game."
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Just like in real life, if someone attacks someone, but there's legitimate cause (threatening the lives of others or the person), cool.
If we're talking a defenseless opponent who is, say, currently engaged battling a wild boar? Nobody in their right minds would call that honorable or see it as a positive to ambush said person (remember, if they're battling a wild boar, unless you happen to own said boar, he's not harming you or any of your allies in any way).
Again, combatants in real life don't go around slaughtering defenseless opponents. Those that do earn the title appropriate from the rest of the watching world. Coward, monster, etc..
Jean-Luc_Picard claims battle royale games are the best PvP. So there the losers do not feel bad? Also the ganking is very limited even in the most OW MMORPGs. As it is fun to a very limited audience of players who want to dominate over defenseless. Reasonable PK of griefers, in wars, for spot, or boss, is a completely different thing and in general it is not related to RP. Also most of the PvP is a pure RP - guild wars, castle sieges, duels, white knights, outlaws and etc.
The first two sentences there are irrelevant and don't even make sense.
The rest of your paragraph cherry picks part of my post and leaves out others because it isn't conducive to your counter-argument.
I said a defenseless opponent. In the context of the conversation my post was made in, it's pretty clear I'm talking about a lowbie who is minding his own business PvEing mobs his level being attacked by a high-level ganker. Not an even-level character competing with another even-level character for mobs.
When a person resorts to an absurdist argument such as "killing non-player characters is the same as killing players" then they've shown that the real justification is "because I want to, so there." It would be better to simply admit that's the case. "I really, really enjoy it and you're trying to spoil the pleasure I get from killing other players."
The absurdist argument is actually going into a game that has PvP and complaining that it's non-consensual. As far as I know, nobody has ever been forced to play a PvP game against their will. There is no PvP mafia that extorts you to play. THAT is the absurdist argument.
Well there may not be a mafia extorting you but there sure as hell are plenty of developers marketing and selling the PVE portion of open world PVP games to PVErs with things like "No PVP until level 50" (BDO) or even selling you items that make you PK immune for 10 minutes (Bless.)
If developers weren't trying to get PvE players to try their game then they would not be trying stuff like this. They are hoping a PvE player will be invested enough to move into the paying real money part of the equation to avoid PvP. Having paid they hope these players will be loath to lose their characters. It's end game because by then you are invested.
See when you talk about non consensual we are not referring to the actual decision to buy and play such a game. I think sometimes words get tangled up with the point we are trying to make. A game that has a mechanic that does not allow you to choose to PvP is nonconsensual by its nature it is not referring to the player's decision to play the game.
Yeah I know the difference and it's why I typically play only consensual PVP MMOs (DAoC, WAR, GW2, ESO.) I am a PVPer but only when I'm in the mood.
But some people who do not want to PVP non-consensually do get sucked in to play non-consensual PVP games falling for the marketing hype that tries to sell them on the idea that they will be able to just PVE in them. Once they realize that they actually can't or that the game is very limited if you don't, they get mad and start lobbying for changes.
There's more to that story than "well you should have known that it's an open world PVP game."
Fact is, Devs want money from as many players as possible, hence the misleading marketing about "safety" as we so often see.
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
Honestly you're just gonna continue to see one PvP gankfest game after another relegated to the dustbin of history until developers get a clue, PvP mechanics in openworld MMO games don't work unless you make it optional or separate PvP from PvE.
OWPVP games were unbalanced back in the day and they are unbalanced now. In the old days we dealt with it because that's all there was and all we knew, we don't have to now. It is and was only fun for those who can one shot kill a noob, not for the noob being one shot killed and having their stuff taken. I don't care who you are, you're gonna feel annoyed having your time wasted and most likely curse over it.
With those mechanics there is going to be a level of unfairness that persists unless everyone is somewhat physically equal.
Why do games like MOBOs and Fortnight do so well? Because for the most part everyone starts off on equal footing. Not in MMOs; FotM, best gear for class, ect ecct. Look at BDO, someone with +10 gear can't even touch someone with all DUO or above gear. BDO was stuggling until they at least fixed the level 49.9 quest and added PvP servers with no penalty ruleset (which are empty BTW other than farmers).
It doesn't mater if you lose nothing, being killed while you are doing something unrelated to PvP is gonna cause some level of annoyance, even if you convince yourself that it was your fault somehow for getting caught up.
Anyone arguing that PvP is the only aspect that makes an MMO great should know that a majority of MMO gamers only enjoy partaking in PvP on their own terms, all the proof is in the population and popularity charts of any game on the market.
10 to 15 years ago I had lot of time on hand so I didn't mind full loot PVP MMOs.But times have changed .If I want quick PVP here are lot of shooting games that give instant PVP without much loss.
I cannot afford these days in classic MMOs to spend time on loot/gear and lose it in PVP. Having said that there were some games were it was mixed PVP zones like Aion /Warhammer that I enjoyed
Classic MMO is long over .It has mutated unfortunately
Honestly, there will never be a really good PvP MMO, as MMO's have too many PvE elements, and quite frankly, I have never seen a game that could balance their "classes" (or whatever) for both PvE and PvP, which is all too often what kills any kind of enjoyable PvP interaction in an MMO.
All the people that talk about wanting PvP MMO's yet, there are many PvP MMO's that are ghost towns.
While, MOBA's which focus on PvP, are booming.
The OP is spot on, the time for non-consensual PvP in an MMO is well past it's time.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Honestly you're just gonna continue to see one PvP gankfest game after another relegated to the dustbin of history until developers get a clue, PvP mechanics in openworld MMO games don't work unless you make it optional or separate PvP from PvE.
But I never saw a so called PvP gankfest. Let take L2 Classic as example. There if the mobs kill your character he drops gear or weapon. The PK penalties are so small that actually do not exist. My character was PKed few times. Which is not a big deal. But groups of players intentionally used the fact I played a tank so mobs to kill my character, and few times he dropped expensive weapons. Big guilds even did that for fun, but not for the gear. At some moment I started to defend myself, to play with better parties in a better guild, to ask other players for assistance, and to revenge. So the whole thing became a pretty normal OW PvP. It would be a gankfest only if I played the game solo.
This might blow your mind and all, but that is just the thing, most players play PvE content solo in MMOs these days. You used to see groups of players running around daily in most games, helping on quests, PvP, but that is less and less the norm these days. Now PvP consists of just guilds of griefers or even at times PKrs roam solo. I'm actually surprised when I see people grouped up in normal open world quests that aren't bosses or events.
It may seem strange, but after all this time I get why you shouldn't have to group up with other players to do your own personal story missions, and few MMOs require it anymore. Why? because most people don't have the patience to help others and tend to rush through stuff. Dungeons are a perfect example in most games. How may times do you see the LFM (speed run!) fill up faster than (story mode for fun) dungeon run?
Grouping is cool and fun, but in the past games that require it, tend to drop off in popularity. Having to ask for help just seems like a handicap to me, not sure how that is fun. There is a reason games like ESO and WoW are popular, you can play most of the game by yourself. They are for the most part glorified chat lobbies with 3D gameplay tacked on, other than speed run dungeons and raids.
A good example of a grouping is required MMO from the past is EQ2. When I first started playing that game around launch it was almost a necessity to group up for most things, if you couldn't find anyone to group, you were stuck doing nothing. Aion around launch, same thing. You needed to roll in small groups to do Abyss stuff, if no one wanted to go you pretty much just played canon fodder to twinks who one shot your right as you load and then follow you around the map harassing you.
Unpopular but might makes right doesn't work in MMORPG for more than a handful of players. Most PVP players do not want repercussions of time loss. In a world where you respawn only jail time would be right. It removes the threat once defeated.
PVP causes people to lose time doing what they want. Those who help usually get tired because the killers just keep coming back even if defeated. Causing the PVP to lose time seems only fair.
It's time for MMO developers to return to cooperative PvE as their primary focus. Virtually every new title that comes out has to highlight PvP as a feature; every survival MMO, every sandbox MMO, only the so-called "themepark" MMOs are somewhat immune from this bandwagon. And what has it brought us? Impossible balancing issues, griefers, and split communities.
I remember the glory days of EverQuest when cooperative PvE was everything. Grouping was (to an extreme extent) essentially required and cooperative, high-quality play was critical to reputations on the server. Then came Asheron's Call, EverQuest II, and of course World of Warcraft, where developers started to segregate PvP players onto their own servers. The first thing they noticed, however, was how hard it was to balance spells and abilities for both PvE and PvP.
The most successful triple-A titles learned that it was a mistake to force non-consensual PvP on to their player base. World of Warcraft, Elder Scrolls Online, FFXIV, and other big subscription based titles maintained huge client bases who were willing to pay monthly fees because, I would argue, players got what they wanted. If they wanted PvP, they could go to PvP servers. If they didn't, they could play on PvE servers. In the case of ESO, the PvP was limited to structured PvP in an isolated region that was purely opt-in.
I've been playing Albion Online in beta and love the game's gathering and crafting, they're really developed some nice mechanics that appeal to players of all types, but their full-loot non-consensual PvP once you get up into the Tier 5 and above just kills it for me. And the devs see that they've created something special that appeals to all players, and now they're struggling to find a way to reconcile the two. So they introduce a "reputation" system that punishes PvP and winds up making NO ONE happy, neither the PvPers nor the PvE'ers. Trying to serve two masters never works, and even if you could balance all abilities to make them equally effective in both PvP and PvE, you'd still have the problem that, if your game is any good, PvE players are going to want to play it too. The tension in the Albion Online community is palpable, you see it in the forums every day.
Enough with the fighting between "carebears" and the hardcore. It's time for developers to return to what made MMOs great in the first place and develop games that allow players to CHOOSE to play co-operative PvE with their friends and stop being expected to kill each other. Every survey that has EVER been done relative to MMOs has shown that there is always a much higher percentage of the player base that is not interested in non-consensual PvP. Why alienate the largest plurality of players only to create balancing headaches and leave everyone unhappy as a result?
Your thoughts?
So maybe you should just not play PVP games and leave them to the people that like them. I would highly debate that PVE is what made mmos great. Early games like UO would have been a shadow of what they were without the thrill of risk and reward that pvp can add. Early on before trammel it was more like a living virtual world than any game has managed since.
It's time for MMO developers to return to cooperative PvE as their primary focus. Virtually every new title that comes out has to highlight PvP as a feature; every survival MMO, every sandbox MMO, only the so-called "themepark" MMOs are somewhat immune from this bandwagon. And what has it brought us? Impossible balancing issues, griefers, and split communities.
I remember the glory days of EverQuest when cooperative PvE was everything. Grouping was (to an extreme extent) essentially required and cooperative, high-quality play was critical to reputations on the server. Then came Asheron's Call, EverQuest II, and of course World of Warcraft, where developers started to segregate PvP players onto their own servers. The first thing they noticed, however, was how hard it was to balance spells and abilities for both PvE and PvP.
The most successful triple-A titles learned that it was a mistake to force non-consensual PvP on to their player base. World of Warcraft, Elder Scrolls Online, FFXIV, and other big subscription based titles maintained huge client bases who were willing to pay monthly fees because, I would argue, players got what they wanted. If they wanted PvP, they could go to PvP servers. If they didn't, they could play on PvE servers. In the case of ESO, the PvP was limited to structured PvP in an isolated region that was purely opt-in.
I've been playing Albion Online in beta and love the game's gathering and crafting, they're really developed some nice mechanics that appeal to players of all types, but their full-loot non-consensual PvP once you get up into the Tier 5 and above just kills it for me. And the devs see that they've created something special that appeals to all players, and now they're struggling to find a way to reconcile the two. So they introduce a "reputation" system that punishes PvP and winds up making NO ONE happy, neither the PvPers nor the PvE'ers. Trying to serve two masters never works, and even if you could balance all abilities to make them equally effective in both PvP and PvE, you'd still have the problem that, if your game is any good, PvE players are going to want to play it too. The tension in the Albion Online community is palpable, you see it in the forums every day.
Enough with the fighting between "carebears" and the hardcore. It's time for developers to return to what made MMOs great in the first place and develop games that allow players to CHOOSE to play co-operative PvE with their friends and stop being expected to kill each other. Every survey that has EVER been done relative to MMOs has shown that there is always a much higher percentage of the player base that is not interested in non-consensual PvP. Why alienate the largest plurality of players only to create balancing headaches and leave everyone unhappy as a result?
Your thoughts?
So maybe you should just not play PVP games and leave them to the people that like them. I would highly debate that PVE is what made mmos great. Early games like UO would have been a shadow of what they were without the thrill of risk and reward that pvp can add. Early on before trammel it was more like a living virtual world than any game has managed since.
It's almost an outright fact that PVE is what made mmos popular(and thus great). Look at the explosion games like EQ and WoW had for the genre.
PvE is for sure what made MMOs great.. It has also been the consistant downfall of MMOs since. PvP games on the other hand since they are more niche have always been handled by smaller indie devs(typically) and are usually buggy, glitchy messes. We still have yet to see a solid pvp game in the hands of a AAA dev and with the way the genre is moving we probably never will.
Point is, cant really say the time has come and passed when the time never came. PvE has always been the backbone of MMOs but with unimaginative devs we could argue that pve has come and gone as well.
I don't like Steakhouses with non-consensual beef aroma. I want to go in and be able to order my salad and not have to be ganked by the smell of cooked meat.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I don't like Steakhouses with non-consensual beef aroma. I want to go in and be able to order my salad and not have to be ganked by the smell of cooked meat.
My son is a vegetarian. Outback Steakhouse has very few menu items which appeal to him.
When the family all gets together to go out to eat.....we often go to Mexican restaurants....
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
I don't like Steakhouses with non-consensual beef aroma. I want to go in and be able to order my salad and not have to be ganked by the smell of cooked meat.
My son is a vegetarian. Outback Steakhouse has very few menu items which appeal to him.
When the family all gets together to go out to eat.....we often go to Mexican restaurants....
Yup. But today we just have the equivalent of startup restaurants with inexperienced chefs (or experienced ones who hire inexperienced staff) who all are opening Vegan Mexican Steakhouses. And oh yeah, they want you to pay in advance while they build it.
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
It's almost an outright fact that PVE is what made mmos popular(and thus great). Look at the explosion games like EQ and WoW had for the genre.
No. The catering of solo players made WoW a big game, but not the PvE. Blizzard just said - you are free to play solo in a MMO it is your right to choose when to play multiplayer in a multiplayer game - which is absurd, but they made it. So they catered millions of players from the solo games, by let them playing solo in WoW, creating a fake feeling of community and social environment. And with that genius marketing decision Blizzard ruined the MMO genre. You play solo in WoW, and there are some instances for cooperative or competitive gameplay. So I moved to LoL - far better and much more popular MMO than WoW ever been.
And what made EQ such a big game? You claim it was the catering of solo players that made WoW a big game when 9999999% of WoW's content(when it first made it big) was not catered to soloers. So that's 1 where you're wrong. And EQ most definitely was not catering to soloers so that's 2 where you're wrong.
PvE is what made mmos insanely popular. EQ and WoW brought ridiculous numbers of new players to the mmorpg genre and both of them were first and foremost focused on pve.
It's almost an outright fact that PVE is what made mmos popular(and thus great). Look at the explosion games like EQ and WoW had for the genre.
No. The catering of solo players made WoW a big game, but not the PvE. Blizzard just said - you are free to play solo in a MMO it is your right to choose when to play multiplayer in a multiplayer game - which is absurd, but they made it. So they catered millions of players from the solo games, by let them playing solo in WoW, creating a fake feeling of community and social environment. And with that genius marketing decision Blizzard ruined the MMO genre. You play solo in WoW, and there are some instances for cooperative or competitive gameplay. So I moved to LoL - far better and much more popular MMO than WoW ever been.
And what made EQ such a big game? You claim it was the catering of solo players that made WoW a big game when 9999999% of WoW's content(when it first made it big) was not catered to soloers. So that's 1 where you're wrong. And EQ most definitely was not catering to soloers so that's 2 where you're wrong.
PvE is what made mmos insanely popular. EQ and WoW brought ridiculous numbers of new players to the mmorpg genre and both of them were first and foremost focused on pve.
EQ was big for it’s time but it’s subscription base was a fraction of WoWs. WoW broke cultural barriers and made MMO gaming acceptable to the masses. Why? It was just a unique combination of many facets. Trying to recreate that is pointless.
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
Comments
For me the only PvP I will play is consensual and if it is not I will try to convince the developers otherwise but if that fails I don't play the game. I don't see the drama about this at all.
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
Unfortunately people always try to come here and convince people to play when they have driven away their player base with wanton ganking. Always a hoot when they do that. Then there is what Bless is trying.They are pathetically trying to get the players that don't want to play a non consensual game and offer them a ten minute immunity. Pitiful attempt.
Or when a player from Darkfall tries to convince players to come try their game.
Like I said before the game is released we try to convince the developer but after that I just avoid the game or try to find a way around it. There is nothing hypocritical about that.
The best power we have is our wallet. Just don't support the game.
Notice how BDO kept pushing the level limit you stayed immune. The developers need us.
Keep rewarding the games that give us consensual PvP. That is the only way to push what we want.
Developers are always talking about trying to ease people into PvP games. Why are they doing that because unlike you the player they want our money. So yes I can demand what I want too before I decide to spend my money on it.
Developers are the ones your beef is with. Not the players that ask for consensual PvP. Naturally we ask for the type of game we want and why ever not. If developers are courting non PvP players then they should cater to us too. Otherwise they can do without the money we bring in.
I have no problem playing League of Legends and I enjoyed it a lot until I discovered I was not very good at it but the PvP was totally fair in that game.
The raft of games where the developers have just said, 'here's the end level content - it's you lot, here's some ground to run around on, now off you go'.
'Oh, and here's some cash shop items - not p2w at all, but you might be interested in them as they boost you'.
And the latest of these is about to hit the hype-to-gripe pathway, our third time's a charm - Bless.
End level environment - I'm posting in it.
At least they got the title nearly right, just need to remove the B
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
See when you talk about non consensual we are not referring to the actual decision to buy and play such a game. I think sometimes words get tangled up with the point we are trying to make. A game that has a mechanic that does not allow you to choose to PvP is nonconsensual by its nature it is not referring to the player's decision to play the game.
It's a relative equation, which was the entire argument. An analogous comparison to the relative threat level of low level players or mobs.
But some people who do not want to PVP non-consensually do get sucked in to play non-consensual PVP games falling for the marketing hype that tries to sell them on the idea that they will be able to just PVE in them. Once they realize that they actually can't or that the game is very limited if you don't, they get mad and start lobbying for changes.
There's more to that story than "well you should have known that it's an open world PVP game."
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The rest of your paragraph cherry picks part of my post and leaves out others because it isn't conducive to your counter-argument.
I said a defenseless opponent. In the context of the conversation my post was made in, it's pretty clear I'm talking about a lowbie who is minding his own business PvEing mobs his level being attacked by a high-level ganker. Not an even-level character competing with another even-level character for mobs.
"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
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I cannot afford these days in classic MMOs to spend time on loot/gear and lose it in PVP.
Having said that there were some games were it was mixed PVP zones like Aion /Warhammer that I enjoyed
Classic MMO is long over .It has mutated unfortunately
All the people that talk about wanting PvP MMO's yet, there are many PvP MMO's that are ghost towns.
While, MOBA's which focus on PvP, are booming.
The OP is spot on, the time for non-consensual PvP in an MMO is well past it's time.
PVP causes people to lose time doing what they want. Those who help usually get tired because the killers just keep coming back even if defeated. Causing the PVP to lose time seems only fair.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Point is, cant really say the time has come and passed when the time never came. PvE has always been the backbone of MMOs but with unimaginative devs we could argue that pve has come and gone as well.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
When the family all gets together to go out to eat.....we often go to Mexican restaurants....
"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
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
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