I know, but the problem is that this Troll will bury the points being made under an avalanche of senselessly repetitive posts. It's frustrating. I made some points I strongly believe in for a better MMORPG, but I'll bet no one can tell me what it was now. Not with the important details that I believe makes it work.
I know, but the problem is that this Troll will bury the points being made under an avalanche of senselessly repetitive posts. It's frustrating. I made some points I strongly believe in for a better MMORPG, but I'll bet no one can tell me what it was now. Not with the important details that I believe makes it work.
The only thing I remember about this thread is "I admit when I'm wrong, I thought maybe I misunderstood and could be wrong, but on second thought what I wrote is actually correct" "Eve is VR"
I know, but the problem is that this Troll will bury the points being made under an avalanche of senselessly repetitive posts. It's frustrating. I made some points I strongly believe in for a better MMORPG, but I'll bet no one can tell me what it was now. Not with the important details that I believe makes it work.
Trust me man... the people who care have read your points You definitely made some very good ones.
Ahh, thank you for saying so. Maybe I can dream the dream tonight.
Correct and this has been stated countless times in this thread and precisely explains the opinions you seem to be trying to change. I mentioned on more than one occassion that developers need to make a decision, either create a niche game or modify it to appease to a broader audience. Since full loot IS NOT THE MOST POPULAR it stands to reason that making adjustments on that end, like with insurance, would net the developer a broader audience and thus more subscriptions.
I know, but the problem is that this Troll will bury the points being made under an avalanche of senselessly repetitive posts. It's frustrating. I made some points I strongly believe in for a better MMORPG, but I'll bet no one can tell me what it was now. Not with the important details that I believe makes it work.
Trust me man... the people who care have read your points You definitely made some very good ones.
There are actually people like him who insist there should be no penalty for gankers/outlaws. and all safe zone removed.
I think there are people from both side of argument. The thing is if you completely caters to one side the other side won't play the game.
I see that nobody had a good enough reason to explain why developers keep trying so the discussion just turned to "Look BR games make money!!!" As if its relevant at all to the original posters question. So when it doubt distract.
I see that nobody had a good enough reason to explain why developers keep trying so the discussion just turned to "Look BR games make money!!!" As if its relevant at all to the original posters question. So when it doubt distract.
The reason was simple. If you like full loot pvp games and are a developer or getting into development you’ll probably make what you want.
There are actually people like him who insist there should be no penalty for gankers/outlaws. and all safe zone removed.
I think there are people from both side of argument. The thing is if you completely caters to one side the other side won't play the game.
No, I do not insist. I say it does not work. It is a RP feature. Also I think safe zones are not good idea, as they break the OW. The idea of zones with different risk/reward ratios seems more appealing to me.
And all the points for imaginary or real "evil gankers" lead to one conclusion - some people should take the same rewards without risk, because they are too weak, or they do not want to compete. And that makes any competition pointless. This is the core of the bad MMORPGs. Because when you give to some player such advantage, most players will want the same deal. And that means they will go into PvE server, safe zone, PvE instance. And the reason is not they do not want to PvP. The reason is, they want to progress with lesser resistance. Very few people think in a long term - what they will do with after that progress. And the answer is usually - some endgame - which is another flaw in many MMORPGs. The idea that the game starts, when the game finishes. Kind of absurd.
+70% EVE playerbase live in "safe assets" area and only about 15% who live in null sec - unrestricted FFAPVP.
You remove "safe assets", you lose vast majority of the user baser - no user base, no money for development and you lose even that 15% what you have left.
I believe CCP admitted themselves that moving L4 missions to high sec was a savoir to the game otherwise they would have been forced to shut it down.
ikcin said: When you break the foundation, the core, of your product, the thing that makes it different and unique on the market, well I think that reasonably could be called incredibly stupid.
...you have it all backwards.
Robust system of rules of engagement is what sets the game apart from any game and is major contributor that allows for great depth and thriving economy...unlike shallow Darkfall, Mortal Online and alike PVP mmos...
ikcin said: Well the safe assets are incredibly stupid move, but anyway.
...considering "safe assets" is what made the game flourish and keeps the game floating around, calling it a stupid move is rather...silly...
I disagree. Prove your point with direct connection between the events. In fact F2P revived the game. Safe assets have literally zero effect. But they break the OW set of rules. When you break the foundation, the core, of your product, the thing that makes it different and unique on the market, well I think that reasonably could be called incredibly stupid.
The past few months have seen CCP overhaul EVE's war declaration (wardec) mechanics because of its abuse by some corporations in Hi-sec (safer) space.
They did so grudgingly when recent data they collect showed a high number of customers quit their subs after being wardec'd.
I'm sure they've long known this as it doesn't take a rocket scientist (heh) to understand players who can't even undock or play the game the way they wish won't stick around for long.
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
Second Life is not a game. Karma is not a principle, it is not even used in many games. The problem with the karma is, it does not limit the PK. It does not work. If it is low, it is pointless. If it is high, players stop to PvP. Karma could be a good RP feature. But outside of the RP it simply does not work.
Any comparison with real life is not very smart. Also to compare players with psychos and criminals.
If the red guy does not care about the punishment, as his character is immortal, what do you suggest? To implement permadeath for PKers?
In L2 Classic EU, the karma is so low, that actually nobody cares. There are guys with thousands PKs, for the sport. Anyway, the PK was rare when I played. It happened to me few times for few months. I lost some exp. In fact I lost even some good gear. Did I whine - of course. But it is a game, sometimes players or mobs are stronger, so you progress, and then beat them, or do not. It is a game. If I wanted safe game, I would play solo RPG, or GW2, ESO, and etc.
I can't speak to the Classic servers. But I know that back in the actual Chronicles, etc.. circa 2004, when I played L2 religiously, Karma absolutely did affect players' behavior. Players were *real* careful about going red if their PK count was high. They'd often take the Sin Eater quest and go off to some remote corner to wash off some of the Karma and erase the PKs, hoping not to be found.
Of course, there were so-called "perma-reds" whom couldn't have cared less about karma. They weren't concerned about that. They were just out to ruin someone else's day, just because they could, reputation be damned. Sociopaths, you might say. Welcome to literally any MMO, in that case - PvE or PvP. That type will always find ways to grief other players regardless of the game. I've seen it in every MMO I've ever played; far too many to count (or admit for that matter lol), at this point.
But for most people, who did care about not having their own progression negatively affected, and didn't want to spend too much time with a gremlin sucking up all their xp, Karma was a pretty good deterrent. Didn't stop people from going Red, but it was enough for them to take it seriously and not go overboard. No one would have ever gotten anything accomplished if it was just a Wild West of people running around ganking each other non-stop.
ikcin said: But that does not mean that safer game will increase the number of the players and vice versa - that higher risk will decrease the number of the players.
Of course it does.
What else do you think will happen when you remove high sec? You think risk tolerance of high sec dwellers will somehow magically change and they will move to null sec? That they will have no other choice?
You said it yourself - "every rational player will play on PVE server". You remove "PVE server" players leave for other game that does provide them.
+70% EVE playerbase live in "safe assets" area and only about 15% who live in null sec - unrestricted FFAPVP.
You remove "safe assets", you lose vast majority of the user baser - no user base, no money for development and you lose even that 15% what you have left.
I believe CCP admitted themselves that moving L4 missions to high sec was a savoir to the game otherwise they would have been forced to shut it down.
This is really no brainer...
So the players increased with more than 70% after the safe assets were implemented? I doubt. See there is not connection. Like many of the cases here, your logic is simply broken. If you remove the safe assets 70% of the players will leave the game? Every rational player will put his assets in safe place if he can. That is pretty obvious. Every rational player will play on PvE server. It is risk/reward ratio. But that does not mean that safer game will increase the number of the players and vice versa - that higher risk will decrease the number of the players.
Here is the disconnect that most people in your situation have. If there is a game that has full loot. 1000 people try it out and after time 800 people leave because they are tired of losing their stuff. We know they are tired of losing their stuff because they said so. It's not a guess.
We implement changes to make it so players wont lose all their stuff in all situations. Does that mean 800 people will come back? No, because a vast majority of time once a player quits a game, they never come back even if the changes were good because they are burned out on it. Some will return, no doubt, but not all. The difference is that any new players that come in will not have the same problems as the previous 800 we lost. Had those changes been in since launch we may not have seen such a great loss in players to begin with.
ikcin said: But that does not mean that safer game will increase the number of the players and vice versa - that higher risk will decrease the number of the players.
Of course it does.
What else do you think will happen when you remove high sec? You think risk tolerance of high sec dwellers will somehow magically change and they will move to null sec? That they will have no other choice?
You said it yourself - "every rational player will play on PVE server". You remove "PVE server" players leave for other game that does provide them.
Agree.
The truth that many "Hardcore" PvPers fail to understand is that the majority of people who play PvP games are either PVE Players or PvP-Carebears, with the Hardcore PvPes being the minority.
It sounds crazy or masochistic, right? But believe it or not there are many PVE players (mainly crafters) who in principle like to play FFA-PVP games for the adrenaline rush of risking losing all their stuff. But of course the majority of players in FFA games are PVX players who like both PvP and PVE in equal measure, and are often called Carebears because they often refuse to engage in a PvP combat because they like to be left in peace when they are doing PVE content. All these people are are ok with the odd ganking, it's part of the game of course, as long as it doesn't happen every 5 minutes, which unfortunately is normal occurrence in most of FFA-PVP games, since most of them have few rules or none at all.
Is it a coincidence that the only FFA-PVP game that had a decent success so far was EVE, which has safe zones? Just food for thoughts.
But now we are talking about the risk in general. The idea that majority of players want safe games, where they cannot lose, seems absurd to me.
As that means an OW competitive game should be impossible. That people do not want to compete. And not only avoid the risk in the game they play, but also they choose games with lowest risk possible. Obviously this is not true.
You are all over the place with this response so I'll respond only to the part I think relates to this. Most players want to save their progress, this is true. This is why the thought of perma death is disliked because players want to save their character development progress. Any game that claims permadeath while still passing "souls" or some from of progress onto the next character still has progress and isn't really "perma" death. This is also why players, even those that want full loot, want to have safe areas. Without safe areas they are at risk at all times to lose anything they have. Not character development in this case, but progress in item collection. Most people think "what is the point of always farming new stuff if someone else is going to take it" this results in 80% of the population farming while 10% keeps taking it from them and never being required to farm themselves. What players really want is the ability to say "OK, today I'm going to risk it and go PVP". What they don't want is to have that choice removed at any given time.
But all of this can be summed up with your one statement, "The idea that majority of players want safe games, where they cannot lose, seems absurd to me." That's because this is your opinion and while others may share something similar, many do not share the same opinion. It seems absurd to me that you keep trying to say your ideas are the only good ones, that you have the only opinions that matter.
There is only one way to prove your point. Create the game you're imagining and see how many people play it. Prove people wrong. Until then we have a history of games that worked, almost work, and fail miserably. we can compare their designs and decipher based on that information why they succeeded or why they did not.
ikcin said: Safe assets have literally zero effect. But they break the OW set of rules. When you break the foundation, the core, of your product, the thing that makes it different and unique on the market, well I think that reasonably could be called incredibly stupid.
Entire time, you are arguing that any restriction of FFAPVP is "stupid"...you just now say the opposite...
Besides, what you said is just a heap of nonsense.
It has nothing to do with short/long term choice, that is complete gibberish as much as risk / reward.
When it comes to risk, there is a thing called risk tolerance. It is a level of risk a person won't cross no matter how high the reward is. When it comes to MMO(RPG)s, this risk tolerance is low - players do not wish to risk a loss of their progression or gear. Period.
CCP(and many other developers) tried so hard to attract more people into high risk content, yet, every single of their attempt failed miserably, precisely because of what is said above - people live in high sec because that is their prefered playstyle - safe, casual, solo centric. No matter how much you make null sec rewarding or "appealing", it will still contain the level of risk they are not willing to submit to.
So yes, less risk your game provides, more people will play your game.
Also, indeed it is not an MMO(RPG) therefore it does not count - it just shows how off you are...
+70% EVE playerbase live in "safe assets" area and only about 15% who live in null sec - unrestricted FFAPVP.
You remove "safe assets", you lose vast majority of the user baser - no user base, no money for development and you lose even that 15% what you have left.
I believe CCP admitted themselves that moving L4 missions to high sec was a savoir to the game otherwise they would have been forced to shut it down.
This is really no brainer...
So the players increased with more than 70% after the safe assets were implemented? I doubt. See there is not connection. Like many of the cases here, your logic is simply broken. If you remove the safe assets 70% of the players will leave the game? Every rational player will put his assets in safe place if he can. That is pretty obvious. Every rational player will play on PvE server. It is risk/reward ratio. But that does not mean that safer game will increase the number of the players and vice versa - that higher risk will decrease the number of the players.
Here is the disconnect that most people in your situation have. If there is a game that has full loot. 1000 people try it out and after time 800 people leave because they are tired of losing their stuff. We know they are tired of losing their stuff because they said so. It's not a guess.
We implement changes to make it so players wont lose all their stuff in all situations. Does that mean 800 people will come back? No, because a vast majority of time once a player quits a game, they never come back even if the changes were good because they are burned out on it. Some will return, no doubt, but not all. The difference is that any new players that come in will not have the same problems as the previous 800 we lost. Had those changes been in since launch we may not have seen such a great loss in players to begin with.
It's called learning and adapting.
Quite honestly, when I play GW2, I think 90% of people left after 2 month. You can check their renown ranking and 90% barely have any.
That being said I'm in a guild in Legend of Aria, with 999 members and only a few are active.
You said yourself that competition comes in many forms. That pvp is not necessarily combat. If that is true then even when safe from full loot players are still "competing". That's your own words. You keep going in circles.
People like to take risks, but they like to have some control over those risks. If the only control in an open world full loot game is to not play, then they wont play. That's why safe areas or other fabricated methods like guards (Eve) or toggles (SWG) or factions (DAOC) work as well as they do and those are the most memorable of the MMORPG pvp games because people have some control.
Interesting discussion err.. I should say interesting derailment considering this has zero to do with the actual topic But clearly the conversation is over, have a good one.
We have seen so many games coming out during the years that promise great gameplay and full loot PVP.
Has it ever worked I mean really?
I find the topic weird because there are barely any full loot game made. The one made have very low budget. And I believe Albion and LOA have kickstarter, so they aren't risking money.
And almost every low budget themepark have low population too.
And still every game ends with pvp being the end game lol
Not every. But many. The so called end game comes when the vertical progression - so the solo RPG finishes. This again instanced design - the PvE ends and starts the PvP. OnlyEVEkind of integrates the PvP and PvE. L2 not so well, as there the PvE let to PvP and vice versa - before GoD. In fact I do not think there is an example for well made OW MMORPG. That does not mean it cannot be made.
There is at least one other.
I think success of Eve further debunk his theory. You need different rule for aggressor and the peaceful. People can stay in high sec and be relatively safe.
That being said, people like him exist. So he can go null sec and go free for all no string attach. So maybe the best design is tiered map system. Where there is different rule set in different zone. Crowfall is doing something similar I think.
Yes, a tiered map system, although there is no different rule set in a different zone:
It's just that some areas are constantly more heavily defended, and some areas fluctuate. Controlled, perturbed by organized player forces as it were. It's not that you can't get past the national defense grids, multiple layers, even, with the Strike Force chasing you...
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
We have seen so many games coming out during the years that promise great gameplay and full loot PVP.
Has it ever worked I mean really?
I find the topic weird because there are barely any full loot game made. The one made have very low budget. And I believe Albion and LOA have kickstarter, so they aren't risking money.
And almost every low budget themepark have low population too.
Basically the ignored part of the equation. Low budget MMORPG have low populations. Doesnt matter what type it is.
Comments
It's frustrating.
I made some points I strongly believe in for a better MMORPG, but I'll bet no one can tell me what it was now. Not with the important details that I believe makes it work.
Once upon a time....
"I admit when I'm wrong, I thought maybe I misunderstood and could be wrong, but on second thought what I wrote is actually correct"
"Eve is VR"
lmao
Mostly kidding... but not really.
Maybe I can dream the dream tonight.
Once upon a time....
I think there are people from both side of argument. The thing is if you completely caters to one side the other side won't play the game.
There really is no other answer.
You remove "safe assets", you lose vast majority of the user baser - no user base, no money for development and you lose even that 15% what you have left.
I believe CCP admitted themselves that moving L4 missions to high sec was a savoir to the game otherwise they would have been forced to shut it down.
This is really no brainer...
Robust system of rules of engagement is what sets the game apart from any game and is major contributor that allows for great depth and thriving economy...unlike shallow Darkfall, Mortal Online and alike PVP mmos...
They did so grudgingly when recent data they collect showed a high number of customers quit their subs after being wardec'd.
I'm sure they've long known this as it doesn't take a rocket scientist (heh) to understand players who can't even undock or play the game the way they wish won't stick around for long.
"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
Of course, there were so-called "perma-reds" whom couldn't have cared less about karma. They weren't concerned about that. They were just out to ruin someone else's day, just because they could, reputation be damned. Sociopaths, you might say. Welcome to literally any MMO, in that case - PvE or PvP. That type will always find ways to grief other players regardless of the game. I've seen it in every MMO I've ever played; far too many to count (or admit for that matter lol), at this point.
But for most people, who did care about not having their own progression negatively affected, and didn't want to spend too much time with a gremlin sucking up all their xp, Karma was a pretty good deterrent. Didn't stop people from going Red, but it was enough for them to take it seriously and not go overboard. No one would have ever gotten anything accomplished if it was just a Wild West of people running around ganking each other non-stop.
The exact same reason that pve games, fps games, sport games, strategy games etc. are made.
"They" believe that they are the ones who can forge the one game to rule if not all then at least one part of the market - and make them money.
What else do you think will happen when you remove high sec? You think risk tolerance of high sec dwellers will somehow magically change and they will move to null sec? That they will have no other choice?
You said it yourself - "every rational player will play on PVE server". You remove "PVE server" players leave for other game that does provide them.
We implement changes to make it so players wont lose all their stuff in all situations. Does that mean 800 people will come back? No, because a vast majority of time once a player quits a game, they never come back even if the changes were good because they are burned out on it. Some will return, no doubt, but not all. The difference is that any new players that come in will not have the same problems as the previous 800 we lost. Had those changes been in since launch we may not have seen such a great loss in players to begin with.
It's called learning and adapting.
The truth that many "Hardcore" PvPers fail to understand is that the majority of people who play PvP games are either PVE Players or PvP-Carebears, with the Hardcore PvPes being the minority.
It sounds crazy or masochistic, right? But believe it or not there are many PVE players (mainly crafters) who in principle like to play FFA-PVP games for the adrenaline rush of risking losing all their stuff.
But of course the majority of players in FFA games are PVX players who like both PvP and PVE in equal measure, and are often called Carebears because they often refuse to engage in a PvP combat because they like to be left in peace when they are doing PVE content.
All these people are are ok with the odd ganking, it's part of the game of course, as long as it doesn't happen every 5 minutes, which unfortunately is normal occurrence in most of FFA-PVP games, since most of them have few rules or none at all.
Is it a coincidence that the only FFA-PVP game that had a decent success so far was EVE, which has safe zones?
Just food for thoughts.
Most players want to save their progress, this is true. This is why the thought of perma death is disliked because players want to save their character development progress. Any game that claims permadeath while still passing "souls" or some from of progress onto the next character still has progress and isn't really "perma" death. This is also why players, even those that want full loot, want to have safe areas. Without safe areas they are at risk at all times to lose anything they have. Not character development in this case, but progress in item collection. Most people think "what is the point of always farming new stuff if someone else is going to take it" this results in 80% of the population farming while 10% keeps taking it from them and never being required to farm themselves. What players really want is the ability to say "OK, today I'm going to risk it and go PVP". What they don't want is to have that choice removed at any given time.
But all of this can be summed up with your one statement, "The idea that majority of players want safe games, where they cannot lose, seems absurd to me." That's because this is your opinion and while others may share something similar, many do not share the same opinion. It seems absurd to me that you keep trying to say your ideas are the only good ones, that you have the only opinions that matter.
There is only one way to prove your point. Create the game you're imagining and see how many people play it. Prove people wrong. Until then we have a history of games that worked, almost work, and fail miserably. we can compare their designs and decipher based on that information why they succeeded or why they did not.
Entire time, you are arguing that any restriction of FFAPVP is "stupid"...you just now say the opposite...
Besides, what you said is just a heap of nonsense.
It has nothing to do with short/long term choice, that is complete gibberish as much as risk / reward.
When it comes to risk, there is a thing called risk tolerance. It is a level of risk a person won't cross no matter how high the reward is. When it comes to MMO(RPG)s, this risk tolerance is low - players do not wish to risk a loss of their progression or gear. Period.
CCP(and many other developers) tried so hard to attract more people into high risk content, yet, every single of their attempt failed miserably, precisely because of what is said above - people live in high sec because that is their prefered playstyle - safe, casual, solo centric. No matter how much you make null sec rewarding or "appealing", it will still contain the level of risk they are not willing to submit to.
So yes, less risk your game provides, more people will play your game.
Also, indeed it is not an MMO(RPG) therefore it does not count - it just shows how off you are...
That being said I'm in a guild in Legend of Aria, with 999 members and only a few are active.
People like to take risks, but they like to have some control over those risks. If the only control in an open world full loot game is to not play, then they wont play. That's why safe areas or other fabricated methods like guards (Eve) or toggles (SWG) or factions (DAOC) work as well as they do and those are the most memorable of the MMORPG pvp games because people have some control.
Interesting discussion err.. I should say interesting derailment considering this has zero to do with the actual topic
And almost every low budget themepark have low population too.
https://imgur.com/a/tEX1e
It's just that some areas are constantly more heavily defended, and some areas fluctuate. Controlled, perturbed by organized player forces as it were. It's not that you can't get past the national defense grids, multiple layers, even, with the Strike Force chasing you...
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance