Meandering through MMORPG's...

Author: t0nyd

Confused, you say open world will always fail then you explain how it could work? Make up your mind either it can't work or it can, you seem to actually think it can.

I do as well, in my experiance we have never seen a game fail because of its open world pvp, not once. Shadowbane is one of very few games that has even tried it and if you think that game failed becuase of its open world pvp you obviously never played it.

At where we stand today in mmo development we can say for sure that a half finished game always fails and if you aren't unqie enough you will fall after a decent launch.

We can see this with the two success stories besides WoW, Lotro and EvE Online. Lotro is not a WoW clone its a EQ clone but most importantly it was polished product when it launched. Same thing for EvE which is so massivly different from WoW or Lotro, in fact its an open world pvp game which works great. I find it boring but the large group of people that play it all love it to bits.

So the verdict we have seen so far is, don't make a WoW clone or even anything to similar and most imporantly FINISH THE DAMN GAME BEFORE YOU LAUNCH IT!

There have actually already been a number of open world PvP games that HAVE succeeded, which kind of kills the whole point of your post.

AC - Darktide for example was open world PvP with no safe zones. This game was highly competitive, and if you knew what you were doing you could quite easily kill players 50 lvl's higher than yourself. War spells (such as fireballs, lightning bolts etc) could be dodged, and terrain could be used to ones advantage, giving more skillful players the advantage over higher lvl players. AC also offered what I believe to be an extremely imporant feature in PvP MMO's, and one that is not often seen much nowadays; survivability.

Fights in AC could, and would often last over 15 minutes, with players being able to use a variety of methods to heal themselves and stay in the fight. This is a far cry from alot of PvP that is seen nowadays where whoever does the highest damage, or has the most hitpoints will often be vicotious, since many characters cannot effectively heal or restore hitpoints (I blame this mostly on the implementation of class systems over skill based models)

Other games such as UO and EvE online will also prove my point that open world PvP can be highly successful when implemented properly.  I think what your arguemnt is really trying to point out is that open world PvP will always fail if the game mechanics are not specifically designed for open world PvP.

@Krogan

   Im not confused at all. I believe the concept of open world PvP can work. I just dont believe that A. a company will make one that succeeds or B. people will want to play it.

 You bring up Shadowbane as an example. I belive that it is a good example of elitest failure in mmorpgs. Try to solo in that game, you will die to a stealthed r5 scout that sits in noob nodes tracking people. This in turn frustrates noobs and they will not play it. I dont want forced partying simply to level. If you think it succeeds as an mmo give reasons why. I believe its 3 servers and pay turned free play prove otherwise...

You use LotRO as examples. LotRO isnt an open world PvP game. Its proven that people want PvE games. Im sure that there will be many more successful PvE mmorpgs. I am targeting open world PvP mmorpgs. Eve, I wont even go into Eve. Some people like it. I personally dont. Is it a success, shrug...

@ Siftified

   Darktide? Where is Darktide? I dont see a Darktide. AC? Where is AC? Whats the playerbase size on AC? Your talking about old games that had minor to moderate success. Where are they now. I am talking about the future. Gaming has changes a lot. Releasing a game now is much different than releasing one in 2001. The competition is much stronger now and I simply dont believe that the majority of players wants PvP. You also bring up UO. UO time has come and gone.

What I am trying to point out is that the standard advancement methods of games is inverse to that of a good challenge in open world pvp.

I have to dissagree that open world PvP will not work, the problem as I see it is that the game developers and gaming communities think you have to have a leveling and skill tree to have a good game. This to me is false what you need is a more RL game with consequences for your actions and there is a game here that is trying something like that.  You go to a trainer pay a fee lets say to learn how to wield longswords or short swords, or any type weapon class for any type game. you gain exp by using that weapon of its class the more you use it the more things you learn about it etc.

Now if you go out and indiscrimnatly attack someone you become a criminal if that the way you wish to play your toon so be it but, realize that becoming a criminal will make it very difficult to enter cities for commerce or other activities. The more you murder the worse it will get as you will be an open target for all citizens and guards.

This could bring about an underworld so to speak where the only places you are welcome are the blackmarket and Thug hideouts etc. Its your choice if you want to live this way in the game.

Now if you want to play the strait and narrow type toon you have to follow the ROE at all times never attack another player first or you will be flaged as the criminal.

The only time its safe to attack first is in sanctioned war with other clans, clan cities in which niether side will be flag criminals during the war. Now if a criminal clan attacks a city they will always be fair game for anyone that comes along.

Personally I'm so sick of these games that just rob you of your time and money to be proficiant enough to survive in endless leveling and skill tree's like EVE where it takes you years to be worth a damn or wow where you grind your butt off for months for the uber stuff only to have it obsolete to the next expansions green drops.

A sword should be just that a sword if ya suck with it ya get yer ass handed to ya! If  your good with it you have the same chance as a 5 year vetran if you fight smart, it makes me think of the country 200 years ago there's always going to be someone that is abit faster at the draw than you are. Luckily in games death is not permanent!

@ Warasatsum

    I guess I didnt make myself clear with the first paragraph of this post. I know that a system could be created that could work well for open world PvP. I just believe that no company will succeed OR the players dont really want this type of game. My evidence is the current trend in MMO's. Games such as WoW and LotRo are my examples. These games rely on ever lengthening leveling and equipment grind. These games have a massive player base. Therefore, I assume that this is what people want to play. These types of games are in direct opposition to an open world mmorpgs. I believe that WAR is the first and not the last to try and copy the wrong type of game and turn it into PvP.

no the real problem with open World PvP is to be honest...no one wants to do it.  its only ever fun when there is a huge group doing it and that was years ago or very rare.  The Organisation needed is huge and most people can hardly co-ordinate 10-20 players in an instance let alone out in the open.

   I agree that most (and I mean most) games that try to make PvP the main theme of the game fall into the level/equipment trap, described by the OP.  But, I think it's a little pessimistic and ignorant to say that players don't want anything better nor companies wish to make a better game.  I think players would play a more well-developed PvP style game if it were to be created, and developers will make this type of game only once their paychecks for WoW clones dry up.  Remember that it's a business underneath it all, and developers are simply stockholders.  So, you can preach about how bad it is, but it's like the oil companies; a "green" change won't occur if even our executive branch has a stake in oil companies... Greed, in our capitalistic society governs all, and thus change is slowed...

@ dcostello

   Your right, greed will rule every mmo's development. With games like AoC what do we see. We see most of its players getting to max level asap then quiting. This is the most common scenario with mmorpg's. Most players are simply concerned with maxing level, testing the new abilites, and beating the PvE challenges, then they move on. So in turn, developers will making leveling slower, add more levels, and create more PvE content. The biggest complaint with AoC seems to be " levels 1-30 were fine, after that there was little PvE content ". Its obvious funcom could have cared less about PvP in AoC.

This so called open world PvP game fell into the trap that most companies will. That trap is called progression with no content for max level players. If you have no PvE content for max level and there is not a decent PvP structure at end game, you fall into the WoW syndrome of ever advancing levels with ever continueing equipment grinding

@ t0nyd

Your argument states that open world PvP will always fail.

Me pointing out cases where open world PvP has been successful pretty much denegrates that idea.

As for your questions of where is AC? Where is Darktide? The answer is that it still exists, not with a huge player-base, of course ebing due to newer and flashier MMO's coming out which have offered a larger number of features and better graphics. However, ask anyone who likes open world FFA PvP which games they like and I'm pretty sure you'll discover an immensely nostalgic view of these successful older PvP games. Dismissing them as you have done is ignorant, as games such as AC, UO and EQ are extremely important in viewing the evolution of MMO's.

If you want open world PvP to be successful in a game, we need to get rid of class systems, and bring back skill systems. As for saying noone 'wants' an open world PvP game, just ask anyone who used to play AC and UO, or ask anyone who has been waiting for Darkfall for 5 years.

Open world PvP HAS worked and CAN work. It just doesn't work in many of the unifinished and poorly implemented systems which have been recently released.

@ Siftified

  Yes, looking at AC, Darktide, and UO is extremely important in viewing the evolution in MMO's. Its so important in fact that none of todays successful MMO's are similar to them. The first 2 MMO's that I would would call successful are the original everquest and Warcraft. Both of these MMO's show that the majority of mmo players revolve around the idea of good PvE and any other focus will limit your game to a niche player base. A niche player base isnt a horrible thing, shrug...

 A class system could work perfectly well in open world pvp. A skill based system can work perfectly well in open world pvp. Class or skill based doesnt matter. Drastic differences in power between levels and gear matters more. A balanced ability or skill set where many options are available and not simply linear paths through which everyone chooses to advance (flavor of the month builds).

  The problem with open world pvp is that i doubt the current developers ability to balance anything. PvP and the number of PvP options available are hindered by balance. If you have 500 skills and only 5 are useful, expect all players to have those 5 skills. Most games fall into this trap. I also doubt that the current crop of developers can release a game polished enough for todays fickle players. In todays market a game has 2 months to feel somewhat polished, if not, a mass exodus occurs, then the game tanks. People would rather go back to WoW or EQ2 than allow a company to play " pay to beta my game ".

@ t0nyd

The reason we don't see more games follow in the footsteps of UO and AC is because of how successful WoW was at launch and how successful it is now. That's also the reason we see so many WoW clones. This point has been beaten to death, but that doesn't make any less invalid. Developers and publishers want to go the safe, easy route.

 t0nyd, if you are seriously suggesting that AC Darktide and UO be completely ignored, you have no business speaking further, or ever for that matter, as you clearly have NO idea what you're talking about. Not successful? Seriously? And none of todays "successful" mmos (Which I would like to know exactly what you consider a successful MMO today) are aimed at an entirely different audience, in an industry that is at least four times as big as it was back then, looking to capture as much money as possible with as little effort as possible rather than make a decent game, so I WOULD find it surprising for a game to be like earlier MMOs...

@ kordesh

 Would you say DAoC matters? I would say Mythic thinks not. Everyone expected War to be this improved DAoC. Its like Mythic totally ignored everything good about DAoC when making War.

 I dont believe UO, AC, or Darktide matter in the slightest. Do you believe that UO, AC, or Darktide can compete with todays games. Even if these games were recreated using modern graphics, I believe they would maybe gather a small niche crowd. No company wants to invest the money requires to build a game just to be a niche game. They all want to be WoW. No one wants to challenge WoW. They all want to copy it.

 For the most part people are a victim of habbit. They either do not want to learn a new system of play or dont want to lose all the time they spent leveling and gearing their current characters. So WoW will remain dominant aslong as they keep releasing expansion after expansion. That is until technology advances far enough to the point that WoW is like comparing UO to AoC. Then WoW will die.

Yeah you really lost a lot of credibility with dismissing UO and AC. Which in their day were two of the top games of their time.

I mean if my memory serves me correct, AC used the idea of two level 30's could give a good fight to one level 60. I could be wrong, its been a while.. so don't quote me on it.

UO, skill based, and open world pvp.. was an awesome game. Top game of its time.. maybe because it was one of the only mmo's at the time, and the term MMO was little known.. but still, in comparison (using those two facts) a very succesfull game.

I actually do believe if UO was remade using its "old" pre felluca/trammel system and updated graphics it would be a pretty big hit

MMORPG Charts (highest subscription total hit)

AC 120,000

UO  250,000

EQ   460,000

DAoC  250,000

ShadowBane  50,000

LotR  250,000

Eve  236,510

Lineage 3,000,000

WoW 10,000,000

What does this tell you. I assume Lineage's numbers make sense considering all the Asian mmo's released. It also shows why everyone copies WoW. This pretty much equates to either you copy WoW or you end up a niche game.

Personally id consider 250,000 a success, but for an open world PvP based mmo to be fun, you need a lot of people. The question is, with WoW subs ever on the rise, do you think an open world PvP game can compete in todays market. When I say compete, I dont mean 50,000 subs...

@ vknid

 How do I lose credibility for dismissing UO and AC. Im am not saying that they are horrible games. In my opinion i believe that Warcraft is a pretty shitty game, but, its obviously a recipe for success.

Most of you people are getting butt hurt. Im not trying to attack your favorite game. I dont give a fuck if you have fond memories of some distant game that you believe is better than todays current games. What I am getting at, is an open world PvP mmorpg even viable in todays PvE dominate market.

You cannot really compare today's games to the old school games. One thing you have to take into account is that in the old days we played AC on dial-up, there was no such thing as Vent and a couple hundred thousand subscribers probably encompassed all the gamers out there. I remember on Darktide we would all conference call 1 or 2 people each and get the party line going. Comparing subs from today to yesterday is like saying houses in 1950 cost $5000 while today they are around $100,000.

To me Asheron's Call got it right for PvP as well as PvE, they had 1 PvP server and it was anything goes. On the "Carebear" servers you could choose to go RED or stay WHITE, they did not cater to one side or the other. It was a completely skill based game and there content updates affected the world, not just added quests and such. Seeing an entire town destroyed and then rebuilt slowly over a few months was ingenious, you could run anywhere you wanted. There were no zones, no BS mountains saying you have to stay here until you can safely fight over there.

Also you cannot argue with today's gamers, most gamers today cut their teeth playing WoW. It's all they know and they compare all games to it. WoW might of had a chance to keep the PvP crowd happy if they wouldn't of put in BG's and Arena's. Games today should put in 1 PvP server and only 1, why try to spread out your PvP people across a dozen servers. Sure if the population of your PvP server gets outrageous you open up another, don't just assume that you are going to need 6.

I would never go back to AC, even if they released it with updated graphics I wouldn't. But before anyone dismisses AC, consider this the game is going on what 9 or 10 years. Also it is very, VERY rare that I come across an old school AC'er that trashes the game.
Someday a gaming company will stop trying to emulate WoW and make a game that caters to everyone and does it right. Til then if you love WAR they play it, if you love WoW then play it. A PvP game is possible if they don't try to make it a PvE game with PvP content.
 

go play EVE

this blog has nothing to do with why open pvp won't work.

but anyway the blogger REALLY needs to play age of conan, where levels and gear work pretty much exactly like said.

lower levels can even solo higher levels, if they have alot more skill. and gear has VERY little difference. ie, taking on two people same level naked and winning.

gemmed gear used to make a massive difference, but they nerfed it to be useless. back when it was OP, myself and others used to pvp naked just to prove that we didn't need gemmed gear to own your sorry behind.

I agree with you to some extent. However, the "hook" that keeps players interessted in pretty much all mmo's today, and in the past, has been the endless struggle towards power. Wether it has been accomplished through the accumulation of levels or through the gathering of equipment, the reasons most players remain playing a game is so that they can become stronger and advance.

Keeping players interested is key here. You have to give them just enough every new character level and every new item found to make it feel rewarding instead of "meh". Like for example a new abilty that makes a great difference, or letting them see that they can actually mow down the foe that previously gave them trouble.

Without getting entirely too longwinded I think it's possible that if you balance an MMO for a form of PVP where reasonably new players would not be hopelessly outmatched by higher level players, you'd end up with a system where character strength development does not feel impacting enough for the players to care. As a result, they'd simply leave.

In order to overcome that whole hurdle, the focus of MMOs would have be placed on something entirely different than the accumulation of power, such as for example actual gameplay.

As you probably know though, gameplay is probably one of the weakest aspects in MMOs today. For example the combat systems: You click a foe, you hit a couple of keys to activate your abilties and you're done - and in the end it's lifeless and boring.

When you remove or weaken the "hook" in steady, noticable progression to achieve PvP balance throughout the game, all you're left with is boring, if balanced, combat with nothing to keep players interested.*

To fix that, you'd have to take an even longer step away from current MMOs and the way they act today, invading instead the territory of FPSs and other more involving action games.

You'd end up with a massively multiplayer game where pretty much the only thing remaining from the original genre is it's namesake, and the new game simply consists of full on PVP/PvE action between hundreds of players in a persistant world, spanning miles, with a touch of character development.

The true question is: Is that what players want? Only time will tell.

*(Guildwars proves me wrong on that point. For some reason, players, for some unfathomable reason, enjoy clicking buttons and PVPing without any true element of advancement. Suffice to say, I don't get it.)

@ t0nyd

WoW is massivily popular because its the ONLY mmo to advertise on TV.

It also caters to people that arent usually gamers. and theres a lot more non gamers than there are gamers. advertisements work. thats why they cost millions. because they make millions. WoW was never anything new. hundreds of MMOs before it had the exact same theme and systems. WoW advertises on TV, people also watch TV, period. 

Oh and I forgot to mention that looting and a decent death penalty are also an important part of open world PvP. I can't really feel any sense of achievement in killing a player if they can respawn nearby and be back in my face like nothing happened in 2 minutes.

And to the OP, if you havn't actually played AC Darktide or pre-trammel UO, then I would say that you're not qualified enough to lend any weight to your arguments. It may sound elitist, but it's true.

@siftified

 I have not played darktide. I have never heard of darktide. I have played UO and AC...

Darktide is the FFA open PvP AC server.

If you have not played on this server then you cannot really make qualified posts about AC in relation to an open PvP world.

I'd agree with pretty much everything you say.  But there is an exception to this.  - Eve.

60 of the most basic ships can indeed take out a highly modded uber Battleship.  Even in High-sec (safe) space this happens.

But for games based on leveling systems id have to agree.

Another problem however is technology, most fantasy servers would just lag out as soon as 60 plays enterd any one localised area.  Again Eve is the exception, with recent changes enabling 1000 players battle.  If you've not played eve you may think that this wouldnt ever happen.. but it does, a lot!

So while I agree with your views there are exceptions and I dont think its impossible.

I think I understand where the OP is coming from.  he isn't saying that AC:Darktide or UO were bad PvP games, but that they would never exist in today's market.  They simply wouldn't bring in enough subscribers to be viable, today.

Shadowbane, IMO was probably the best PvP game ever (I liked it better than darktide to be honest), but the amount of exploiting and lack of conquences eventually ruined the new blood coming into the game.  Like was mentioned, who wants to play when all you do all day is get ganked?  I was fortunate, I had a guild there for me to join when I started, so I had some form of protection from that (with PL groups and a full city), but the general new player did not have that.  But in that game, a group of well played 30's COULD take out lvl 70's, it wasn't easy, but it was doable, I know I was in a group that did it once (was hillarious as all get out too, watching these two lvl 70's run from a bunch of lvl 30's who were chasing them all over the newbie zone when they couldn't take us out on their initial charge)

But the system was about perfect, you had great content for the high levels to keep them into the game and just enough PvE to keep the going.  No quests, no need for them.  You made your own quests.

But again, such a game wouldn't survive in today's world of 1mm subs or bust, noone would invest the money to get it going.

I agree about the fixes, but I do think that an open PvP world will eventually work.

I like the idea with the equiptment. Where anyone can wield anything, it is just how good your skills/ levels are within the game which can decide how experienced or proficient you are with that equiptment.

Otherwise, nice ideas of how to fix the problems.

swg had tv adds ans still failed to get a wow ppl share.  pople want it simple and ease thats why wow is the god of mmo. a pvp the players will have to work hard to stay alive, and team up if need be. so the question is not weather a game comp will make a game to please the pvp or the pve players, what are you willing to do to fit unto the games we have now

Nice statements, sadly not a lot of ideas for resolution of the problems just a lot of more questions.

Could you elaborate on your solutions. How would you go about doing what you want to do?

Removing level based resistances is a good start, however what do I get for being higher level than someone? other than skills? What does that mean for when I fight 2:1 of people half my level?

I am interested to hear more about your solutions in greater detail.
 

@t0nyd -

In your mind, at what point does a game become sucessful to consider it when comparing to other MMOs of the future? At what population number?

You mentioned two MMOs that you feel were sucessful. EQ and WoW. WoW was a well planned and well played "fluke". They weren't the best, there content was polished, they served to the masses, had a bit of everything and had the "hook" to get players to feel the need (not want) to come back. But, the reason why WoW succeeded was timing. For the same reason why people today use Windows over Macintosh is the same reason why most people are playing WoW and continue to play WoW. Blizzard released the WoW forumula first.

As for EQ - I really hope you were joking. For the American MMO's yeah .. it was a success, but it was a joke compared to Lineage and Lineage 2 for international success. To be honest, American's are the minority when compared to the rest of the MMO population. A large minority, but still by far not the larget. That is where all the money is today and why Blizzard was so sucessful with the Asian launch.

So, going back to the original point at what point does an MMO need to be at for you to consider successful? Eve Online has approx. 250k subscribers and currently holds the world record for the most number of users logged into the same server within an MMO.

What about Runescape? It has well over 1 million active players and is arguably the second largest MMO in current times followed by a neck to neck race of both Lineage and Lineage 2 with over 1 million subscribers.

I do like some of your ideas that you spoke about in the blog, but dismissing other MMOs because of your opinions show that you have no idea how many subscribers still subscribe to some of the old games. Once again, don't think of just the American market - think world wide, because this is exactly how any successful MMO company thinks today.

Correct this blog has nothing to do with open pvp and very little to do with anything credible. It's a call for attention across the void.

The 'facts' and opinions being used and thrown about in the manner they are shows that the writer (hesitant to use author) is willing to go to any lengths to prove a point.

Elements of DAoC were introduced into WAR. Where games came from is an important basis on where they're headed. And any idiot knows that the reason WoW has so many subscribers is due to it's intervention into the Chinese market. A market that did NOT even exist 4 years ago in a manner that could be tapped by a western company.

Let's also take into account in regards to the entire population thing. Mythic has banned over 12k gold farming accounts in 4 weeks on their limited number of servers. I know of gold accounts STILL active on my old WoW server after 3 years...How many accounts in WoW are farming accounts. Especially since gold is so important to the entire raiding and consumeables (interesting word that you think that'd prompt a look into the why people play...) facet of WoW.

Do me a favour, next time you try and write a piece to provoke people do so in an intelligent manner that doesn't leave you coming off as a bit of a clown due to using facts that are completely irelevant to the piece at hand...

I agree, as the title states that "open world PvP will always fail".

Defend this argument if you believe it. Even though there have been a number of good examples shown already as to why that statement cannot be considered true.

i pray DarkFall succeeds and ends the waiting of a HardCore PvP game. Nuff

i pray DarkFall succeeds and ends the waiting of a HardCore PvP game. Nuff Said.

Splixx kind of hit on one of the points I was trying to make. With regards to subs of yesterdays mmo compaired to todays. (I.E. "a couple hundred thousand subscribers probably encompassed all the gamers out there." today, that might have compaired to 10 mill subs or less =P)

your blog is fail for one reason and that is because you have not looked at the indy games where open world PVP works

There are games out there that do work well with open PVP, yes there are plenty of gimped mmo's where players of  lvl 60 armed with Legendary Weapons and Armor of the Dark Gods of Anarcism who can just waltz right to the outskirts of town, plump their fat ass' down and summon a lvl 1 Squirrel of Horrible Breath and send it on its way to to lure players, after that they would simply buff it to shit and back again with a tail of boney Horrors which would 1 hit kill the new players..

My sarcasm sucks today as you can see :P

Really, most games with open PVP have issues but they can be countered easily, instead of LOCK TARGET and INSTA HIT SPELLS! simply turn it back to the old days where we had to AIM!!!! when aim comes into play it turns the game right into a skill based system, instead of the usual point click.. ahhaaha i win because i have a bigger club than you! it will actually incorporate more into the games thus making the open PVP issues slightly easier to prevent mass murder from a man in a bunny outfit. 

Faction vs Faction IMO is a  far better way to go.

Well i can tell you why I don't like open PvP, because its very nature makes it a requirement. I like PvP, I really do, but I detest just about anything that is 'thrust' upon me. Think about it, what if you were having the PK'ing spree of your life but was stopped dead in your tracks by an NPC making you do a quest? thats what open PvP feels like when your doing PvE content. If I can get PK'd while doing PvE content in a MMO, its an immediate killer for me, no hesitation.

The 10 million reference to WOW subs should of been broke down.

65% Asians subscribers

35% US + the rest.

What the rest of the world plays doesn't apply to me as far as game success rate.

DAOC perfect example of why open world RVR works perfectly fine.  Now if your referring to dred servers then no because most people prefer having a known enemy vs no defined combat. WAR ORVR=Fail because they put things in place to distract from it not to mention that the Lakes were the most stupid implementation anybody could of thought up.

Why wasn't the perfect RVR model utilized in WAR DAOC RVR system? PKing and griefing are very important to the feel of PVP games. They never bothered me at all when rogues used to camp in a dungeon and kill me after we lost control. Just part of the game.

"Open World PvP will always fail, and here's why."

It's kind of hard to take you seriously when there are so many games out there that have open world pvp and are succeeding.

It's kind of like me posting.
"Obama won't be elected as president, here's why."

Kinda strange timing ya know...

I think that there is alot more than just open PvP that players want, to believe that the end all is PvP is rediculous.  I like some of your arguments and ideas sir, but it is not a new or revolutionary idea by any means.

30% Level, 20% Gear, 50% Intellegence for your average fantasy MMO.

My ideal zombie MMO will be as such: 10% level, 10% Gear (excluding guns), 80% Intellegence.

Open World PvP can survive in a simple way: Create a gaming system in which that type of PvP yields the greatest return on time invested. Too many companies, most recently Mythic, underestimated how willing people are to min-max their way to an endgame.