Originally posted by Squal'Zell

Originally posted by BlackUhuru

Originally posted by Quicksand

 

 

 

THATS WHAT IM TALKINMG ABOUT!!!!!!

DF IS BROKEN!!!! I love PvP i love FFA Full LOOT but DF LACKS EVERYTHING ELSE and thats why I DONT PLAY IT and im sure many more too...

PVE wont make it better, Adding territory control sieging, bases or improving their half arsed system is what will bring people in

who cares about full loot by the time you are lvl 2 you will have 12 sets of the armor you just lost...

ist not world of warcraft raiding AH economy, we are talking about  player run economy here....(another thing DF should improve on to make me play it)

You're wasting your time, they dont get it. You know it's bad when someone is put off by losing items they can replace in 5 minutes, but they don't mind the fact the actual content is shockingly limited and the systems in place to keep you interested at a higher skill level are missing or broken.

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

FFA PvP is a turn off to most gamers today.  We have to face the music.  They knew it, we knew it too.  There's no pride if game is gonna tank.

I don't agree with what you've posted on ArcheAge forums:

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4467262

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

This will be the better version of DF.  Won't last long, though. 

ArcheAge is exactly what PvE oriented sandbox players can get, without breaking whole sandbox idea.

Safe areas, harsh punishments for PKs, items not wearing out completely, no death penalty, no full loot - you can't make it any more safe, and still keep basic sandbox principle, that players shape the world and gameplay.

---

Originally posted by Azdul

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII
FFA PvP is a turn off to most gamers today.  We have to face the music.  They knew it, we knew it too.  There's no pride if game is gonna tank.

I don't agree with what you've posted on ArcheAge forums:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4467262

Originally posted by PhillipVIII
This will be the better version of DF.  Won't last long, though. 

---

ArcheAge is exactly what PvE oriented sandbox players can get, without breaking whole sandbox idea.
Safe areas, harsh punishments for PKs, items not wearing out completely, no death penalty, no full loot - you can't make it any more safe, and still keep basic sandbox principle, that players shape the world and gameplay.

---

Originally posted by Azdul

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

FFA PvP is a turn off to most gamers today.  We have to face the music.  They knew it, we knew it too.  There's no pride if game is gonna tank.

I don't agree with what you've posted on ArcheAge forums:

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4467262

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

This will be the better version of DF.  Won't last long, though. 

ArcheAge is exactly what PvE oriented sandbox players can get, without breaking whole sandbox idea.

Safe areas, harsh punishments for PKs, items not wearing out completely, no death penalty, no full loot - you can't make it any more safe, and still keep basic sandbox principle, that players shape the world and gameplay.

Why is it more "sandboxy"  to install a special artificial penalty for a PK instead of let player driven mechanics handle the issues.

Artificial safe areas and special harsh penalties just hinder  free PvP interaction.  Instead offer the tools for players to "solve"  the PK  issue on thier own. (RvR content, player controledareas etc.)

Originally posted by lizardbones


FFA PvP is not a core sandbox mechanic. It's totally unnecessary. You can have a sandbox with 0 PvP. If you have an NPC faction that destroys items on a regular basis, or an environmental hazard that destroys items on a regular basis, then you've bypassed the 'need' for FFA PvP in the game.

You can't be a villian when everyone is fighting against "environment". And without villians you can't have true heroes.

That's why NPC faction as the only "enemy" is something that goes against sandbox principles.

Conflict drives the formation of social bonds and thus of communities. It is an engine that brings players closer together. (http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/laws.shtml)

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Azdul

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

---

ArcheAge is exactly what PvE oriented sandbox players can get, without breaking whole sandbox idea.
Safe areas, harsh punishments for PKs, items not wearing out completely, no death penalty, no full loot - you can't make it any more safe, and still keep basic sandbox principle, that players shape the world and gameplay.

---

FFA PvP is not a core sandbox mechanic. It's totally unnecessary. You can have a sandbox with 0 PvP. If you have an NPC faction that destroys items on a regular basis, or an environmental hazard that destroys items on a regular basis, then you've bypassed the 'need' for FFA PvP in the game.

 

Not sure if serious...

Without FFA you greatly reduce player options in terms of meta roles within the sandbox and you greatly reduce sociopolitical conflict and intrigue.

And you seriously want to have NPCS destroy gear on a regular basis just to stop players once in a while getting killed? Sums it up really, people don't mind losing shit, their egos just get butt hurt when they know another player did it. Amusing really.

You can have a sandbox without ffa pvp, but then it would lack the depth and potential a sandbox with ffa pvp has. The vast majority of those dev teams that have made and are making sandboxes have implemented ffa pvp in one shape or form in them, there is a reason for that and oddly enough it is not to "upset the carebears".

---

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
 

---

Originally posted by Azdul

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

---

ArcheAge is exactly what PvE oriented sandbox players can get, without breaking whole sandbox idea.
Safe areas, harsh punishments for PKs, items not wearing out completely, no death penalty, no full loot - you can't make it any more safe, and still keep basic sandbox principle, that players shape the world and gameplay.

---

FFA PvP is not a core sandbox mechanic. It's totally unnecessary. You can have a sandbox with 0 PvP. If you have an NPC faction that destroys items on a regular basis, or an environmental hazard that destroys items on a regular basis, then you've bypassed the 'need' for FFA PvP in the game.

 

---

Not sure if serious...
 
Without FFA you greatly reduce player options in terms of meta roles within the sandbox and you greatly reduce sociopolitical conflict and intrigue.
 
And you seriously want to have NPCS destroy gear on a regular basis just to stop players once in a while getting killed? Sums it up really, people don't mind losing shit, their egos just get butt hurt when they know another player did it. Amusing really.
 
You can have a sandbox without ffa pvp, but then it would lack the depth and potential a sandbox with ffa pvp has. The vast majority of those dev teams that have made and are making sandboxes have implemented ffa pvp in one shape or form in them, there is a reason for that and oddly enough it is not to "upset the carebears".

---

Originally posted by Azdul

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

FFA PvP is a turn off to most gamers today.  We have to face the music.  They knew it, we knew it too.  There's no pride if game is gonna tank.

I don't agree with what you've posted on ArcheAge forums:

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4467262

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

This will be the better version of DF.  Won't last long, though. 

ArcheAge is exactly what PvE oriented sandbox players can get, without breaking whole sandbox idea.

Safe areas, harsh punishments for PKs, items not wearing out completely, no death penalty, no full loot - you can't make it any more safe, and still keep basic sandbox principle, that players shape the world and gameplay.

I agree with all you just wrote.  We have to be realistic however. A game is as good and healthy as the company which made it.   The MMO market isn't the same anymore.  Most don't come with a pair.  Any game that's got harcore PvP attached just don't do as well - and if so, briefly.  Something else comes along and that's that.  It doesn't help either when the masses of general PvP crowd, idiots noobs starts quacking.  There's not enough of chivalry, true and old.

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

---

Originally posted by Azdul

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII
FFA PvP is a turn off to most gamers today.  We have to face the music.  They knew it, we knew it too.  There's no pride if game is gonna tank.

I don't agree with what you've posted on ArcheAge forums:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4467262

Originally posted by PhillipVIII
This will be the better version of DF.  Won't last long, though. 

---

ArcheAge is exactly what PvE oriented sandbox players can get, without breaking whole sandbox idea.
Safe areas, harsh punishments for PKs, items not wearing out completely, no death penalty, no full loot - you can't make it any more safe, and still keep basic sandbox principle, that players shape the world and gameplay.

---

 
I agree with all you just wrote.  We have to be realistic however. A game is as good and healthy as the company which made it.   The MMO market isn't the same anymore.  Most don't come with a pair.  Any game that's got harcore PvP attached just don't do as well - and if so, briefly.  Something else comes along and that's that.  It doesn't help either when the masses of general PvP crowd, idiots noobs starts quacking.  There's not enough of chivalry, true and old.
 

---

Unfortionately PVE servers will do nothing because just about everyone who played or has played DFO hates AV by now. The truth is AV doesn't deserve anyones $15 a month and I hate to think that people are actually still subbed paying for the trash. We pay a MMO company monthly so they can continue to add content and fix problems with the game we're subscribed to...why people stick around and pay even though AV does foch all boggles my mind lol.

The truth is no matter what AV does at this point the game itself will always leave a bad taste in everyones mouth. Not only because of AVs treatment of its player-base but also because of all the hate around the forums about the company. Simply put AV doesn't deserve anyones $15 a month. Even if the game is the only ffa loot pvp MMO worth playing...cancel your foch'n subs already so AV gets the point :-/

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
 

---

Originally posted by Azdul

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

---

---

 

---

Not sure if serious...
 
Without FFA you greatly reduce player options in terms of meta roles within the sandbox and you greatly reduce sociopolitical conflict and intrigue.
 
And you seriously want to have NPCS destroy gear on a regular basis just to stop players once in a while getting killed? Sums it up really, people don't mind losing shit, their egos just get butt hurt when they know another player did it. Amusing really.
 
You can have a sandbox without ffa pvp, but then it would lack the depth and potential a sandbox with ffa pvp has. The vast majority of those dev teams that have made and are making sandboxes have implemented ffa pvp in one shape or form in them, there is a reason for that and oddly enough it is not to "upset the carebears".

---

No, I'm serious. You don't have to have FFA PvP for a sandbox to function and you don't need it for a sandbox to have depth. You can have faction based PvP (with more than 2 factions), npc factions and environmental things to break down items and consume resources so they have to be replenished.

FFA PvP doesn't create depth. The entire rest of the game creates depth. Darkfall has FFA PvP, but no depth. Ditto for Mortal Online. Depth is created by the game as a whole.

A Tale in the Desert has zero combat and functions as a sandbox just fine. They've been running for years and people keep signing up to play. Second Life is truly a sandbox and it's still running (though it's getting old) and it has no combat PvP at all.

FFA PvP is not a core sandbox mechanic.

 

As I said, you can have a sandbox without ffa but that DOES greatly reduce the potential depth. Factional pvp is great but it prevents you from inner factional warfare and hence reduces the potentail depth. You cannot seriously be telling me that removing ffa pvp does not remove the potential depth of the game.

So yeah you can have a sandbox without ffa pvp, it just will not have the potential for depth a ffa pvp sandbox has. Seriously how can people not see that a more free and open mechanic which is player driven, offers more scope than aribtrary rules?

As for DF, FFA is a depth adding component and not the only depth generator, hence your citation of DF is a bit redundant.

FFA does add depth, it just can't do it on its own.

PvE servers won't help DF as much as fixing the real problems would   It's like putting a bandaid on a gaping, festering, diseased wound.  You litereally need to cut the limb off to save it. 

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

---

Originally posted by Azdul

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII
FFA PvP is a turn off to most gamers today.  We have to face the music.  They knew it, we knew it too.  There's no pride if game is gonna tank.

I don't agree with what you've posted on ArcheAge forums:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4467262

Originally posted by PhillipVIII
This will be the better version of DF.  Won't last long, though. 

---

ArcheAge is exactly what PvE oriented sandbox players can get, without breaking whole sandbox idea.
Safe areas, harsh punishments for PKs, items not wearing out completely, no death penalty, no full loot - you can't make it any more safe, and still keep basic sandbox principle, that players shape the world and gameplay.

---

 
I agree with all you just wrote.  We have to be realistic however. A game is as good and healthy as the company which made it.   The MMO market isn't the same anymore.  Most don't come with a pair.  Any game that's got harcore PvP attached just don't do as well - and if so, briefly.  Something else comes along and that's that.  It doesn't help either when the masses of general PvP crowd, idiots noobs starts quacking.  There's not enough of chivalry, true and old.
 

---

ArcheAge doesn't sound like a hardcore PvP game at all. It sounds like they've tried to pick out the best options for a wide variety of players. My wife can't even play Portal 2 because of the stress of where to put the portals and you might die if you do it wrong. She might be able to play ArcheAge as a farmer. I could go running amok in city sieges and the like. That's what it sounds like anyway.

 

i totally sympathize with your wife, but i quit following ArcheAge b/c if you are on a server that does city sieges, most likely your on a server where they can burn your wife's farm down.

do some more checking, that may have changed since i last looked at the game info some time ago.

---

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
 

---

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
 

---

Originally posted by Azdul

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

---

---

 

---

Not sure if serious...
 
Without FFA you greatly reduce player options in terms of meta roles within the sandbox and you greatly reduce sociopolitical conflict and intrigue.
 
And you seriously want to have NPCS destroy gear on a regular basis just to stop players once in a while getting killed? Sums it up really, people don't mind losing shit, their egos just get butt hurt when they know another player did it. Amusing really.
 
You can have a sandbox without ffa pvp, but then it would lack the depth and potential a sandbox with ffa pvp has. The vast majority of those dev teams that have made and are making sandboxes have implemented ffa pvp in one shape or form in them, there is a reason for that and oddly enough it is not to "upset the carebears".

---

No, I'm serious. You don't have to have FFA PvP for a sandbox to function and you don't need it for a sandbox to have depth. You can have faction based PvP (with more than 2 factions), npc factions and environmental things to break down items and consume resources so they have to be replenished.

FFA PvP doesn't create depth. The entire rest of the game creates depth. Darkfall has FFA PvP, but no depth. Ditto for Mortal Online. Depth is created by the game as a whole.

A Tale in the Desert has zero combat and functions as a sandbox just fine. They've been running for years and people keep signing up to play. Second Life is truly a sandbox and it's still running (though it's getting old) and it has no combat PvP at all.

FFA PvP is not a core sandbox mechanic.

 

---

As I said, you can have a sandbox without ffa but that DOES greatly reduce the potential depth. Factional pvp is great but it prevents you from inner factional warfare and hence reduces the potentail depth. You cannot seriously be telling me that removing ffa pvp does not remove the potential depth of the game.
 
So yeah you can have a sandbox without ffa pvp, it just will not have the potential for depth a ffa pvp sandbox has. Seriously how can people not see that a more free and open mechanic which is player driven, offers more scope than aribtrary rules?
 
As for DF, FFA is a depth adding component and not the only depth generator, hence your citation of DF is a bit redundant.
 
FFA does add depth, it just can't do it on its own.
 

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
 

---

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
 

---

Originally posted by Azdul

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

---

---

 

---

---

 

---

 

---

I am seriously, without trying to be sarcastic or argumentative, telling you that you do not need FFA PvP to have a deep, interesting sandbox. You need some form of player interaction and PvP, whether it's combat or economic warfare, but it does not need to be FFA PvP.

 

You can have one, it just would not have the potential to be as deep as one with ffa pvp. So seems pretty pointless when all said and done when you can work npc police and safer zones into ffa games like EVE has.

Said without a hint of sarcasm or argumentative tone.

---

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
 

---

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
 

---

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
 

---

Originally posted by Azdul

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

---

---

 

---

---

 

---

 

---

I am seriously, without trying to be sarcastic or argumentative, telling you that you do not need FFA PvP to have a deep, interesting sandbox. You need some form of player interaction and PvP, whether it's combat or economic warfare, but it does not need to be FFA PvP.

 

---

You can have one, it just would not have the potential to be as deep as one with ffa pvp. So seems pretty pointless when all said and done when you can work npc police and safer zones into ffa games like EVE has.
 
Said without a hint of sarcasm or argumentative tone.

---

Originally posted by Lukooone

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Lukooone

To the OP and the people who thinks this game will work fine in a PvE-Server: What are we supposed to tell these guys when the new PvE server comes in and every sheep is protected by a invisible armor of rulesets?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDSo_wh-fMc&fmt=22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPQwfKzV4-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMR4PyqnMHw&fmt=22

 

 

Maybe they should have declared a guild war, like Zylaxx suggested?

I mean, if you really really need to go PK miners, bakers and herb gatherers that weren't geared for and likewise weren't looking for combat, then there's always a way to code that in or allow for it. Hell, in EVE, some players make killing in the "safe" zone an art form.

 

There are plenty of ways tor PVPers to engage in world-affecting wars without having to slaughter the PvE crowd in the process.

 

 

Rofl you didnt see the videos, right? They are alliance wars with some neutral people helping one side or another and hired mercenaries to defend cities!

 

You guys have no idea of what you are talking about... I doubt you ever played Darkfall outside your NPC capital/town, thats the problem, you played it but never saw the real game...

So flag aggressors and those that aid? I mean, if they are making the same mistakes that were made a decade or so ago, that doesn't mean the concept is flawed, just that the developers haven't learned from history. Your lack of familiarity with the subject doesn't constitute lack of knowledge on our part.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII

---

Originally posted by Azdul

---

Originally posted by PhillipVIII
FFA PvP is a turn off to most gamers today.  We have to face the music.  They knew it, we knew it too.  There's no pride if game is gonna tank.

I don't agree with what you've posted on ArcheAge forums:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4467262

Originally posted by PhillipVIII
This will be the better version of DF.  Won't last long, though. 

---

ArcheAge is exactly what PvE oriented sandbox players can get, without breaking whole sandbox idea.
Safe areas, harsh punishments for PKs, items not wearing out completely, no death penalty, no full loot - you can't make it any more safe, and still keep basic sandbox principle, that players shape the world and gameplay.

---

 
I agree with all you just wrote.  We have to be realistic however. A game is as good and healthy as the company which made it.   The MMO market isn't the same anymore.  Most don't come with a pair.  Any game that's got harcore PvP attached just don't do as well - and if so, briefly.  Something else comes along and that's that.  It doesn't help either when the masses of general PvP crowd, idiots noobs starts quacking.  There's not enough of chivalry, true and old.
 

---

ArcheAge doesn't sound like a hardcore PvP game at all. It sounds like they've tried to pick out the best options for a wide variety of players. My wife can't even play Portal 2 because of the stress of where to put the portals and you might die if you do it wrong. She might be able to play ArcheAge as a farmer. I could go running amok in city sieges and the like. That's what it sounds like anyway.

 

Last I checked it may have some harcore content.  Seiges and so forth.  Excites the crap out of me I tell you.  Sadly people may not embrace such.

This game doesn't need pve servers, pve is boring as shit in this game. What it does need is less grind, better performance(seriously, no multicore support? Just sad),  and a new gui.

And I didn't include "more sand", because the only sand this game will ever have, is what it already has: pvp. The devs clearly don't care about other playstyles. Which is fine, but if your going to sell a pvp game, it shouldn't revovle around pve grinding.

Originally posted by jadedlevir

This game doesn't need pve servers, pve is boring as shit in this game. What it does need is less grind, better performance(seriously, no multicore support? Just sad),  and a new gui.

And I didn't include "more sand", because the only sand this game will ever have, is what it already has: pvp. The devs clearly don't care about other playstyles. Which is fine, but if your going to sell a pvp game, it shouldn't revovle around pve grinding.

yes!

if you are going to sell a pvp game, make damn sure its elements are complete and funcioning well. and not just pewpewpew and thats it. 

one must pvp for a reason not just for the sake of killing eachother

that is the main problem

pve has nothing to do with it.