Perhaps it's time people came to accept that some playstyles are incompatible with others in the same game, or at least in the same game area. If you're looking for open-world FFA PvP, maybe don't sign up to a quest-based PvE-centric game. If you just want to smoosh sprites in peace, maybe don't try and play an open world sandbox based on full-loot PvP and player interaction. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment. Why do people do this? Is being disappointed and raging at the people who've let you down by producing a game that you never wanted to play in the first place more fun that just playing a game that suits you?

One game doesn't need to cater for all playstyle preferences, and I've never seen a convincing argument as to why it should other than the unsupported assertion "but it would make a lot of money!!!". As if the amount of money a game makes for a publisher is a reliable guide to how good it is to play.

It is OK to tell someone "look I'm sorry, this just isn't the right game for you". People who say this often get accused of being arrogant "elitists", but the infinitely greater arrogance is that of someone who joins an existing MMO full of people who enjoy what it offers, and then demands that it be radically changed to suit them - and be dambed to the people who already play it!

American football can never be made a suitable game for hemophiliacs.

Golf is never going to be fun for adrenaline junkies.

Just accept it.

Originally posted by Malcanis

Why do people do this?

I don't know about others, but for me, with Aion, the experience at level 30 was completely unexpected. I could not believe that in this day and age they'd release an MMO to the NA/EU audience (NA, specifically) where at level 30 gameplay in an MMO with massive level disparity shifted to open PVP in the leveling area. The Abyss (or whatever the PVP-focused zone was called) was a great experience, but it really caught me offguard that they expected a zone with capped 60's stomping on leveling 30's to be remotely palatable to a western audience.

Sometimes the expectation of what the game will be is reasonably misaligned with what the game actually is.

Originally posted by Malcanis

Perhaps it's time people came to accept that some playstyles are incompatible with others in the same game, or at least in the same game area. If you're looking for open-world FFA PvP, maybe don't sign up to a quest-based PvE-centric game. If you just want to smoosh sprites in peace, maybe don't try and play an open world sandbox based on full-loot PvP and player interaction. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment. Why do people do this? Is being disappointed and raging at the people who've let you down by producing a game that you never wanted to play in the first place more fun that just playing a game that suits you?

One game doesn't need to cater for all playstyle preferences, and I've never seen a convincing argument as to why it should other than the unsupported assertion "but it would make a lot of money!!!". As if the amount of money a game makes for a publisher is a reliable guide to how good it is to play.

It is OK to tell someone "look I'm sorry, this just isn't the right game for you". People who say this often get accused of being arrogant "elitists", but the infinitely greater arrogance is that of someone who joins an existing MMO full of people who enjoy what it offers, and then demands that it be radically changed to suit them - and be dambed to the people who already play it!

American football can never be made a suitable game for hemophiliacs.

Golf is never going to be fun for adrenaline junkies.

Just accept it.

I don't think you got my topic.

I wasn't asking for complete genre changes, I aint asking for this genre to die to get back at it roots.

Also I don't aks for things in games not ment for it. Al I am asking is for something that already has been done but could use allot of improvements in perhaps a future developed MMORPG. I don't want every MMO or MMORPG to be like that. That's the thing that needs to be accepted. But do understand certain concerns due to the behaviour of some people who as you said try and want things that either would take a complete rewrite of code or piss off the current playing population.

Highlighted red what actually got me fall in "gamers" love with MMORPG's as it started with having everything for all sorts of playstyle's. It went beyond that what we already play in other genre's.  Yet it seems accepted that this genre is geared more towards either one or two type's of playstyle being similar to what we already know from other genre's.

Whhy do you settle for so much less? Because you doný know anything different? Or perphas as some dwell on only the negative parts of such a system instead of thinking of way's to actually make it work?

Originally posted by Reklaw   

Highlighted red what actually got me fall in "gamers" love with MMORPG's as it started with having everything for all sorts of playstyle's. It went beyond that what we already play in other genre's.  Yet it seems accepted that this genre is geared more towards either one or two type's of playstyle being similar to what we already know from other genre's.

Whhy do you settle for so much less? Because you doný know anything different? Or perphas as some dwell on only the negative parts of such a system instead of thinking of way's to actually make it work?

It's not a matter of settling for less. You seem to reject the premise that what you are asking for 1) didn't really work in the past and 2) reduces the effectiveness or playability of one or both types of content.  What you propose simply doesn't make sense, however I don't think you're going to believe that until you actually build it yourself and see the problems that present themselves once you add in the factors that make the PvE and open world PVP gameplay meaningful.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

how about both? Just separate the two, and you can have both. I don't understand the need to force both pve & pvp into the same gameplay style.

If i look at all the games i consider fun or successful (LOL, WOT, D3, WOW, STO, PS2....), they are separate.

The thread is about "optional open world PvP". You cannot keep them separate. And LoL, WoT and PS2 are strictly PvP games. Nothing separate in them.

But that is the point. I am questioning the wisdom of having "optional open world pvp". Why isn't it better just to keep them separate? If you look at the market and successful games, almost all (except may be Eve, but it is no where close to the success of some of these other games) have them separate.

All open world with sandbox elements and non toon games are FFA PVP, why dose that has to be the case?

If PVPers so love to have their own OWFFA PVP? then give them whole separate PVP server, and at the same time have another server for PVE with optional PVP by flaging/1vs1/arena.....

No one would ever complain about balance between those two.

DFUW is basicaly PVE, it has AI, open world, crafting with modern graphics, the only difference is it has permanent pvp flagg, there little to be done to make two independed servers, one for pve and the other for pvp, two independed servers will have an option to earn a lot more $$$$ for the developer wich will pay off for both servers.

All games can do this, and both PVP and PVE community will/can co-exist next to each other, and time will balance them both.

Originally posted by znaiika

 

If PVPers so love to have their own OWFFA PVP? then give them whole separate PVP server, and at the same time have another server for PVE with optional PVP by flaging/1vs1/arena.....

No one would ever complain about balance between those two.

 

Many games, like WOW, are already doing this. So no one should complain because open pvp servers exist today.

Originally posted by Malcanis

Perhaps it's time people came to accept that some playstyles are incompatible with others in the same game, or at least in the same game area. If you're looking for open-world FFA PvP, maybe don't sign up to a quest-based PvE-centric game. If you just want to smoosh sprites in peace, maybe don't try and play an open world sandbox based on full-loot PvP and player interaction. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment. Why do people do this? Is being disappointed and raging at the people who've let you down by producing a game that you never wanted to play in the first place more fun that just playing a game that suits you?

One game doesn't need to cater for all playstyle preferences, and I've never seen a convincing argument as to why it should other than the unsupported assertion "but it would make a lot of money!!!". As if the amount of money a game makes for a publisher is a reliable guide to how good it is to play.

It is OK to tell someone "look I'm sorry, this just isn't the right game for you". People who say this often get accused of being arrogant "elitists", but the infinitely greater arrogance is that of someone who joins an existing MMO full of people who enjoy what it offers, and then demands that it be radically changed to suit them - and be dambed to the people who already play it!

American football can never be made a suitable game for hemophiliacs.

Golf is never going to be fun for adrenaline junkies.

Just accept it.

We should sing this from the roof tops!

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

But that is the point. I am questioning the wisdom of having "optional open world pvp". Why isn't it better just to keep them separate? If you look at the market and successful games, almost all (except may be Eve, but it is no where close to the success of some of these other games) have them separate.

There's a niche market for open world PvP and if you want to grab that niche, you have to make it work. I don't like open world PvP any more than you do, because I don't think it works very well. I offered suggestions to improve it.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

But that is the point. I am questioning the wisdom of having "optional open world pvp". Why isn't it better just to keep them separate? If you look at the market and successful games, almost all (except may be Eve, but it is no where close to the success of some of these other games) have them separate.

There's a niche market for open world PvP and if you want to grab that niche, you have to make it work. I don't like open world PvP any more than you do, because I don't think it works very well. I offered suggestions to improve it.

Ok .. that is fair. Personally i doubt if it will ever work very well, or if there is enough of an audience for it. If players want this, some devs would already have provided it.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

But that is the point. I am questioning the wisdom of having "optional open world pvp". Why isn't it better just to keep them separate? If you look at the market and successful games, almost all (except may be Eve, but it is no where close to the success of some of these other games) have them separate.

There's a niche market for open world PvP and if you want to grab that niche, you have to make it work. I don't like open world PvP any more than you do, because I don't think it works very well. I offered suggestions to improve it.

There is a major difference between "optional open world PvP" and just "open world PvP".  "Optional" implies that it will not have a serious impact on players who choose to ignore it.  WoW has "optional world PvP" on its PvE servers and as a non-PvP player I really would not want for it to have a bigger impact on my gameplay than it already has. 

I have a hard time imagining how to make open world PvP work better without eliminating the "optional" part of.