| 278 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
8/30/09 12:16:08 PM#161
Originally posted by aesperus
Aye, I so hope that players in the MMO community will learn to appreciate games for what they ARE sometime in the near future. This will be the (what?)th time that people have asked for a game to completely dissolve it's core designs because they don't like getting attacked. Here's a novel thought. If you don't like PvP, don't play PvP games. The question this thread askes is "Why do people keep asking for servers with no rifts". So the discussion goes on. My reasons for not playing Aion have nothing to do with the forced PVP in fact when i played Warhammer it was on a PVP server. The topic has turned from why people ask to why some think it would ruin the game to implement PVE servers. Many are coming up with some interesting reasons, like it would go against the lore of the game, which i find interesting but not altogether honest as i dont believe gankers care much about lore or storyline. I stand by my statement that PVE servers would hurt the PVP as the gankers would have fewer victims. From a profit standpoint for NCSOFT, PVE servers would be a good move and i would not be surprised to see them implemented in the future. |
|
|
8/30/09 12:18:38 PM#162
Originally posted by grandpagamer The question this thread askes is "Why do people keep asking for servers with no rifts". So the discussion goes on. My reasons for not playing Aion have nothing to do with the forced PVP in fact when i played Warhammer it was on a PVP server. The topic has turned from why people ask to why some think it would ruin the game to implement PVE servers. Many are coming up with some interesting reasons, like it would go against the lore of the game, which i find interesting but not altogether honest as i dont believe gankers care much about lore or storyline. I stand by my statement that PVE servers would hurt the PVP as the gankers would have fewer victims. From a profit standpoint for NCSOFT, PVE servers would be a good move and i would not be surprised to see them implemented in the future. As the slayer system stands in 1.5, ganking isn't much of an issue. |
|
|
stayontarget
 Guide
Joined: 10/04/08
Girlfriends come and go but Epic battles are Soulbound |
8/30/09 12:26:53 PM#163
The effect on rifting from the game going 1.0v to 1.1v is big. There are freaking guards everywhere in 1.2v. This alone makes rifting a little more of a challenge. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not IMO. It might cut down on the QQing but it also takes away some of the fun.
This may come as a shock to some people: "pvper's also have to pve and we get ganked just as much as pure pve'ers, maybe more so because they run towards the danger and not away from it" Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries... |
|
8/30/09 12:32:23 PM#164
Originally posted by aesperus
1) That's baseless. As you said, you don't have the numbers, and you're also making the assumption that the trend is the same for every MMO game. It's not. 2) This game is designed around PvP. That should've been evident. What happens when you take games that are designed around PvP, and take away the PvP (think DAoC, WAR, AoC, UO). Yes, it does break the game. The same way if you took a game designed around PvE, and took out the PvE for PvP would. As I stated earlier, the game has been out for a while now. Why should they completely dissolve their core design for you? What makes you so special? If all you want is a PvE game, there's WoW, LotRO, EQII, FFXI, etc. that you can play until TOR or FFXIV or GW2 comes out. Else, there's single player RPGs that are pretty damn good to play (if you just want something new). I know these games take a while to release, but that's no reason to demand that everytime a new one gets released it waters itself down for everyone. I don't see why a PvE server would affect your PvP server. You go play your pvp server while those pver play the PvE server. If you think this would cause a lack of players for the pvp server then it goes to show majority like pve. More players = more money = game can last ... simple equation. |
|
|
8/30/09 12:38:39 PM#165
Originally posted by stayontarget There is a difference between PVP and griefing but you know that. :) |
|
|
8/30/09 12:56:45 PM#166
If you dont like it... uh dont play? When I go to a hamburger joint, I dont try to convince the cook that he needs to make me Chinese food. If I wanted to Chinese food, I would of went to a Chinese restaurant. This game revolves around PvP, dont like it...fine, dont come here and cry about it. This upcoming star wars MMO from all appearances will have NO PVP. |
|
|
stayontarget
Guide
Joined: 10/04/08
Girlfriends come and go but Epic battles are Soulbound |
8/30/09 1:01:51 PM#167
Originally posted by grandpagamer There is a difference between PVP and griefing but you know that. :) See the problem is you look at all pvp as griefing. People that partake in some of the pvp aspects of the game do not QQ every time they get ganked. They understand what the game is all about and deal with it. Most players that only play games that are casual pve with consentual pvp thrown in have a hard time dealing with this concept of open faction pvp. You love to pve and embrace the lore but you fail to understand the true meaning of the lore when it comes to a FvF game, "they are the foe like any pve mob so treat it as such" if it's 3 vs 1 and you get owned, too bad because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time without any back up. It's a pvp game at it's core. Embrace or leave it. Your choice O.C. Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries... |
|
8/30/09 1:05:53 PM#168
Heres a shocker for you some people dont like pvp. Personally I love it, but alot dont that why Aion wont ever get over a million subs in the us. |
|
|
8/30/09 1:10:49 PM#169
Originally posted by logangregor Im not asking for anything. Im taking a pass on Aion due to sheer boredom with the game but thats another thread. This is a discussion board to discuss the whys and why nots of riftless servers and has become a "leave my gankfest alone and go play something else" thread. As i said, Aion could be a pure PVE game and i wouldnt like it any better but PVE servers would do nothing but help the population numbers. To the poster who stated my claims were invalid as i have not numbers to back them up, i invite him to log onto any game that offers both PVE and PVP servers and see which there are more of, still no sub numbers but server numbers should help him clarify my point. |
|
|
8/30/09 2:48:49 PM#170
Originally posted by Mrbluray
Because it ignores the storyline
That is complete BS. If you read the lore they have presented so far, there were no rifts for hundreds of years, until one opened to each realm and revealed each race to the other. With instabilities in the Aether, more rifts open from time to time. Nothing there that requires rifts to open with the frequency that they now do, or in the level 20-40 zones. Besides, it's their own I.P., they aren't bound by some third party I.P. The story doesn't "force them" to have rifts the way they are set up. The Story wouldn't preclude limiting rifts to the 30-50 zones, or having them open once a week, once a month or even have the opening frequency based on the balance of power in the Abyss. The reason so many people are really against PvE friendlier servers is because their ganking pleasure will depend on their servers being filled with a high proportion of PvE players who don't know how to PvP. Once you give those PvE players an alternate server type, the griefers and gankers have to play in a much more deadly environment, where they may be the ones near the bottom of the PvP totem pole. Typical bullies. Most of them wouldn't last a month if they were forced to play the default rule set on a server full of experienced PvP players. That's why they QQ so much against PvE servers. Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated |
|
|
8/30/09 2:54:05 PM#171
Originally posted by logangregor
That's pretty funny. Most "hamburger joints" also offer chicken, fish, salads, fruit and other alternatives. Wendy's even has oriental style boneless chicken wings! Why? Because they understand the value of offering options to those who might like their restaurant, but don't feel like a Hamburger. If you go into such a place for a hamburger, does it hurt you in anyway that other people have the option to order chicken, fish or some other alternative? Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated |
|
|
8/30/09 3:16:30 PM#172
Whats a rift? |
|
|
8/30/09 3:20:08 PM#173
gd caerbaerz quit ruinin' meh gaemz! |
|
|
stayontarget
Guide
Joined: 10/04/08
Girlfriends come and go but Epic battles are Soulbound |
8/30/09 3:22:34 PM#174
Asking is one thing, Getting what you ask for is another. It's not going to happen so why ask "over and over again". Sorry but if you want to enjoy some of the pve content in aion you are going to have to fight for it, Either alone or with a group. Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries... |
|
8/30/09 4:16:22 PM#175
A game was made one way. You want it another way. Im saying, dont play it if its not the game you want it to be. There are alot of mmos out there.
Typically someone either comes to help, you find another area to lvl, the ganker gets bored rather quickly or you just get away from them. Let me add again that you can lvl 1-50 without the rift.
|
|
|
8/30/09 6:25:41 PM#176
Originally posted by logangregor
By your reasoning, MMORPGs should never, ever patch a game after release. The game is designed the way it is designed, so why worry about balance, bug fixes or additional content? That all messes with the original design! Someone posted a method of leveling to 50 with out dealing with PvP at all. 1-20 is easy, you are safe to level there. There is a rift free zone that has a small area devoted to supplemental content for levels 20-25. The quests there won't earn you more than a level or two combined, the rest will have to be grind, grind, grind. Maybe you can grind there until 26 ish, if your sanity holds up. What was the suggestion for leveling from 26-45? Grind instances, over and over and over and over and over again. Then you get some quests for 45-50 in a rift free zone. Once again, you won't get more than a level or two from the quests, the rest would be grind, grind, grind. Does that sound like a viable and enjoyable leveling route to you? One that will keep people playing the game who don't enjoy being ganked and griefed left and right? I'll say it, yet again: PvE friendly servers would be very easy to implement. They would still have full PvP in the Abyss. Having these servers would have zero impact on people who like the current system, except for the likelihood that competition would be more hardcore for them on the PvP servers than otherwise. NCSoft would greatly broaden the appeal of this game and greatly increase the retention numbers, just by offering this option. We are talking about maybe an additional $50 million during the first year. BTW, GM response to this issue has confirmed that they will not have separate servers at launch and have no plans to add them. It was also stated that they plan to maintain the same code for all regions, with no game play alterations for an individual region. "One size fits all". However, it was also stated that they are aware of the negative impact that rampant griefing will have on the Western Market in particular and that in addition to the 1.5 Slayer System other changes are likely! So, those PvP players who have been too short sighted or too intolerant to support PvE friendly servers have pretty much guaranteed that the entire game will become more care bear as they integrate Western players into the fold. I'm sure then the shoe will be on the other foot, with the current anti-PvE server people begging and crying for there to be separate PvE servers, rather than bring more care bear rules into the core game. I enjoy PvP. I'll play the core rule set. That doesn't keep me from seeing the overwhelmingly powerful argument for PvE friendly servers and the benefits for the game, the community and NCSoft's profits! Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated |
|
|
8/30/09 6:50:05 PM#177
Originally posted by fiontar
That is complete BS. If you read the lore they have presented so far, there were no rifts for hundreds of years, until one opened to each realm and revealed each race to the other. With instabilities in the Aether, more rifts open from time to time. Nothing there that requires rifts to open with the frequency that they now do, or in the level 20-40 zones. Besides, it's their own I.P., they aren't bound by some third party I.P. The story doesn't "force them" to have rifts the way they are set up. The Story wouldn't preclude limiting rifts to the 30-50 zones, or having them open once a week, once a month or even have the opening frequency based on the balance of power in the Abyss. The reason so many people are really against PvE friendlier servers is because their ganking pleasure will depend on their servers being filled with a high proportion of PvE players who don't know how to PvP. Once you give those PvE players an alternate server type, the griefers and gankers have to play in a much more deadly environment, where they may be the ones near the bottom of the PvP totem pole. Typical bullies. Most of them wouldn't last a month if they were forced to play the default rule set on a server full of experienced PvP players. That's why they QQ so much against PvE servers. I'm not sure what you're trying to establish. Just because word 1 of the lore wasn't RIFTS doesn't mean that they aren't a part of the lore. The fact is, without rifts the races would never have met each other, so you might as well have an Elyos MMORPG and a separate Asmodian MMORPG that are purely PvE games by your logic. |
|
|
8/30/09 6:52:43 PM#178
Originally posted by grandpagamer Im not asking for anything. Im taking a pass on Aion due to sheer boredom with the game but thats another thread. This is a discussion board to discuss the whys and why nots of riftless servers and has become a "leave my gankfest alone and go play something else" thread. As i said, Aion could be a pure PVE game and i wouldnt like it any better but PVE servers would do nothing but help the population numbers. To the poster who stated my claims were invalid as i have not numbers to back them up, i invite him to log onto any game that offers both PVE and PVP servers and see which there are more of, still no sub numbers but server numbers should help him clarify my point.
I don't understand the point of PvE servers in the game. Would the Abyss just disappear from the PvP servers, or would you rather have it that the RvR zone didn't allow the players to come into contact with each other. The point is there are PvE zones without rifts for each tier of leveling so you could effectively stay out of zones with rifts for PvE if you wanted. A PvE server that is exactly the same as the PvP server minus having rifts? Too nitpicky imo. |
|
|
8/30/09 7:04:50 PM#179
Originally posted by TheStarheart
Disregarding all the other crap.
I'm going to try and give you this from a different point of view.
NCSoft stated the goal of Aion was to increase its Western player base. Or should I say create a game that would appeal to their standard player base and a wider western player base.
That is the goal of the game regardless of what any player feels.. they want to make more money. They have already had multiple "open pvp" games that did not sell well in the west.
Looking at the history of MMO's in the "west" what type have always had the largest player base? PvE or PvP...
The game is already set up with "The Abyss" which would be like the frontier system in DAoC.
So here is my question... If you want a wider western player base why are there rifts? Why are they wasting resources on penalty systems because of rifts? When those resources keep be put into fixes, content etc...?
If you've read the patch notes then you know they already have had to put in a penalty system due to rifts. This is exactly what we saw in Ultima Online before we ended up with Trammel. You don't do things like that unless you are losing customers and anyone who has played an open pvp game knows full well.... what goes on.
My first MMO was UO.. and I loved it.. I'm not against open pvp or full looting.
I am very convinced if your goal is "expanded" audience then you don't put in rifts. However, NCSoft makes the calls so whatever... we'll see how it works out for them.
I honestly do NOT think they will achieve their stated goal with rifts in the game.. not long term. The PvE/PvP server idea from the person I quoted is actually how it should have been.
ALL servers should have had the Abyss... PvP servers should have had rifts which would be like a "home realm invasion"... the one thing DAoC didn't have and for good reason.
From a player perspective its easy to support rifts if this is the type of game play you want to have. I am just saying from the perspective of their stated business goal... I don't see this flying in the west long term.. without massive penalty systems or changes... all of which are just wasted resources imho...
If you like open pvp that much and it sells that well.. then L2 should have been huge in the west.. it wasn't... |
|
|
8/30/09 7:07:58 PM#180
Originally posted by Antarious
Disregarding all the other crap.
I'm going to try and give you this from a different point of view.
NCSoft stated the goal of Aion was to increase its Western player base. Or should I say create a game that would appeal to their standard player base and a wider western player base.
That is the goal of the game regardless of what any player feels.. they want to make more money. They have already had multiple "open pvp" games that did not sell well in the west.
Looking at the history of MMO's in the "west" what type have always had the largest player base? PvE or PvP...
The game is already set up with "The Abyss" which would be like the frontier system in DAoC.
So here is my question... If you want a wider western player base why are there rifts? Why are they wasting resources on penalty systems because of rifts? When those resources keep be put into fixes, content etc...?
If you've read the patch notes then you know they already have had to put in a penalty system due to rifts. This is exactly what we saw in Ultima Online before we ended up with Trammel. You don't do things like that unless you are losing customers and anyone who has played an open pvp game knows full well.... what goes on.
My first MMO was UO.. and I loved it.. I'm not against open pvp or full looting.
I am very convinced if your goal is "expanded" audience then you don't put in rifts. However, NCSoft makes the calls so whatever... we'll see how it works out for them.
I honestly do NOT think they will achieve their stated goal with rifts in the game.. not long term. The PvE/PvP server idea from the person I quoted is actually how it should have been.
ALL servers should have had the Abyss... PvP servers should have had rifts which would be like a "home realm invasion"... the one thing DAoC didn't have and for good reason.
From a player perspective its easy to support rifts if this is the type of game play you want to have. I am just saying from the perspective of their stated business goal... I don't see this flying in the west long term.. without massive penalty systems or changes... all of which are just wasted resources imho...
If you like open pvp that much and it sells that well.. then L2 should have been huge in the west.. it wasn't... I understand the argument but I feel like this argument is made without realizing the 1.5 slayer system. |
|
