Trending Games | Pirate101 | World of Warcraft | Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn | EverQuest

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,899,735 Users Online:0
Games:751  Posts:6,268,443
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » Optional Open World PVP

7 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Search
132 posts found
  Reklaw

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/07/06
Posts: 6168

The adult I am takes care of most things real life. However my inner-child is a GAMER!!

 
OP  1/27/13 3:13:46 AM#41
Originally posted by kadepsyson
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I prefer the flag system, but one where you can't immediately turn it off.  Lets you pvp when you want and not pvp when you want.

Flag it on, cant' turn it off for an hour or a day or so to reduce the abuse.

Would suck to get surrounded by peopel who weren't flagged, while you are flagged, and just wait for them to be ready to instantly slaughter you once they flag themselves at once and stab you.

Then again, I do prefer a system of you risk more to earn more.  Rather than extremely artificial systems that don't fit within the setting of the game at all.

Well of course a player can not just flag or unflag themselfs on the fly, this should only be possible within your factions city or base. Which takes abit of time to get in or out such faction city or base. Sure the oppisite faction might be near your city's borders praying for the other faction to step out there safe zone, but since pvp in my game is a choice people will not complain about pvp because it's a choice for them.

It also in my believe creates a much better enviroment, just llook at the many pvp oriented MMO's and most of the time a new person doesn't really gets a change to get to know the game unless he/she is immediately guilded even though they like/love pvp.

As said it takes another way of thinking instead of that what has been trown at us under the name of PVP the last few years. If people enjoy current PVP let them enjoy it, I still feel the system I tried to explain in short will work and that there is room for such a system. And if you think such a system might get's abuse try another type of thinking in how we could prevent such abuse.

 

  Quirhid

Elite Member

Joined: 1/28/05
Posts: 5616

Correcting wrongs on the Internet...

1/27/13 11:39:32 AM#42
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Originally posted by Quirhid
With that system, I could turn my PvP flag on and log off to wait for the timer. When I log back in I can unflag myself at will.

No I wouldn't expect the flag to reset.  The system prevents people from pkng someone and then immediately unflagging to prevent retaliation. 

Should you decide to pvp you are fair game for a set amount of time after your flag and/or kill.  Anyone that wants to pvp can, if you don't want to pvp than don't flag, or be aware that you will be flagged for awhile even after your target is dead.

Like I said, you can log off for the duration of the timer that prevents you from unflagging yourself. Then you may log back in to unflag at will.

Unless you expect to add "aggression timers" aswell. Again, adding more and more rules to repair the old ones...

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  User Deleted
1/27/13 1:11:14 PM#43
Originally posted by dumpcat
SWG did it. It was the best system for open world PvP in my opinion.

TBH I thought it was absolutely shite for open world pvp and it would be even worse for a game which actually had any meaningful territory control or looting aspects. In fact I cannot overstate just how utterly piss poor that system was.

 

Being able to just turn your combat status to "off" when things don't look stacked in your favour is quite clearly ridiculous from an open world pvp point of view.

 

@OP, it would be far easier and far more effective to just make a sandbox with no open world pvp and no looting for those that want that kind of thing.

 

Fannying about and adding more and more rule layers is both against the point of an "open" game and tends to leave you with a big old mess which no one is pleased with.

 

  Robokapp

Elite Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4752

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

1/27/13 1:19:12 PM#44
Originally posted by Reklaw

Sorry but I just do not get it, why is it that hard to create a sandbox MMORPG with open world full loot PVP where the PVP is optional.

All PVP is optional.

 

it's just that sometimes the option is not yours.

 

That's how you keep a game 'pvp'. there's plenty of PvE games where this is not the case.

 

you're asking for Divine Protection against other enemies. Well how often do you suspect the weaker enemy will consent?

 

-------------------------

EVE

A few weks ago...a Stabber Fleet Issue is in a near system. (enemy). I hear about it and head in with my Omen Navy Edition. We see each other on a gate but there's rats so we warp off. I type in local : "1 v 1 ? ". He replies "ok". I type : "station". afraid of undocks, he warps to the customs office near-by. I start flying toards him, we lock each other, we fight, I die. He's injured and flees home.

 

Now...this was a puny 50mil ship. Were I in a 2 billion ship an an enemy would show up... I'd never accept.

 

So "worthwile" pvp would NEVER occur if there's a way to prevent the enemy from attacking you from your UI.

  tixylix

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/02/11
Posts: 1121

1/27/13 1:33:52 PM#45
SWG Pre CU did this, I loved it, best system and it didn't split the community up through PVE and PVP servers.
  tixylix

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/02/11
Posts: 1121

1/27/13 1:36:02 PM#46
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by dumpcat
SWG did it. It was the best system for open world PvP in my opinion.

TBH I thought it was absolutely shite for open world pvp and it would be even worse for a game which actually had any meaningful territory control or looting aspects. In fact I cannot overstate just how utterly piss poor that system was.

 

Being able to just turn your combat status to "off" when things don't look stacked in your favour is quite clearly ridiculous from an open world pvp point of view.

 

@OP, it would be far easier and far more effective to just make a sandbox with no open world pvp and no looting for those that want that kind of thing.

 

Fannying about and adding more and more rule layers is both against the point of an "open" game and tends to leave you with a big old mess which no one is pleased with.

 

 

Your problem with the system though was down to SOE not making PVP meaningful, not the optional PVP status. You couldn't just turn it off, you had to wait awhile and tbh if PVP was more meaningful then they could have added a penalty for turning it off like losing rewards or something.

  User Deleted
1/27/13 1:51:16 PM#47
Originally posted by tixylix
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by dumpcat
 

 

 

Your problem with the system though was down to SOE not making PVP meaningful, not the optional PVP status. You couldn't just turn it off, you had to wait awhile and tbh if PVP was more meaningful then they could have added a penalty for turning it off like losing rewards or something.

There was a problem (a large one) with the lack of "meaningful" pvp in a game which purorted to be about a "Galactic Civil War" certainly.

 

But no, the main problem was indeed the fact you could turn on and off SF status. It took a while to turn off, that isn't the problem though, it is the fact no one turned it on unless they had a distinct advantage or it was part of an organised pvp "event".

 

It is just a really bad idea to have a mechanic like that in a game with open world pvp. Maybe you could start adding in punishments to using it as you allude to, but if you are going to go down that route you may as well just get rid of the thing altogether.

 

 

  VengeSunsoar

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/10/04
Posts: 4850

Be Brief, Be Bright... Be Gone.

1/27/13 4:03:14 PM#48
Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Originally posted by Quirhid
With that system, I could turn my PvP flag on and log off to wait for the timer. When I log back in I can unflag myself at will.

No I wouldn't expect the flag to reset.  The system prevents people from pkng someone and then immediately unflagging to prevent retaliation. 

Should you decide to pvp you are fair game for a set amount of time after your flag and/or kill.  Anyone that wants to pvp can, if you don't want to pvp than don't flag, or be aware that you will be flagged for awhile even after your target is dead.

Like I said, you can log off for the duration of the timer that prevents you from unflagging yourself. Then you may log back in to unflag at will.

Unless you expect to add "aggression timers" aswell. Again, adding more and more rules to repair the old ones...

Well ou could make the timer so it is only for in game time.

But in game or RL, doesn't matter.

The point is that the person doing the pvp will be aware that he will be in pvp mode for a particular period of time.  If you don't want to be in pvp that long, you can either not flag or log out.

Either way solves the problem for both pvp (they are aware of the consequences and make the choice) and for the non-pvp (if you log out they are safe or they just don't flag).

Doesn't seem like an exploit to me.

Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  Reklaw

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/07/06
Posts: 6168

The adult I am takes care of most things real life. However my inner-child is a GAMER!!

 
OP  1/28/13 3:32:50 AM#49
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by tixylix
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by dumpcat
 

 

 

Your problem with the system though was down to SOE not making PVP meaningful, not the optional PVP status. You couldn't just turn it off, you had to wait awhile and tbh if PVP was more meaningful then they could have added a penalty for turning it off like losing rewards or something.

There was a problem (a large one) with the lack of "meaningful guided" pvp in a game which purorted to be about a "Galactic Civil War" certainly.

But no, the main problem was indeed the fact you could turn on and off SF status. It took a while to turn off, that isn't the problem though, it is the fact no one turned it on unless they had a distinct advantage or it was part of an organised pvp "event".

 

It is just a really bad idea to have a mechanic like that in a game with open world pvp. Maybe you could start adding in punishments to using it as you allude to, but if you are going to go down that route you may as well just get rid of the thing altogether.

 

 

 

 Sure it could have much more cause and effect in the ingame world.

Again it takes another type of thinking, I mean I actually pvp'd allot in SWG, we actually didn't go overt because of a organised pvp event (sometimes we did of course) or to have a distinct advantage, no, we went overt to kill Imp scum. Again as said it should have had allot more ingame consequences.

And I still feel having forced pvp in a MMORPG is a bad game mechanic as those games have many feature's that would atract also the PVE player. Though really glad that those forced pvp games are there for those who enjoy such gameplay. I enjoy forced pvp aswell just not in my MMORPG as I play other genre's for that already. 

And I feel it  could create a more long lasting appeal overall towards such a game if open world pvp was optional yet set on timers and certain rules to prevent abuse. For example as a neutral you can't just come inside a pvp aligned base or city, you might get a warning at about 1km distance that you are nearing a enemy faction and when coming to close you will automaticly be flagged overt. Log off and on should have timers to prevent it from abuse, thinking about your choice of guild where a guild could be a full pvp guild, or a guild could be pure pve, or guilds that mix it up with both pvp and pve.

Must say that the way pvp was done in Fallen Earth (havn't played for well over a year now) was also thrilling, since I was mostly a crafter certain combat skills where weaker, yet I loved going into pvp area's to gather and harvest rare resources, sometimes got lucky being online when not many were, sometimes it was a rush to try to escape especially if you knew you where confronted with a true pvp player all geared up. Fun times.........

 

 

  User Deleted
1/28/13 7:39:56 AM#50
Originally posted by Reklaw
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by tixylix
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by dumpcat
 

 

 

 

 Sure it could have much more cause and effect in the ingame world.

Again it takes another type of thinking, I mean I actually pvp'd allot in SWG, we actually didn't go overt because of a organised pvp event (sometimes we did of course) or to have a distinct advantage, no, we went overt to kill Imp scum. Again as said it should have had allot more ingame consequences.

And I still feel having forced pvp in a MMORPG is a bad game mechanic as those games have many feature's that would atract also the PVE player. Though really glad that those forced pvp games are there for those who enjoy such gameplay. I enjoy forced pvp aswell just not in my MMORPG as I play other genre's for that already. 

And I feel it  could create a more long lasting appeal overall towards such a game if open world pvp was optional yet set on timers and certain rules to prevent abuse. For example as a neutral you can't just come inside a pvp aligned base or city, you might get a warning at about 1km distance that you are nearing a enemy faction and when coming to close you will automaticly be flagged overt. Log off and on should have timers to prevent it from abuse, thinking about your choice of guild where a guild could be a full pvp guild, or a guild could be pure pve, or guilds that mix it up with both pvp and pve.

Must say that the way pvp was done in Fallen Earth (havn't played for well over a year now) was also thrilling, since I was mostly a crafter certain combat skills where weaker, yet I loved going into pvp area's to gather and harvest rare resources, sometimes got lucky being online when not many were, sometimes it was a rush to try to escape especially if you knew you where confronted with a true pvp player all geared up. Fun times.........

 

 

Yes it could have had more cause and effect, the GCW was a joke, but that is not the main issue I pointed out to the initial poster. The simple fact is that the "flag on and off as you like" was a piss poor mechanic to have for open pvp.

 

I'm glad you went around SF, you represented the 0.00001% of the playerbase in the game. I could quite happily port from SP to SP SF and count the number of enemies I encountered on one hand over the course of the entire night (and half of them where either spies or track star spec Jeedai). The fact of the matter is the system allowed for people to just try jump in and go SF when they saw the chance of a gank and because the system allowed for that, that is exactly what most of the players did.

 

It was just a ridiculous set up as it was. People seem to be coming up with tweaks to try and justify it, but note my original point was that the system as it stood was shocking, and frankly it was. Which is why the majority of pvp players/guilds worth their salt either bailed on it, or used it for a casual blast and got their pvp fix elsewhere.

 

The notion of pvp areas/arenas may appeal to plenty of players (and I can understand why), but I thought we where talking about open world pvp? The two don't seem to fit together as far as I am concerned. You either have open world pvp with perhaps limited safe zones, or you don't bother and you just have pvp lakes or something.

 

I don't buy into the idea of "forced" pvp at all. You have actively chosen to play the game, there is nothing forced whatsoever.

 

It was a great game, but it was far from a good pvp game and the SF switch mechanic helped in part to make it a shocking open world pvp game.

  Benedikt

Tipster

Joined: 12/12/04
Posts: 1352

We live for The One, we die for The One.

1/28/13 8:04:36 AM#51
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

 

But no, the main problem was indeed the fact you could turn on and off SF status. It took a while to turn off, that isn't the problem though, it is the fact no one turned it on unless they had a distinct advantage or it was part of an organised pvp "event".

It is just a really bad idea to have a mechanic like that in a game with open world pvp. Maybe you could start adding in punishments to using it as you allude to, but if you are going to go down that route you may as well just get rid of the thing altogether.

 

Yes it could have had more cause and effect, the GCW was a joke, but that is not the main issue I pointed out to the initial poster. The simple fact is that the "flag on and off as you like" was a piss poor mechanic to have for open pvp.

 

I'm glad you went around SF, you and I represented the 0.00001% of the playerbase in the game. I could quite happily port from SP to SP SF and count the number of enemies I encountered on one hand over the course of the entire night (and half of them where either spies or track star spec Jeedai). The fact of the matter is the system allowed for people to just try jump in and go SF when they saw the chance of a gank and because the system allowed for that, that is exactly what 99.99999% of the players did.

 

Need to go get buffs? Go comb not SF.

Need to meet up to start an attack? Go comb not SF.

Need to scout? Go comb not SF.

Need to generally travel about? Go comb not SF?

Want instant pvp? Hang around Restuss SP and wait for a big enough group to try and bumrush.

 

It was just a ridiculous set up as it was. People seem to be coming up with tweaks to try and justify it, but note my original point was that the system as it stood was shocking, and frankly it was.

 

I know people love to either defend SWG to the hilt, or mock it like a leper, but taking aside any ingrained bias the fact is from a pvp persepctive (especially an open world one) it was for the main part utterly naff. That is not to say I haven't had fun pvp in the game, but that was both rare and for the main part partly organised affairs between dedicated pvp guilds as we fought in player cities. Dedicated pvp guilds who bailed as soon as the opportunity arose. Hell even utter crud like WAR pulled pvpers away, leaving leftovers really (not trying to sound hard at all btw).

 

The notion of pvp areas/arenas may appeal to plenty of players (and I can understand why), but I thought we where talking about open world pvp? The two don't seem to fit together as far as I am concerned. If you are going to go down that route you have smaller "safe areas" not smaller "pvp areas". Sure you can appeal to a broader spectrum of players by making arenas and off switched et al, but then you kill the open world pvp and the open world pvpers leave. A product should work out what it is trying to be and towards the end SWG didn't do that.

 

I don't buy into the notion of "forced" pvp at all. You have actively chosen to play the game, there is nothing forced whatsoever.

 

It was a great game, but it was far from a good pvp game and the SF switch mechanic helped in part to make it a shocking open world pvp game. I

i always want to scream really loud when i see such posts as bunnyhopper's - how devs destroy pvp with it being consensual and how pvp have to be open world etc. .... and how when it is not made nonconsensual, most of the people (quote "99.99999%") will more or less never pvp.

it is like they dont realize what they are in fact saying - that most of the people (quote "99.99999%") dont WANT nonconsensual open world pvp and THEY are the minority who "destroy the game" for most of the players.

and btw - mmorpg w/o open world PVP ISN'T PVE MMORPG - it is simply just MMORPG, PVE MMORPG would be one without any PVP at all.

  User Deleted
1/28/13 8:15:12 AM#52
Originally posted by Benedikt
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

 

i always want to scream really loud when i see such posts as bunnyhopper's - how devs destroy pvp with it being consensual and how pvp have to be open world etc. .... and how when it is not made nonconsensual, most of the people (quote "99.99999%") will more or less never pvp.

it is like they dont realize what they are in fact saying - that most of the people (quote "99.99999%") dont WANT nonconsensual open world pvp and THEY are the minority who "destroy the game" for most of the players.

and btw - mmorpg w/o open world PVP ISN'T PVE MMORPG - it is simply just MMORPG, PVE MMORPG would be one without any PVP at all.

Instead of screaming perhaps reading would be a more advisable option...

 

I simply pointed out that from an open world pvp perspective, the system was deeply flawed. Are you refuting that or just having a rant?

 

I don't recall saying that more people wanted 100% open world pvp all the time. I don't recall saying that SWG should have been "all about teh open world pvp and forget carebears plox!". What I did do though was point out the fundamental flaws with the SWG flagging system from an open world point of view.

 

Somebody tried to insinuate that it was the best open world pvp system, when in fact it was probably one of the very worst. The game was great, but from an open world pvp perspective, which is being discussed, clearly it wasnt. Pointing that out isn't some "hurr kill all carebears everything needs to be full lootz" attack. Nor it is an attempt to say it should have been "hardcorez". It is merely pointing out the reality of the situation, that from an open world point of view, it was pretty darn naff.

  Dauzqul

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 2/10/12
Posts: 1275

1/28/13 8:21:17 AM#53

There is optional world pvp. It's called a PvE Server.

 

In the past, most PvP was World PvP. However, in order to participate, you have to create a character on the PvP Server. For players who didn't want to PvP, they were able to play on PvE Servers.

Everything was working fine until PvE Players got together and decided to moan for consensual PvP (Arenas, Battlegrounds). As a PvP Player, I didn't mind, so long as this feature was only on the PvE Server. Too bad that that didn't happen...

The Two Problems that killed PvP:

  1. The developers started to reward players for participating in Battlegrounds / Warzones / Arenas.
  2. The developers stuck Instanced Battlegrounds (with rewards) on PvP Servers.
 
 
 
Instanced PvP is nothing more than LAZY DEVELOPMENT. Instead of taking the time to make a living / breathing world with proper sanctions via World PvP, the developers find it cheaper and much faster to just make small zones with Battlefield 1942 contriol point mechanics. These get so redundant and boring that it's not even funny.
 
 
  Theocritus

Apprentice Member

Joined: 7/15/08
Posts: 3616

1/28/13 8:47:24 AM#54
Originally posted by DavisFlight

It's been done in the past. Many times. Many ways.

 

DAoC did it best.

     Its funny that people keep referring to DAoC as the best PVP, yet all I remember was being killed in two seconds constantly by stealth classes....To me it wasn't fun at all.

  Dauzqul

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 2/10/12
Posts: 1275

1/28/13 8:49:45 AM#55
Originally posted by Theocritus
Originally posted by DavisFlight

It's been done in the past. Many times. Many ways.

 

DAoC did it best.

     Its funny that people keep referring to DAoC as the best PVP, yet all I remember was being killed in two seconds constantly by stealth classes....To me it wasn't fun at all.

 

I don't know why people say DAoC was the best. It was ultimately just a bigger PvP Instance.

 

In my opinion, EverQuest II had the right idea with World PvP. Enemies could literally sneak into the opposing cities to snag a few unwary adventurers.

  Benedikt

Tipster

Joined: 12/12/04
Posts: 1352

We live for The One, we die for The One.

1/28/13 8:59:43 AM#56
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by Benedikt
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

 

i always want to scream really loud when i see such posts as bunnyhopper's - how devs destroy pvp with it being consensual and how pvp have to be open world etc. .... and how when it is not made nonconsensual, most of the people (quote "99.99999%") will more or less never pvp.

it is like they dont realize what they are in fact saying - that most of the people (quote "99.99999%") dont WANT nonconsensual open world pvp and THEY are the minority who "destroy the game" for most of the players.

and btw - mmorpg w/o open world PVP ISN'T PVE MMORPG - it is simply just MMORPG, PVE MMORPG would be one without any PVP at all.

Instead of screaming perhaps reading would be a more advisable option...

 

I simply pointed out that from an open world pvp perspective, the system was deeply flawed. Are you refuting that or just having a rant?

 

I don't recall saying that more people wanted 100% open world pvp all the time. I don't recall saying that SWG should have been "all about teh open world pvp and forget carebears plox!". What I did do though was point out the fundamental flaws with the SWG flagging system from an open world point of view.

 

Somebody tried to insinuate that it was the best open world pvp system, when in fact it was probably one of the very worst. The game was great, but from an open world pvp perspective, which is being discussed, clearly it wasnt. Pointing that out isn't some "hurr kill all carebears everything needs to be full lootz" attack. Nor it is an attempt to say it should have been "hardcorez". It is merely pointing out the reality of the situation, that from an open world point of view, it was pretty darn naff.

i think that system did exactly what it was supposed to do - give players a choice, where who like open world pvp can pvp similary minded players while giving others choice not to participate.

what else could you want from pvp system?

edit: ok i think i know what YOU want from it - to be able to kill anyone anywhere, but thats not my point :)

  Quirhid

Elite Member

Joined: 1/28/05
Posts: 5616

Correcting wrongs on the Internet...

1/28/13 9:01:49 AM#57
Originally posted by mmoDAD
Instanced PvP is nothing more than LAZY DEVELOPMENT. Instead of taking the time to make a living / breathing world with proper sanctions via World PvP, the developers find it cheaper and much faster to just make small zones with Battlefield 1942 contriol point mechanics. These get so redundant and boring that it's not even funny.
 

Lazy development...*rolls eyes* Whatever makes you sleep at night.

Has it occured to you that instanced PvP is vastly more popular across all video games? Even without rewards. Players love instanced PvP. PvP has never been as popular and frequent. E-sports is a big thing.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  Benedikt

Tipster

Joined: 12/12/04
Posts: 1352

We live for The One, we die for The One.

1/28/13 9:03:09 AM#58
Originally posted by mmoDAD

There is optional world pvp. It's called a PvE Server.

 

In the past, most PvP was World PvP. However, in order to participate, you have to create a character on the PvP Server. For players who didn't want to PvP, they were able to play on PvE Servers.

Everything was working fine until PvE Players got together and decided to moan for consensual PvP (Arenas, Battlegrounds). As a PvP Player, I didn't mind, so long as this feature was only on the PvE Server. Too bad that that didn't happen...

The Two Problems that killed PvP:

  1. The developers started to reward players for participating in Battlegrounds / Warzones / Arenas.
  2. The developers stuck Instanced Battlegrounds (with rewards) on PvP Servers.
 
 
 
Instanced PvP is nothing more than LAZY DEVELOPMENT. Instead of taking the time to make a living / breathing world with proper sanctions via World PvP, the developers find it cheaper and much faster to just make small zones with Battlefield 1942 contriol point mechanics. These get so redundant and boring that it's not even funny.
 
 

my opinion: i dont quite agree - instanced pvp in itself isnt anything bad - its the idea there should be rewards for it that is wrong. or at least those rewards should either be lower then for open world pvp, or (preferably) should be bonuses for given side, as the instanced pvp in gw2 (with removin other rewards gw2 pvp has).

  Quirhid

Elite Member

Joined: 1/28/05
Posts: 5616

Correcting wrongs on the Internet...

1/28/13 9:10:41 AM#59
Originally posted by Reklaw

Must say that the way pvp was done in Fallen Earth (havn't played for well over a year now) was also thrilling, since I was mostly a crafter certain combat skills where weaker, yet I loved going into pvp area's to gather and harvest rare resources, sometimes got lucky being online when not many were, sometimes it was a rush to try to escape especially if you knew you where confronted with a true pvp player all geared up. Fun times.........

If I was to design a game with open world PvP, I would avoid such scenarios at all costs. There's no point in having "PvP builds" and "PvE builds" because the one will always beat the other. PvE and PvP metagames should be as close as possible so that, ideally, a build is equally viable in PvP and PvE.

That way if you jump on someone they have a real chance to defend themselves, and OWPvP would be much more interesting than the regular ganks.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  jtcgs

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/28/04
Posts: 1843

1/28/13 9:12:28 AM#60
Originally posted by Quirhid

Has it occured to you that instanced PvP is vastly more popular across all video games? Even without rewards. Players love instanced PvP. PvP has never been as popular and frequent. E-sports is a big thing.

 Its true, if you include video games that are not in the same genre and have nothing to do with MMORPGs....you are correct. Too bad it doesnt apply.

Open world PvP games like the Lineage games for example are far more populated...and WoW got started with open world PvP before going instanced so, it becomes a null example.

So, take your MMOs like DaoC and add on 3-4 more instanced PvP MMOs and you may come close to the amount of just Lineage. Then come up with another 4-5 instanced PvP MMOs to match Lineage 2. When you have done that, come back and post another few instanced PvP MMOs and ill give you another 1 or 2 open world PvP MMOs that MILLIONS played/are playing.

Its well past time that western gamers realize that the amount of people playing games in Asia vastly outnumbers them and that popular games in America are not always more popular than some games in Europe.

Open world PvP is the single most popular game style in Asia, and its also more popular in Europe than in the Americas.

“I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

7 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Search