Trending Games | Guild Wars 2 | ArcheAge | Firefall | H1Z1

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,851,961 Users Online:0
Games:733  Posts:6,226,396
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System Req: PC | Out of date info?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
  Loktofeit

Elite Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 12141

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, Wildstar, and Combat Arms

1/28/13 12:42:03 PM#81
Originally posted by azzamasin

Asheron's Call does it on the White servers (PvE) I don't see what the harm would be.

Asheron's Call has it on white servers because the game was originally designed with no white servers in mind. The white servers were a change prior to release and hitting up a shrine to toggle red/white was added in. Comparing DT to the white servers should give you your answer, as it is rather meaningless to be red on the white servers because all of the gameplay related to PVP was lost such as controlling a dungeon or holding a town/fort. Even PVP for the fun of it was quickly losing appeal on the white servers which is why they implemented PKLite in 2004 to reduce repercussion, make it a toggle, and make it more accessible.

To understand the harm it would do, don't try to imagine a white server with a red toggle. Imagine a red server with a white toggle.

 

"And wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica. Wikipedia is very reliable. You would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source for these kinds of things." -fovoroth

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19536

1/28/13 12:42:23 PM#82
Originally posted by Quirhid

E-sports is bigger than it ever was. There are monthly cash tournaments in many games and some games have had a tournament prize pool of 3 million dollars. Instanced PvP is hugely popular. People love it. To say its popular only because of the rewards and devs are lazy is only you trying to bury your head in the sand - you trying to wrestle with the fact that you belong in a minority.

There's nothing inferior about instanced PvP.

Yeah .. look at SC2 .. it is practically the national sport of South Korea. Look at LOL. It has MORE active players than WOW. They don't get so popular because of the rewards. In fact, there is no reward in SC2 except the feeling of winning.

 

  Torik

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/02/09
Posts: 2324

1/28/13 1:27:14 PM#83
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by azzamasin

Asheron's Call does it on the White servers (PvE) I don't see what the harm would be.

Asheron's Call has it on white servers because the game was originally designed with no white servers in mind. The white servers were a change prior to release and hitting up a shrine to toggle red/white was added in. Comparing DT to the white servers should give you your answer, as it is rather meaningless to be red on the white servers because all of the gameplay related to PVP was lost such as controlling a dungeon or holding a town/fort. Even PVP for the fun of it was quickly losing appeal on the white servers which is why they implemented PKLite in 2004 to reduce repercussion, make it a toggle, and make it more accessible.

To understand the harm it would do, don't try to imagine a white server with a red toggle. Imagine a red server with a white toggle.

 

Trying to add "meaningfull" PvP to a non-PvP server is a recipe for pissing of everyone.  To the PvPers it will never be satsfied with how "meaningful" the consequences are and the non-PvPers will not like if it interferes with their primary activities.  The non-PvPers specificly chose a non-PvP server so their gameplay is not dominated by PvP.

  Loktofeit

Elite Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 12141

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, Wildstar, and Combat Arms

1/28/13 1:34:15 PM#84
Originally posted by Torik
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by azzamasin

Asheron's Call does it on the White servers (PvE) I don't see what the harm would be.

Asheron's Call has it on white servers because the game was originally designed with no white servers in mind. The white servers were a change prior to release and hitting up a shrine to toggle red/white was added in. Comparing DT to the white servers should give you your answer, as it is rather meaningless to be red on the white servers because all of the gameplay related to PVP was lost such as controlling a dungeon or holding a town/fort. Even PVP for the fun of it was quickly losing appeal on the white servers which is why they implemented PKLite in 2004 to reduce repercussion, make it a toggle, and make it more accessible.

To understand the harm it would do, don't try to imagine a white server with a red toggle. Imagine a red server with a white toggle.

Trying to add "meaningfull" PvP to a non-PvP server is a recipe for pissing of everyone.  To the PvPers it will never be satsfied with how "meaningful" the consequences are and the non-PvPers will not like if it interferes with their primary activities.  The non-PvPers specificly chose a non-PvP server so their gameplay is not dominated by PvP.

That's usually the outcome. :)

"And wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica. Wikipedia is very reliable. You would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source for these kinds of things." -fovoroth

  jtcgs

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/28/04
Posts: 1843

1/28/13 1:44:08 PM#85
Originally posted by Quirhid

Yes, I play pretty much everything. No I don't everything to be the same. I'm quite far from black & white thinking,

SNIP

E-sports is bigger than it ever was. SNIP

Loved how you started out defending yourself for not thinking in black and white and ended up right back where you started, associating something that is not tied to the MMO genre at all while avoiding every other point of my post....so the one part of my post you did refute, you ended up defeating your own argument...again.

Grats, care to try again?

“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

  DavisFlight

Elite Member

Joined: 9/25/12
Posts: 2525

1/28/13 1:49:46 PM#86
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by DavisFlight

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

DAoC did it best.

 DaoC was crap and it wasnt sandbox like the OP is talking about, it was the start of PvP becoming meaningless zergs, PvPing for rank and or items and removing PvP from the actual game world, placed into a seperate area and it became nothing more than just another themepark attraction.

DAoC had two FFA PvP servers. 

  User Deleted
1/28/13 1:55:09 PM#87
Originally posted by NaughtyP
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by Benedikt

Seeing as how I am one of the glue-sniffing, mind-boggling, bastardized-PvP-loving SWG fans, I'm curious what your idea for a good, optional open world PvP system would be. Any thoughts or ideas?

Ha, I'll answer as it was a rather amusing response :P

 

A good option would be to either play a game with open world pvp, embrace it and get on with it. Taking the option to either try and avoid pvp within it or take on the risks, sticking to safe zones or venturing out and hoping for the best. Or to just pick a game with consensual pvp.

 

A bad option would be to twist the concept of open world pvp to try and make it something it really isn't in order to appease a crowd with clearly little interest in the overiding core ideal in the first place. Not the answer you wanted no doubt but there we are.

 

An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage. PvP groups will abuse it to get an advantage and you will end up with horrendous downtimes between pvp (which happened all the time in SWG). It makes a mockery of the concept of open world pvp as a venue for risk and danger and it would be a game killer for any game with territory, resource control or looting etc. Neutral characters would also be abused.

 

A game with massive rvr lakes, duelling, arenas, guild wars and the like. That would appease even the most ardent casual pvper (and a great deal of full on pvpers as well). You could have truly epic zones and give people the option of entering them or not. People could guild war or duel anywhere they want, it would still all be consensual. That makes far more sense from a theoretical and mechanical perspective than trying to take an open world pvp system built on the core concept of full on non restricted combat and working in opt out buttons creating a nonsense hybrid which warps the core concept and leads to a balls up of a system.

  jtcgs

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/28/04
Posts: 1843

1/28/13 2:30:33 PM#88
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.

 Unless, I dont know...the reasons being given to PvP in PvP only zones or full tilt PvP games are also added to the open world...you know, that keep there, that can be taken over by a faction, give the faction whatever bonuses and even turn part of that area towards their side making questing impossible for your faction unless its taken back!

And suddenly, taadaa! people have a reason to flag for PvP in a PvP optional open world.

ZOMG TEH TINKING OUT OF TEH BOXORS HURTZ MY HEADS!

“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

  NaughtyP

Novice Member

Joined: 12/02/11
Posts: 795

1/28/13 2:31:17 PM#89
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by NaughtyP
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by Benedikt

Seeing as how I am one of the glue-sniffing, mind-boggling, bastardized-PvP-loving SWG fans, I'm curious what your idea for a good, optional open world PvP system would be. Any thoughts or ideas?

Ha, I'll answer as it was a rather amusing response :P

 

A good option would be to either play a game with open world pvp, embrace it and get on with it. Taking the option to either try and avoid pvp within it or take on the risks, sticking to safe zones or venturing out and hoping for the best. Or to just pick a game with consensual pvp.

 

A bad option would be to twist the concept of open world pvp to try and make it something it really isn't in order to appease a crowd with clearly little interest in the overiding core ideal in the first place. Not the answer you wanted no doubt but there we are.

 

An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage. PvP groups will abuse it to get an advantage and you will end up with horrendous downtimes between pvp (which happened all the time in SWG). It makes a mockery of the concept of open world pvp as a venue for risk and danger and it would be a game killer for any game with territory, resource control or looting etc. Neutral characters would also be abused.

 

A game with massive rvr lakes, duelling, arenas, guild wars and the like. That would appease even the most ardent casual pvper (and a great deal of full on pvpers as well). You could have truly epic zones and give people the option of entering them or not. People could guild war or duel anywhere they want, it would still all be consensual. That makes far more sense from a theoretical and mechanical perspective than trying to take an open world pvp system built on the core concept of full on non restricted combat and working in opt out buttons creating a nonsense hybrid which warps the core concept and leads to a balls up of a system.

While an RvR approach sounds like a close solution, it isn't because it still carves the world up into specific areas for specific purposes instead of all types of players being allowed to find some kind of content in that particular area no matter their playstyle. The large world shrinks rather quickly for someone who only wants PvP or only wants PvE.

Normally I would totally agree and say PvE and PvP shouldn't really overlap, but I think there are valid reasons to consider alternatives to the segregation of playstyles. Specifically the shrinking of the world mentioned above but also the added strain it puts on development and programming to have different rulesets for every zone (and possible areas within a zone like an RvR lake) and every piece of instanced content. If the developers could focus more on expanding the world and only have one type of overarching ruleset for the entire game to think about, we might end up with a lot more content to enjoy.

Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.

  User Deleted
1/28/13 2:41:29 PM#90
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.

 Unless, I dont know...the reasons being given to PvP in PvP only zones or full tilt PvP games are also added to the open world...you know, that keep there, that can be taken over by a faction, give the faction whatever bonuses and even turn part of that area towards their side making questing impossible for your faction unless its taken back!

And suddenly, taadaa! people have a reason to flag for PvP in a PvP optional open world.

ZOMG TEH TINKING OUT OF TEH BOXORS HURTZ MY HEADS!

Perhaps your head does hurt if you think a group of players disinclined to a full open pvp system are going to be happy about having their pve content turned off or in anyway impacted upon in any meaningful way unless enough of their "side" gets on with the job.

 

If it makes little difference, they wont bother unless gank ready. If it makes a good deal of difference they will moan about "forced pvp".

 

  User Deleted
1/28/13 2:49:51 PM#91
Originally posted by NaughtyP
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by NaughtyP
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by Benedikt

 

While an RvR approach sounds like a close solution, it isn't because it still carves the world up into specific areas for specific purposes instead of all types of players being allowed to find some kind of content in that particular area no matter their playstyle. The large world shrinks rather quickly for someone who only wants PvP or only wants PvE.

Normally I would totally agree and say PvE and PvP shouldn't really overlap, but I think there are valid reasons to consider alternatives to the segregation of playstyles. Specifically the shrinking of the world mentioned above but also the added strain it puts on development and programming to have different rulesets for every zone (and possible areas within a zone like an RvR lake) and every piece of instanced content. If the developers could focus more on expanding the world and only have one type of overarching ruleset for the entire game to think about, we might end up with a lot more content to enjoy.

Well from a technical point of view it is actually probably much easier, especially in terms of server load. Remember the hamsters struggling at Restuss? Remember how bad it was when people tried to do events away from Restuss? The first was pretty bad, the second was shocking with anymore than fifty people.

 

I agree it zones off the land but that's why I also included duelling and guild wars. Which you could participate in anywhere and which is ofc, still a consensual system.

 

In terms of not having pve and pvp overlap, well actually that really depends on the game. In a consensual based game it shouldn't really overlap (unless you consider mini pve narratives like objectives within pvp lakes), but in open world pvp games it should overlap. You should be going out there for rare resources and taking the risk of getting bashed over the head, that's part of the fabric of the system. And another reason why "off switches" are an anathema to it.

 

If someone really wants a more free and open system, then an open world pvp set up with safe/r zones ala EVE seems to be the most fundamentally sound system which also offers the greatest scope for alternative playstyles.

  Torik

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/02/09
Posts: 2324

1/28/13 2:57:19 PM#92
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.

 Unless, I dont know...the reasons being given to PvP in PvP only zones or full tilt PvP games are also added to the open world...you know, that keep there, that can be taken over by a faction, give the faction whatever bonuses and even turn part of that area towards their side making questing impossible for your faction unless its taken back!

And suddenly, taadaa! people have a reason to flag for PvP in a PvP optional open world.

ZOMG TEH TINKING OUT OF TEH BOXORS HURTZ MY HEADS!

Why would you want to flag for PvP when just staying neutral gives you access to the content without having to conquer keeps or any such distraction?  Since PvP is optional, people will opt not to participate in the PvP when all they want to do is the non-PvP activities in the area.  By flagging themselves they limit what content they have access to when by staying neutral they have access to all the content.

  jtcgs

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/28/04
Posts: 1843

1/28/13 3:32:44 PM#93
Originally posted by Torik
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.

 Unless, I dont know...the reasons being given to PvP in PvP only zones or full tilt PvP games are also added to the open world...you know, that keep there, that can be taken over by a faction, give the faction whatever bonuses and even turn part of that area towards their side making questing impossible for your faction unless its taken back!

And suddenly, taadaa! people have a reason to flag for PvP in a PvP optional open world.

ZOMG TEH TINKING OUT OF TEH BOXORS HURTZ MY HEADS!

Why would you want to flag for PvP when just staying neutral gives you access to the content without having to conquer keeps or any such distraction?  Since PvP is optional, people will opt not to participate in the PvP when all they want to do is the non-PvP activities in the area.  By flagging themselves they limit what content they have access to when by staying neutral they have access to all the content.

 Reading, its fundaMENTAL.

“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

  jtcgs

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/28/04
Posts: 1843

1/28/13 3:35:15 PM#94
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.

 Unless, I dont know...the reasons being given to PvP in PvP only zones or full tilt PvP games are also added to the open world...you know, that keep there, that can be taken over by a faction, give the faction whatever bonuses and even turn part of that area towards their side making questing impossible for your faction unless its taken back!

And suddenly, taadaa! people have a reason to flag for PvP in a PvP optional open world.

ZOMG TEH TINKING OUT OF TEH BOXORS HURTZ MY HEADS!

Perhaps your head does hurt if you think a group of players disinclined to a full open pvp system are going to be happy about having their pve content turned off or in anyway impacted upon in any meaningful way unless enough of their "side" gets on with the job.

If it makes little difference, they wont bother unless gank ready. If it makes a good deal of difference they will moan about "forced pvp".

 

 Reading comprehension FTL or are we playing the lets give a reason, then after getting one pretend it was never made ploy?

“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

  User Deleted
1/28/13 3:59:35 PM#95
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.

 Unless, I dont know...the reasons being given to PvP in PvP only zones or full tilt PvP games are also added to the open world...you know, that keep there, that can be taken over by a faction, give the faction whatever bonuses and even turn part of that area towards their side making questing impossible for your faction unless its taken back!

And suddenly, taadaa! people have a reason to flag for PvP in a PvP optional open world.

ZOMG TEH TINKING OUT OF TEH BOXORS HURTZ MY HEADS!

Perhaps your head does hurt if you think a group of players disinclined to a full open pvp system are going to be happy about having their pve content turned off or in anyway impacted upon in any meaningful way unless enough of their "side" gets on with the job.

If it makes little difference, they wont bother unless gank ready. If it makes a good deal of difference they will moan about "forced pvp".

 

 Reading comprehension FTL or are we playing the lets give a reason, then after getting one pretend it was never made ploy?

If it makes a good deal of difference they will moan about "forced pvp".

 

Did you miss out that part completely or something?

 

People moaned like fuck about one single bit of pve content that was tied to pvp in SWG, the Jinzu hilt spawn. They also moaned like fuck when people mentioned it might be a good idea to tie combat ranks to special forces players. If you think a crowd like that (one not really all that interested in open world pvp) is going to think it's a great idea to have their pve limited in order to push pvp outside of dedicated zones in their games then you have more faith than I do.

 

The issue with your idea is that if you offer enough incentive to promote pvp via a carrot and stick measure than people will moan about forced pvp. If you don't offer enough incentive than no one will bother. In otherwords, unless you come up with some amazing balancing act (which is unlikely) then it will not work.

  Torik

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/02/09
Posts: 2324

1/28/13 4:29:53 PM#96
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by Torik
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.

 Unless, I dont know...the reasons being given to PvP in PvP only zones or full tilt PvP games are also added to the open world...you know, that keep there, that can be taken over by a faction, give the faction whatever bonuses and even turn part of that area towards their side making questing impossible for your faction unless its taken back!

And suddenly, taadaa! people have a reason to flag for PvP in a PvP optional open world.

ZOMG TEH TINKING OUT OF TEH BOXORS HURTZ MY HEADS!

Why would you want to flag for PvP when just staying neutral gives you access to the content without having to conquer keeps or any such distraction?  Since PvP is optional, people will opt not to participate in the PvP when all they want to do is the non-PvP activities in the area.  By flagging themselves they limit what content they have access to when by staying neutral they have access to all the content.

 Reading, its fundaMENTAL.

Let me rephrase this:

Since PvP in this game is optional, non-PvP players will be able to access that content without having to flag themselves.  Why would PvP players choose to risk access to that content just for a chance to PvP?  Also, once you flag yourself, would the game prevent you from unflagging yourself so you could do the quests as a neutral and only reflag yourself when you wanted to do PvP?

  jtcgs

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/28/04
Posts: 1843

1/28/13 4:51:43 PM#97
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.

 Unless, I dont know...the reasons being given to PvP in PvP only zones or full tilt PvP games are also added to the open world...you know, that keep there, that can be taken over by a faction, give the faction whatever bonuses and even turn part of that area towards their side making questing impossible for your faction unless its taken back!

And suddenly, taadaa! people have a reason to flag for PvP in a PvP optional open world.

ZOMG TEH TINKING OUT OF TEH BOXORS HURTZ MY HEADS!

Perhaps your head does hurt if you think a group of players disinclined to a full open pvp system are going to be happy about having their pve content turned off or in anyway impacted upon in any meaningful way unless enough of their "side" gets on with the job.

If it makes little difference, they wont bother unless gank ready. If it makes a good deal of difference they will moan about "forced pvp".

 

 Reading comprehension FTL or are we playing the lets give a reason, then after getting one pretend it was never made ploy?

If it makes a good deal of difference they will moan about "forced pvp".

 

Did you miss out that part completely or something? Reading comprehension FTL indeed.

 Ahh, the pretend it was never made ploy...Duck and cover, throw out a red herring, quick and hope to derail it before everyone knows I have no ground to stand on!

Shall I use the largest font next time or are you going to man up and realize you used a bad argument?

“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

  NaughtyP

Novice Member

Joined: 12/02/11
Posts: 795

1/28/13 4:53:58 PM#98
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by NaughtyP
 

Well from a technical point of view it is actually probably much easier, especially in terms of server load. Remember the hamsters struggling at Restuss? Remember how bad it was when people tried to do events away from Restuss? The first was pretty bad, the second was shocking with anymore than fifty people.

I agree it zones off the land but that's why I also included duelling and guild wars. Which you could participate in anywhere and which is ofc, still a consensual system.

In terms of not having pve and pvp overlap, well actually that really depends on the game. In a consensual based game it shouldn't really overlap (unless you consider mini pve narratives like objectives within pvp lakes), but in open world pvp games it should overlap. You should be going out there for rare resources and taking the risk of getting bashed over the head, that's part of the fabric of the system. And another reason why "off switches" are an anathema to it.

If someone really wants a more free and open system, then an open world pvp set up with safe/r zones ala EVE seems to be the most fundamentally sound system which also offers the greatest scope for alternative playstyles.

Let's be fair here. SWG had a lot of bugs and problems, and any number of them could bring a server to its knees!

I think there will always be games where you need risk vs reward, similar to the competition of resources like you mentioned. But I also believe there is a group of players that want competition... but only when they really want it, yet instanced content might feel a bit hollow to them. I suppose it is a strange dilemma. Wanting to compete, but also wanting the safety of an off switch. I suppose this is where a neutral faction could solve the problem... one that cannot be in faction combat at all until they've chosen a side, but can still participate in other content unrelated to faction. Maybe this is what I've been missing. Not the flagging, but the neutral faction.

Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.

  jtcgs

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/28/04
Posts: 1843

1/28/13 5:01:07 PM#99
Originally posted by Torik
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by Torik
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

An individual pvp flagging system, well that just makes zero sense. Virtually no one will use it unless they have a clear advantage.

 Unless, I dont know...the reasons being given to PvP in PvP only zones or full tilt PvP games are also added to the open world...you know, that keep there, that can be taken over by a faction, give the faction whatever bonuses and even turn part of that area towards their side making questing impossible for your faction unless its taken back!

And suddenly, taadaa! people have a reason to flag for PvP in a PvP optional open world.

ZOMG TEH TINKING OUT OF TEH BOXORS HURTZ MY HEADS!

Why would you want to flag for PvP when just staying neutral gives you access to the content without having to conquer keeps or any such distraction?  Since PvP is optional, people will opt not to participate in the PvP when all they want to do is the non-PvP activities in the area.  By flagging themselves they limit what content they have access to when by staying neutral they have access to all the content.

 Reading, its fundaMENTAL.

Let me rephrase this:

Since PvP in this game is optional, non-PvP players will be able to access that content without having to flag themselves.  Why would PvP players choose to risk access to that content just for a chance to PvP?  Also, once you flag yourself, would the game prevent you from unflagging yourself so you could do the quests as a neutral and only reflag yourself when you wanted to do PvP?

 Ugh, as the HIGHLIGHTED and UNDERLINED point makes, by giving them an actual reason to want to do it on occasion.

I fully understand why people who PvP in games like DaoC and WoW cannot understand this concept because they know only PvP with a giant carrot hanging in front of them, it masked the piss poor gameplay.

Throw out the old outdated moronic game style brought on by those games, go back to the original way and throw in the incentives without the limitations of the previous mindset that is making people think that NO ONE WOULD EVER IN THE WHOLE OF FOREVER not flag for PvP as if games that HAD THAT OPTION had NO ONE doing it...its downright moronic to bunch every single player that ever played those games into the small box created by any one persons mind...also, the mind that states that people would only do it with and advantage like the other...person in this thread...only thinks this way because that is what HE WOULD DO.

Hell, the single best times I had in SWG was running flagged into a rebel town right into a bunch of flgged people standing around thinking they are SAFE and flamming throwing a few of them down before dieing. Nothing says WTF like one person running into a dozen+ of them unexpecting an attack and throwing them all into chaos, and I wasnt the only one who did that, and they used to do it to us. But then, I am in an old time PvP guild, we dont think like the l33t d00d ub3r PvP kidies that popped up with instanced PvP with uber ranks for bragging rights.

“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

  User Deleted
1/28/13 5:01:08 PM#100
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
Originally posted by jtcgs
Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

 

 

 Ahh, the pretend it was never made ploy...Duck and cover, throw out a red herring, quick and hope to derail it before everyone knows I have no ground to stand on!

Shall I use the largest font next time or are you going to man up and realize you used a bad argument?

What? How exactly is saying many would be unhappy about having their pve experiences limited in order to push a bastardized form of open pvp a bad argument?

 

If you want to motivate people to be involved in games with open world pvp systems (those players not inclined to them), then you demonstrate why such systems benefit their chosen playstyles. You demonstrate the depth it adds to their crafting, pve and trading. You show how territory control, resource control, player haulers, pirates and bodyguards, how decentralised trading hubs and people fighting over trading routes all creates an incredibly deep game for them. You show how players fighting over player towns and cities adds a complex meta narrative which everyone can get involved in whether directly or indirectly. You incentivise them to be part of an open world pvp system, not offer them some cheap ass opt out.

 

If they don't buy into that, cool. It's not for everyone. Some just want purely consensual pvp and more power to them.

 

You don't though say "heres an on-off switch and btw if you don't pvp a load of your pve contents getting turned off".

 

Oh and btw, you seem to be under the impression that I have suggested that people would stay comb and then only go SF to gank because that's what I would do. Given I spent/spend the vast majority of my mmo gaming time in full on, ffa, full loot mmos (not "oh don't attack me at the moment I'm not ready!!" games) and given I have been arguing against such on off switch systems in this thread, well i'm not sure where you are pulling that one from. No the reason I suggested that is because first hand experience over many years pointed to that being the actual case in SWG. The VAST majority only went SF when they could bumrush fewer people (outside of organized events). Any suggestion to the contrary is just rose tinted revisionism of the highest order.

 

TLDR:

 

I pointed out exactly why I thought your idea wouldn't work.

An on-off opt out switch for an open world pvp system is fucking stupid.

For the main part, the dumbed down version of open world pvp that was offered up by SWG was complete and utter shite from an open world pvpers perspective.

7 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Search