Originally posted by NaughtyP

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by NaughtyP
 

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.

Wouldn't the safe/r zones offer that safety or would that be too limiting for those not inclined to full on open pvp? I suppose so.

I guess from my point of view the best idea would be to work on making the rvr lakes/arenas more "meaningful" in terms of an overarching global goal for those people who wanted that kind of aspect but who didn't want true open pvp.

I am somewhat cautious when it comes to neutral factions due to how they can be abused by competeing factions (using neut characters as mules, spies and the like). If the game involves no real conflict meta narrative (resource control and the like) then it is probably a decent option.

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?

 Its called making a comment, getting a reply to THAT comment, then trying to bring up something that is NOT related to the orginal statement in hope to derail the topic. A red-herring.

Your original comment does not stand, a refute and idea was given to prove it wrong, then you went on a tangent. sorry, im not getting trapped in that, you were refuted, your argument no longer stands.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper
 

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.

I would guess that's because PVE was a large focus of the game.

I'm coming to the opinion that open world PVP and holding a PVE playerbase is an either or situation.

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

 

 

 Its called making a comment, getting a reply to THAT comment, then trying to bring up something that is NOT related to the orginal statement in hope to derail the topic. A red-herring.

Your original comment does not stand, a refute and idea was given to prove it wrong, then you went on a tangent. sorry, im not getting trapped in that, you were refuted, your argument no longer stands.

How is pointing out directly, the exact flaws with your reasoning, not related to your original statement? You suggested a method which would make flagging in an open world environ work. I pointed out quite clearly (two times in fact) why your suggestion was fundamentally flawed, i.e. that it wouldn't work. Ergo your refutation was worth diddly squat quite frankly.

It is both interesting and really rather telling to note that both times now you have avoided directly answering my rebuttals. I have pointed out exactly why I find your argument flawed, if you want to continue the debate try and directly respond to my rebuttal. If you are just going to harp on about herrings then do us both a favour and don't bother.

Originally posted by XAPGames

Originally posted by bunnyhopper
 

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.

 

I would guess that's because PVE was a large focus of the game.

 

I'm coming to the opinion that open world PVP and holding a PVE playerbase is an either or situation.

 

I completely agree with the first part, I have alluded to as much already. As well as having stated numerous times that consensual pvp was far more suited to that game and games like it.

Open world pvp and pve/non directly pvp related systems work just fine together so long as the non pvp content is of good quality and the players taking part in the game understand that pvp will be a factor within their game world and are not the type to have a mental break down on being blown up. Plenty of non pvp orientated types thrive in EVE.

The issues arise when people (who seem to have little to no experience of actual open pvp games) try mess about with systems in order to cram them into games in which they are fundamentally unsuited, to appeal to players with no real interest in the core concept of open world pvp in the first place. This thread is a testament to that.

Originally posted by jtcgs

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?

You make no sense whatsoever. I can't decide if you're serious or trolling. Either way the Internet is a darker place with you here.

How hard is to have two separated servers? one for PVE and the other for PVP?

There is no way to have both "PVE and PVP" on the same server, you'll have constant arguments about loot, about gear and so on and on and on.

Two independent servers is the best way to make everyone happy.

Way to completely ignore what I said.  Guess I'll just keep repeating myself.  

How do you stop PvP'ers from crying to game makers and getting classes gimped?

Originally posted by znaiika

How hard is to have two separated servers? one for PVE and the other for PVP?

There is no way to have both "PVE and PVP" on the same server, you'll have constant arguments about loot, about gear and so on and on and on.

Two independent servers is the best way to make everyone happy.

Well I understand what YOU want but this wasn't the topic for those who want separated servers. This was about how to make PVP and PVE work together in one MMORPG. My reasoning was to have 3 factions.

Unfortunaly many seem unable to think outside the box as they keep repeating how it was done in the passed and how they didn't like it. And while I did use one basic feature of flagging from SWG because I loved that system doesn't mean I felt it worked as intented or how much more they could have been done to make it more enjoyable/rewarding/purpose/consequence.

Try to look at this optional open world pvp where both PVE and PVP gamestyle's are very rewarding.

Also I don't believe you will read many arguments about loot or gear in a more sandbox type of MMORPG. Two independent servers might work for the themepark MMO.

Originally posted by Jemcrystal

How do you stop PvP'ers from crying to game makers and getting classes gimped?

Which one would you rather have: PvP driven balance or PvE driven balance? If you choose the former, you will still have PvE, but if you choose the latter, PvP will die. Now which choice is better, do you think?

Balance has to be PvP driven because it is such a crucial part of it whereas PvE can do well with a less than ideal balance.

Then again, if the two metagames were more similar, there wouldn't be much of a conflict.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Jemcrystal

How do you stop PvP'ers from crying to game makers and getting classes gimped?

Which one would you rather have: PvP driven balance or PvE driven balance? If you choose the former, you will still have PvE, but if you choose the latter, PvP will die. Now which choice is better, do you think?

Balance has to be PvP driven because it is such a crucial part of it whereas PvE can do well with a less than ideal balance.

Then again, if the two metagames were more similar, there wouldn't be much of a conflict.

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.

Originally posted by XAPGames

Originally posted by bunnyhopper
 

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.

I would guess that's because PVE was a large focus of the game.

I'm coming to the opinion that open world PVP and holding a PVE playerbase is an either or situation.

The majority of EVE Online players engage primarily in PvE gameplay.

@ Reklaw.

To make both PVE and PVP work on the same server, PVP has to be optional by flaging without safe zones when flaged, gear has to be same for both, pvpers don't need too overpowered gear, loot has to be obtained equaly no restrictions to either pve or pvp, and more.

You know that will not work well along, spacificaly for pvp.

First : PVPers need to protect their campain from invaders, like snifers, looters and many more other things.

Second : PVPers need to have controlled teritory to fight for controll.

Can't mix both pve and pvp there.

It is for best, to have two servers separated, the only good thing would be to have for both pve and pvp together? is social, so people could talk to each other and meet new people.

GW2 try to create something like that with WvW.

I know it small model of open world but already seems to be annoying, as you can't get PvE objectives while others PvP next to you. =XD

Pure PvP servers IMO belongs to Asian f2p and make you spend much more on item shop as you have no time to earn anything in game.

May be idea of A-net about PvP can work again, at GW you could buy Factions (can't also get why) and PvP pack then use large variety of PvP areas. Now GW2 has premade PvP too but it seems to be boring.

May be system of premade (you have lvl and full gear when you buy game or PvP pack) can work on open world and will grant full fun for PvP lovers. I see like objective to earn: titles, epic items and may be new epic zones.

But I'm against idea to mix PvE and PvP

It worked just fine in SWG.

Opt in OWPvP.

First of all Daoc (Dark age of Camelot) was not a pvp game , its was RvR  realm vs realm

full loot of chars will never be a good game with alot of accounts , only because ppl dont like to login and get raped for there items or (gold) when they have spare time to play , sorry to say it but hardcore pvp games is gone

we can still hope for a new game with awesome pvp but not full loot option

Warhammer is not as bad as it was from beginning with all the bugs ,even Rift have a option to be a good pvp game if they added open world pvp and removed the conquest instance there work as 80 % pve and 20 % pvp (zerk) atm

Originally posted by znaiika

@ Reklaw.

To make both PVE and PVP work on the same server, PVP has to be optional by flaging without safe zones when flaged, gear has to be same for both, pvpers don't need too overpowered gear, loot has to be obtained equaly no restrictions to either pve or pvp, and more.

You know that will not work well along, spacificaly for pvp.

First : PVPers need to protect their campain from invaders, like snifers, looters and many more other things.

And who said that you can not have that?, Neutrals excluded from that, obviously.

Second : PVPers need to have controlled teritory to fight for controll.

What makes you think you can not have teritory control? yes again the neutral player will be excluded from the benifiths it might offer, yet the neutral may profit from it never the less by trading or actually engaging into PVP, that PVP player might profit from the crafter/trader with resources/items or when needing new weapons/gear. The PVE will have plenty to do, may it be following a peacefull story line, the tools should be presented to the player to make that world their own.

Can't mix both pve and pvp there.

It is for best, to have two servers separated, the only good thing would be to have for both pve and pvp together? is social, so people could talk to each other and meet new people.

I certainly understand the needs of pure PVP players, I also understand the needs for pure PVE players. Why does it seem so hard to understand that some would like meaning fully optional PVP/PVE in a MMORPG as genre that should go beyond other genre's

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.

@ Reklaw.

"" excluded from the benefits ""

That along is the big problem why both pve and pvp oriented pleyers can't be together on the same server.

PVPers would never give-up their benefits for the sake of balance, why should PVEers get limited content ?

Originally posted by znaiika

@ Reklaw.

"" excluded from the benefits ""

That along is the big problem why both pve and pvp oriented pleyers can't be together on the same server.

PVPers would never give-up their benefits for the sake of balance, why should PVEers get limited content ?

The other problem is that it reduces or even negates the importance or the value of the related PVP content.