also im not a hardcore pvper by any means but i know the value of having a villan around, I just dont want to be surrounded by villans 24/7. we need something like 20-30 sheep per wolf to keep it fun for everyone. Thats why evil must be alot more difficult to play.
theres so many thingss you could do with it. Even something as simple as a "detect evil" spell or charm that lets a good player know one of you evil bastards is in the area.
if the right tools are available everyone can have fun with it.
I would put it in a first person shooter. Then I could have my nice MMORPG community back as all the donkies leave to play this other game.
And if mass pvp WAS the holy grail I think there would be something out there already. I don't think the majority wants pvp. I don't but mainly because I feel that most of the people that want "hardcore" pvp are jackasses.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
I think the solution to allowing a FFA PvP game without allowing griefing to get out of control would be to build bounty and crime mechanics into the game.
1. A system of "laws" that NPCs of various factions in the game will enforce (include some realism here... if your character gets murdered out in the middle of the wilderness with no one around to witness it, then the killer isn't suddenly going to be wanted in your character's home city or anything... unless perhaps your character hires a player/NPC spellcaster to cast some spell that reveals the events of the past to authorities or something). It wouldn't be ridiculously dumb like Skyrim's system, but it wouldn't make life as n outlaw impossible either.
2. A system of bounties, including both NPC-placed bounties (your character's home city, your character's NPC guild, etc.) and player-placed bounties (whoever the hell wants to place a bounty on whoever the hell else, more or less), which gives rise to both NPCs and PCs trying to kill the killer in order to collect the bounties.
This would create new styles of play that involve both PvE and PvP while limiting griefing without eliminating griefing/"PvP".
Couple a few more systems that aren't bad ideas for a game with meaningful and significant FFA PvP (like some kind of limits on accounts per IP, characters per account, number of characters you can create per day, and stuff, so that people don't try to evade the system by just leveling up a new character a little bit and then griefing with it and then throwing it away)... though even this might not be needed depending on the balance difference between a "level 1" and a "level 8" character or something.
I guess the OP follows a different religion, because that is definately not my Holy Grail. I really like pvp, but I also want it to be purely about testing each others gaming skills. Open world pvp is rarely about that. I can enjoy it though. I loved it in EVE for the thrill of it, but in most other implementations it is utter crap. Respawncamping, griefing of low lvls,games that make this too easy are utter garbage in my eyes and have nothing to do with playerskill.
Originally posted by someforumguy I guess the OP follows a different religion, because that is definately not my Holy Grail. I really like pvp, but I also want it to be purely about testing each others gaming skills. Open world pvp is rarely about that. I can enjoy it though. I loved it in EVE for the thrill of it, but in most other implementations it is utter crap. Respawncamping, griefing of low lvls,games that make this too easy are utter garbage in my eyes and have nothing to do with playerskill.
If I'm being camped, in whatever mechanism there are a few things I can do. I can respawn, "hitting the ground running", preferably not right in front of the person. I can group with others in the first place so I'm not a solo target out in the woods. I can log off and play a different toon for 20 minutes, log back on and the guy's gone.
If I'm lower level, similar issues apply. Get involved and get organized. Worst case scenario I can ask for help from higher levels or take a break. The point is, choosing to participate, I know the rules going in. I know these are possibilites and I do what I can to mitigate some of the potential ganks.
Player-killers-killers? So they're somehow different because they pin a star on their shirt and say "I M POLEES"? They're just doing what they should have been doing all along, but for whatever reason they need some moralistic made-up reason to do it: PVPing.
I really, really, really don't get all the other fluff about "griefing". HOW is there griefing when you KNOW going in there is open pvp?
I think the solution to allowing a FFA PvP game without allowing griefing to get out of control would be to build bounty and crime mechanics into the game.
...
Personally I like systems with crime mechanics. I'm currently playing Wurm on a PvP server, and Wurm has these mechanics.
However, these systems have one big problem: many PvE-ers feel it's still too much open PvP and many PvP-ers feel that there's not enough PvP.
Let's be honest, people that like open PvP want to PvP, that's why they play the game. Establishing rules and crime mechanics limits PvP, thus you end up with a PvP game that many PvP-ers won't play.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
i think there are a few principles to be evaluated.
1) does the game give players the ability to reduce their risks. The gods system gives the tools to the players that need them.
2) does the game graphically differentiate the good players from the killers? The good to evil race change accomplishes this.
3) is life hard enough for the killers to ensure a critical 25-1 sheep to wolf ratio. i would wager that the mmo environment has this ratio in its players, which is why hardcore pvp games arent nearly as succesful.
4 does the game cater to both styles of play. Remember that while the "good" side cant go around killing eachother indiscriminantly, good can kill evil, evil can kill good and evil can also kill evil. Run out of sheep..theres always other wolves to hunt.
If you want to be a killer in a world i have no issues with that, but for sure there should be a heavy toll to pay for that gamestyle. Most hardcores i see arent willing to accept any toll, which makes me question how hardcore they really are.
Originally posted by rungard i think there are a few principles to be evaluated.
1) does the game give players the ability to reduce their risks. The gods system gives the tools to the players that need them.
2) does the game graphically differentiate the good players from the killers? The good to evil race change accomplishes this.
3) is life hard enough for the killers to ensure a critical 25-1 sheep to wolf ratio. i would wager that the mmo environment has this ratio in its players, which is why hardcore pvp games arent nearly as succesful.
4 does the game cater to both styles of play. Remember that while the "good" side cant go around killing eachother indiscriminantly, good can kill evil, evil can kill good and evil can also kill evil. Run out of sheep..theres always other wolves to hunt.
If you want to be a killer in a world i have no issues with that, but for sure there should be a heavy toll to pay for that gamestyle. Most hardcores i see arent willing to accept any toll, which makes me question how hardcore they really are.
This all depends on the sheep to wolf ratio. The sheep, if the are actually sheep, are not going to hang around in a world full of potential wolves. Not without the ability to actually be safe. That's what makes them "sheep".
** edit **
It's the fact that the game sets them up as sheep and allows the wolves to exist that's the problem. They do not want to be engaging in whatever the point of the game is, whether it's questing or farming, and then get killed by a surprise attack. It doesn't matter what kind of consequences there are, they just don't want that to happen.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Its been tried...Time after time, after time. I've played games that have something like that rule set. They never reach more than a niche status (player base wise). The vast majority of players in the western markets, simply will not tolerate ganking and/or griefing. Period.
Games that allow (let alone encourage that) seriously niche themselves. The rule set doesn't really matter, as gankers/griefers are so "creative". Hell, Goonie types get their jollies from ruining other peoples play experience.
"PvP for the masses" and "hardcore" are diametrically opposed goals. The designers, I think, understand this--even when the players deny it.
Hardcore is good for a single player; I learned every intricate detail of this class, every ability, and now I can pwn nubs. Sense of accomplishment, goal completion.
"For the masses" is anti-hardcore--clearly the masses don't want to put in that kind of work on a game. I play this game to relax, not study manuals and create spreadsheets.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I don't think anyone lost gear, items of anything, but even then, everyone went crazy for being "griefed".
I really like owpvp with good control mechanics, but it can't be mainstream. "Softcore" or for players who are somewhat more decicated to the game but not hardcore (like myself i guess), yes. Casual gamers like the majority of the playerbases, no. IMO of course.
Originally posted by someforumguy I guess the OP follows a different religion, because that is definately not my Holy Grail. I really like pvp, but I also want it to be purely about testing each others gaming skills. Open world pvp is rarely about that. I can enjoy it though. I loved it in EVE for the thrill of it, but in most other implementations it is utter crap. Respawncamping, griefing of low lvls,games that make this too easy are utter garbage in my eyes and have nothing to do with playerskill.
If I'm being camped, in whatever mechanism there are a few things I can do. I can respawn, "hitting the ground running", preferably not right in front of the person. I can group with others in the first place so I'm not a solo target out in the woods. I can log off and play a different toon for 20 minutes, log back on and the guy's gone.
If I'm lower level, similar issues apply. Get involved and get organized. Worst case scenario I can ask for help from higher levels or take a break. The point is, choosing to participate, I know the rules going in. I know these are possibilites and I do what I can to mitigate some of the potential ganks.
Player-killers-killers? So they're somehow different because they pin a star on their shirt and say "I M POLEES"? They're just doing what they should have been doing all along, but for whatever reason they need some moralistic made-up reason to do it: PVPing.
I really, really, really don't get all the other fluff about "griefing". HOW is there griefing when you KNOW going in there is open pvp?
It is griefing if the devs didn't intend for players to kill low lvl players. If there are systems set in place to prevent that, but they are easily avoided because they are badly designed. Then you get players griefing new players because the game is badly designed and assholes act like assholes when they get the chance. That is a crap game in my eyes. Of course once I learn that, I don't start playing it or stop playing it.
Your player-killers-killers comment doesn't apply to me at all. I don't give a shit if someone needs a moralistic reason to PVP. I just want to test my skills against other players. Which isn't possible if some high lvls get the chance to easily grief low lvl players.
Getting owned because the other is clearly better then me at a game makes me want to buy that person a beer. Getting killed over and over again by some douchebag that likes to kill defenseless low lvl players and does this all the time because a game is badly designed and the low lvl protection is flawed, makes me wanting to punch that person in the face. Why? I have no respect whatsoever for gankers and griefers. I'm positive that they are weasily cowards irl that enjoy messing with other ppl when there is no risk for themselves.
It is griefing if the devs didn't intend for players to kill low lvl players. If there are systems set in place to prevent that, but they are easily avoided because they are badly designed. Then you get players griefing new players because the game is badly designed and assholes act like assholes when they get the chance. That is a crap game in my eyes. Of course once I learn that, I don't start playing it or stop playing it.
Your player-killers-killers comment doesn't apply to me at all. I don't give a shit if someone needs a moralistic reason to PVP. I just want to test my skills against other players. Which isn't possible if some high lvls get the chance to easily grief low lvl players.
Getting owned because the other is clearly better then me at a game makes me want to buy that person a beer. Getting killed over and over again by some douchebag that likes to kill defenseless low lvl players and does this all the time because a game is badly designed and the low lvl protection is flawed, makes me wanting to punch that person in the face. Why? I have no respect whatsoever for gankers and griefers. I'm positive that they are weasily cowards irl that enjoy messing with other ppl when there is no risk for themselves.
You forget, they might also be bored. Bored and they have only lowbies to gank and keep them occupied.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Ausare Depends on the rewards of being a sheep vs the risk.
I'm going to make some broad statements here, but they're based on the people I know who are "Sheep". The rewards are irrelevant. The "Sheep" never lose sight of the fact that they are playing a game, so the rewards and punishments all have subjective value. The punishments they experience far outweigh any rewards that can be given in the game environment. The only reward that the "Sheep" want is immunity from the "Wolves". The "Sheep" have no desire to become a "Wolf". That can't be fixed with consequences. At that point your "Wolves" are no longer happy because they can't feed on the "Sheep".
I don't doubt you could reach a larger audience of people, with a more reasonable setup as has been described in this thread. A game that isn't all one sided on the "Sheep" or "Wolf" side would probably reach more people, I'm sure. I think it would make better games too.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by MMOwanderer As others have said, i don't think owpvp can be "mainstream".Even if you have a good anti-pk system, jail system, etc, people just react badly to getting ganked. I was reading about the "WOW plague epidemic".http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/09/15/death-knight-plague-epidemic-strikes-azeroth/I don't think anyone lost gear, items of anything, but even then, everyone went crazy for being "griefed".I really like owpvp with good control mechanics, but it can't be mainstream. "Softcore" or for players who are somewhat more decicated to the game but not hardcore (like myself i guess), yes. Casual gamers like the majority of the playerbases, no. IMO of course.
I am not a fan of open world pvp. However, stuff like this that suddenly erupts to shake things up is awesome (imo). The zombie thing before the Lich King launched was some of the most fun I've had in a game, ever.
The reason it's fun though is that it's such a counter point to the usual run of the game. Chaos erupting from chaos isn't all that interesting. Chaos erupting from a nice orderly system is very interesting. Games based around nothing but stuff like this are just as boring as games where stuff like this never happens.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I guess I don't take dying quite as personally. If I play pvp, I'm going to die sometimes.
I guess I don't get the "skill" thing either, or maybe I take it for granted from experience playing pvp in several games. If someone beats me with relative ease when he shouldn't, it means he "knows something I don't". When I learn that "thing", I don't feel more "skilled"... it just means on the "next guy" I'm preying on ignorance.
I guess I'm done talking about this today, because I'm seeing alot of unnecessary generalizations and negativity on the subject when maybe these were thoughts in my mind the first hour of playing on a pvp server in EQ in '99... i got kited around by a druid... 3 times. Then I learned, and that was 13 years ago... 1 hour , 13 years ago answered for me every negative issue I'm reading in this thread...
It is griefing if the devs didn't intend for players to kill low lvl players. If there are systems set in place to prevent that, but they are easily avoided because they are badly designed. Then you get players griefing new players because the game is badly designed and assholes act like assholes when they get the chance. That is a crap game in my eyes. Of course once I learn that, I don't start playing it or stop playing it.
Your player-killers-killers comment doesn't apply to me at all. I don't give a shit if someone needs a moralistic reason to PVP. I just want to test my skills against other players. Which isn't possible if some high lvls get the chance to easily grief low lvl players.
Getting owned because the other is clearly better then me at a game makes me want to buy that person a beer. Getting killed over and over again by some douchebag that likes to kill defenseless low lvl players and does this all the time because a game is badly designed and the low lvl protection is flawed, makes me wanting to punch that person in the face. Why? I have no respect whatsoever for gankers and griefers. I'm positive that they are weasily cowards irl that enjoy messing with other ppl when there is no risk for themselves.
You forget, they might also be bored. Bored and they have only lowbies to gank and keep them occupied.
That is a laughable excuse for something that is still griefing. Laughable because preventing them from becoming higher lvl and possibly making them leave the game because of that, is the worst thing you can do.
The only way to make open world PvP mainstream is to get rid of the huge gaps in level/power.
It is not getting killed that is the problem here, what most players are upset about is getting killed with zero chanse to defend themselves and needing to grind for a month or more to be able to fight on equal terms with most gankers.
Mainstream players love PvP in FPS games but not in MMOs.
So if you want open world PvP to be as popular you need to seriously change the progression in MMOs. Levels are the first thing that needs to go, an the regular gear progression is the second.
The alternative is to have down level mechanics like GW2, leveling down everyone to the zone they are in, that would work as well. People wouldnt have to go to zones where people twice their level could gank them then.
The problem with this is that many MMO PvP fans wouldnt want these things, but they would work.
How would you change openworld pvp to make it palatable for the masses?
I'd make a MOBA, RTS or FPS. League of Legends, Starcraft and Call of Modern HALO Ops are excellent examples of how to do that.
An MMO seems to work well when there are multiple types of gameplay that people can engage in. An MMO seems to work best when those types of gameplay affect each other but are not continually directly hindered by each other.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I guess I don't take dying quite as personally. If I play pvp, I'm going to die sometimes.
I guess I don't get the "skill" thing either, or maybe I take it for granted from experience playing pvp in several games. If someone beats me with relative ease when he shouldn't, it means he "knows something I don't". When I learn that "thing", I don't feel more "skilled"... it just means on the "next guy" I'm preying on ignorance.
I guess I'm done talking about this today, because I'm seeing alot of unnecessary generalizations and negativity on the subject when maybe these were thoughts in my mind the first hour of playing on a pvp server in EQ in '99... i got kited around by a druid... 3 times. Then I learned, and that was 13 years ago... 1 hour , 13 years ago answered for me every negative issue I'm reading in this thread...
... and today I like open world pvp.
I also like open world pvp, but I also think that ppl who only target lowbies deserve a kick under their butt. And for every lame excuse they come up with, they deserve another kick under their butt. Because I hate their weak excuses even more then their actions. I know it is just a game, but their behaviour around other ppl (other players are real ppl, not npc's) certainly isn't. You don't have to be a psychiatrist for that.
My point is, that the design of a game with open world pvp either caters to those lowlifes or not (doesnt matter for me if it is intended or not). If it does, I think it is a crappy game.
Apart from EVE I only experienced badly designed open world pvp. I don't play those games anymore and even prefer arena based pvp a lot more now. Mainly because it is easier for devs to put their intentions into working gamemechanics.
Comments
also im not a hardcore pvper by any means but i know the value of having a villan around, I just dont want to be surrounded by villans 24/7. we need something like 20-30 sheep per wolf to keep it fun for everyone. Thats why evil must be alot more difficult to play.
theres so many thingss you could do with it. Even something as simple as a "detect evil" spell or charm that lets a good player know one of you evil bastards is in the area.
if the right tools are available everyone can have fun with it.
I would put it in a first person shooter. Then I could have my nice MMORPG community back as all the donkies leave to play this other game.
And if mass pvp WAS the holy grail I think there would be something out there already. I don't think the majority wants pvp. I don't but mainly because I feel that most of the people that want "hardcore" pvp are jackasses.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
I think the solution to allowing a FFA PvP game without allowing griefing to get out of control would be to build bounty and crime mechanics into the game.
1. A system of "laws" that NPCs of various factions in the game will enforce (include some realism here... if your character gets murdered out in the middle of the wilderness with no one around to witness it, then the killer isn't suddenly going to be wanted in your character's home city or anything... unless perhaps your character hires a player/NPC spellcaster to cast some spell that reveals the events of the past to authorities or something). It wouldn't be ridiculously dumb like Skyrim's system, but it wouldn't make life as n outlaw impossible either.
2. A system of bounties, including both NPC-placed bounties (your character's home city, your character's NPC guild, etc.) and player-placed bounties (whoever the hell wants to place a bounty on whoever the hell else, more or less), which gives rise to both NPCs and PCs trying to kill the killer in order to collect the bounties.
This would create new styles of play that involve both PvE and PvP while limiting griefing without eliminating griefing/"PvP".
Couple a few more systems that aren't bad ideas for a game with meaningful and significant FFA PvP (like some kind of limits on accounts per IP, characters per account, number of characters you can create per day, and stuff, so that people don't try to evade the system by just leveling up a new character a little bit and then griefing with it and then throwing it away)... though even this might not be needed depending on the balance difference between a "level 1" and a "level 8" character or something.
In open world pvp, there's no such thing as "griefing". You know the rules going in.
You can "call it griefing" but it doesn't make it so.
If I'm being camped, in whatever mechanism there are a few things I can do. I can respawn, "hitting the ground running", preferably not right in front of the person. I can group with others in the first place so I'm not a solo target out in the woods. I can log off and play a different toon for 20 minutes, log back on and the guy's gone.
If I'm lower level, similar issues apply. Get involved and get organized. Worst case scenario I can ask for help from higher levels or take a break. The point is, choosing to participate, I know the rules going in. I know these are possibilites and I do what I can to mitigate some of the potential ganks.
Player-killers-killers? So they're somehow different because they pin a star on their shirt and say "I M POLEES"? They're just doing what they should have been doing all along, but for whatever reason they need some moralistic made-up reason to do it: PVPing.
I really, really, really don't get all the other fluff about "griefing". HOW is there griefing when you KNOW going in there is open pvp?
Personally I like systems with crime mechanics. I'm currently playing Wurm on a PvP server, and Wurm has these mechanics.
However, these systems have one big problem: many PvE-ers feel it's still too much open PvP and many PvP-ers feel that there's not enough PvP.
Let's be honest, people that like open PvP want to PvP, that's why they play the game. Establishing rules and crime mechanics limits PvP, thus you end up with a PvP game that many PvP-ers won't play.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
hardcore is not open world pvp...
hardcore is arena pvp like in wow. The top arena teams of wow would pwn everyone no matter what mmo.
i think there are a few principles to be evaluated.
1) does the game give players the ability to reduce their risks. The gods system gives the tools to the players that need them.
2) does the game graphically differentiate the good players from the killers? The good to evil race change accomplishes this.
3) is life hard enough for the killers to ensure a critical 25-1 sheep to wolf ratio. i would wager that the mmo environment has this ratio in its players, which is why hardcore pvp games arent nearly as succesful.
4 does the game cater to both styles of play. Remember that while the "good" side cant go around killing eachother indiscriminantly, good can kill evil, evil can kill good and evil can also kill evil. Run out of sheep..theres always other wolves to hunt.
If you want to be a killer in a world i have no issues with that, but for sure there should be a heavy toll to pay for that gamestyle. Most hardcores i see arent willing to accept any toll, which makes me question how hardcore they really are.
This all depends on the sheep to wolf ratio. The sheep, if the are actually sheep, are not going to hang around in a world full of potential wolves. Not without the ability to actually be safe. That's what makes them "sheep".
** edit **
It's the fact that the game sets them up as sheep and allows the wolves to exist that's the problem. They do not want to be engaging in whatever the point of the game is, whether it's questing or farming, and then get killed by a surprise attack. It doesn't matter what kind of consequences there are, they just don't want that to happen.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Its been tried...Time after time, after time. I've played games that have something like that rule set. They never reach more than a niche status (player base wise). The vast majority of players in the western markets, simply will not tolerate ganking and/or griefing. Period.
Games that allow (let alone encourage that) seriously niche themselves. The rule set doesn't really matter, as gankers/griefers are so "creative". Hell, Goonie types get their jollies from ruining other peoples play experience.
"PvP for the masses" and "hardcore" are diametrically opposed goals. The designers, I think, understand this--even when the players deny it.
Hardcore is good for a single player; I learned every intricate detail of this class, every ability, and now I can pwn nubs. Sense of accomplishment, goal completion.
"For the masses" is anti-hardcore--clearly the masses don't want to put in that kind of work on a game. I play this game to relax, not study manuals and create spreadsheets.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
As others have said, i don't think owpvp can be "mainstream".
Even if you have a good anti-pk system, jail system, etc, people just react badly to getting ganked. I was reading about the "WOW plague epidemic".
http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/09/15/death-knight-plague-epidemic-strikes-azeroth/
I don't think anyone lost gear, items of anything, but even then, everyone went crazy for being "griefed".
I really like owpvp with good control mechanics, but it can't be mainstream. "Softcore" or for players who are somewhat more decicated to the game but not hardcore (like myself i guess), yes. Casual gamers like the majority of the playerbases, no. IMO of course.
It is griefing if the devs didn't intend for players to kill low lvl players. If there are systems set in place to prevent that, but they are easily avoided because they are badly designed. Then you get players griefing new players because the game is badly designed and assholes act like assholes when they get the chance. That is a crap game in my eyes. Of course once I learn that, I don't start playing it or stop playing it.
Your player-killers-killers comment doesn't apply to me at all. I don't give a shit if someone needs a moralistic reason to PVP. I just want to test my skills against other players. Which isn't possible if some high lvls get the chance to easily grief low lvl players.
Getting owned because the other is clearly better then me at a game makes me want to buy that person a beer. Getting killed over and over again by some douchebag that likes to kill defenseless low lvl players and does this all the time because a game is badly designed and the low lvl protection is flawed, makes me wanting to punch that person in the face. Why? I have no respect whatsoever for gankers and griefers. I'm positive that they are weasily cowards irl that enjoy messing with other ppl when there is no risk for themselves.
You forget, they might also be bored. Bored and they have only lowbies to gank and keep them occupied.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I'm going to make some broad statements here, but they're based on the people I know who are "Sheep". The rewards are irrelevant. The "Sheep" never lose sight of the fact that they are playing a game, so the rewards and punishments all have subjective value. The punishments they experience far outweigh any rewards that can be given in the game environment. The only reward that the "Sheep" want is immunity from the "Wolves". The "Sheep" have no desire to become a "Wolf". That can't be fixed with consequences. At that point your "Wolves" are no longer happy because they can't feed on the "Sheep".
I don't doubt you could reach a larger audience of people, with a more reasonable setup as has been described in this thread. A game that isn't all one sided on the "Sheep" or "Wolf" side would probably reach more people, I'm sure. I think it would make better games too.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I am not a fan of open world pvp. However, stuff like this that suddenly erupts to shake things up is awesome (imo). The zombie thing before the Lich King launched was some of the most fun I've had in a game, ever.
The reason it's fun though is that it's such a counter point to the usual run of the game. Chaos erupting from chaos isn't all that interesting. Chaos erupting from a nice orderly system is very interesting. Games based around nothing but stuff like this are just as boring as games where stuff like this never happens.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I guess I don't take dying quite as personally. If I play pvp, I'm going to die sometimes.
I guess I don't get the "skill" thing either, or maybe I take it for granted from experience playing pvp in several games. If someone beats me with relative ease when he shouldn't, it means he "knows something I don't". When I learn that "thing", I don't feel more "skilled"... it just means on the "next guy" I'm preying on ignorance.
I guess I'm done talking about this today, because I'm seeing alot of unnecessary generalizations and negativity on the subject when maybe these were thoughts in my mind the first hour of playing on a pvp server in EQ in '99... i got kited around by a druid... 3 times. Then I learned, and that was 13 years ago... 1 hour , 13 years ago answered for me every negative issue I'm reading in this thread...
... and today I like open world pvp.
That is a laughable excuse for something that is still griefing. Laughable because preventing them from becoming higher lvl and possibly making them leave the game because of that, is the worst thing you can do.
The only way to make open world PvP mainstream is to get rid of the huge gaps in level/power.
It is not getting killed that is the problem here, what most players are upset about is getting killed with zero chanse to defend themselves and needing to grind for a month or more to be able to fight on equal terms with most gankers.
Mainstream players love PvP in FPS games but not in MMOs.
So if you want open world PvP to be as popular you need to seriously change the progression in MMOs. Levels are the first thing that needs to go, an the regular gear progression is the second.
The alternative is to have down level mechanics like GW2, leveling down everyone to the zone they are in, that would work as well. People wouldnt have to go to zones where people twice their level could gank them then.
The problem with this is that many MMO PvP fans wouldnt want these things, but they would work.
I'd make a MOBA, RTS or FPS. League of Legends, Starcraft and Call of Modern HALO Ops are excellent examples of how to do that.
An MMO seems to work well when there are multiple types of gameplay that people can engage in. An MMO seems to work best when those types of gameplay affect each other but are not continually directly hindered by each other.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I also like open world pvp, but I also think that ppl who only target lowbies deserve a kick under their butt. And for every lame excuse they come up with, they deserve another kick under their butt. Because I hate their weak excuses even more then their actions. I know it is just a game, but their behaviour around other ppl (other players are real ppl, not npc's) certainly isn't. You don't have to be a psychiatrist for that.
My point is, that the design of a game with open world pvp either caters to those lowlifes or not (doesnt matter for me if it is intended or not). If it does, I think it is a crappy game.
Apart from EVE I only experienced badly designed open world pvp. I don't play those games anymore and even prefer arena based pvp a lot more now. Mainly because it is easier for devs to put their intentions into working gamemechanics.