Fact is I love the PvE-only guys, I love the PvAll guys but please dear PvE-only guys you could admit that you have been catered to with many, many.. many... MANY... M A N Y titles during the last decade.
Time for some love for us poor people who just like immersion and realism.. and to be scared of actual.. loss.. in an MMO, you know sandbox ... playstyle...
Hint: I am not a griefer but I want more emotional involvement in virtual worlds not just "meh.. safemode"
This is the possibly first time I don't agree with you... "it's our turn" isn't a good argument. We need to make financial sense for devs. I believe we do, but it's going to take a good game to rally all of the scattered PVPers. It's a risk for whatever company goes for it, unless they have really great business intelligence to suggest it will be profitable.. which they probably do.
But it's "our turn" in their best financial interest, if 99 titles ignore a certain playstyle and they all share the same players, good luck with making a profit. If I'd be an investor would I spend my money on another "mass market/lowest common denominator" game? HELL no. I'd pick my specific niche audience and please them 100% and give everyone else the boot. Don't like my game? okay go play something else. Easy.
I rather think it is time they throw us a bone BECAUSE we may be a much more defined target audience and more willing to pay since there is almost no competition.
Isn't it ridiculous that the only games available for us are only EvE and a small, not exactly polished indie title like DFUW? Oh and Mortal Online, okay.
Then you have Age of Conan on a single Blood and Glory server no one knows about, and that's about it for the industry.
Right now I am also having fun with Salem, but I'd just like to have one big developer finally taking a risk to be different, really different.
Yeah you don't have to sell me. I'm just waiting patiently on the sidelines for a big, high-quality virtual world that does full PVP well. I agree with you completely that the market is now oversaturated and devs need to focus on getting as much share of niche audiences as they can. Then again I'm not convinced the PVP folks are niche - I think marketers have just failed to deliver the right product. (Waits for eyes to roll.)
Originally posted by DocBrodyFact is I love the PvE-only guys, I love the PvAll guys but please dear PvE-only guys you could admit that you have been catered to with many, many.. many... MANY... M A N Y titles during the last decade.Time for some love for us poor people who just like immersion and realism.. and to be scared of actual.. loss.. in an MMO, you know sandbox ... playstyle...Hint: I am not a griefer but I want more emotional involvement in virtual worlds not just "meh.. safemode"This is the possibly first time I don't agree with you... "it's our turn" isn't a good argument. We need to make financial sense for devs. I believe we do, but it's going to take a good game to rally all of the scattered PVPers. It's a risk for whatever company goes for it, unless they have really great business intelligence to suggest it will be profitable.. which they probably do.
But it's "our turn" in their best financial interest, if 99 titles ignore a certain playstyle and they all share the same players, good luck with making a profit. If I'd be an investor would I spend my money on another "mass market/lowest common denominator" game? HELL no. I'd pick my specific niche audience and please them 100% and give everyone else the boot. Don't like my game? okay go play something else. Easy.I rather think it is time they throw us a bone BECAUSE we may be a much more defined target audience and more willing to pay since there is almost no competition.Isn't it ridiculous that the only games available for us are only EvE and a small, not exactly polished indie title like DFUW? Oh and Mortal Online, okay.Then you have Age of Conan on a single Blood and Glory server no one knows about, and that's about it for the industry.Right now I am also having fun with Salem, but I'd just like to have one big developer finally taking a risk to be different, really different.
Yeah you don't have to sell me. I'm just waiting patiently on the sidelines for a big, high-quality virtual world that does full PVP well. I agree with you completely that the market is now oversaturated and devs need to focus on getting as much share of niche audiences as they can. Then again I'm not convinced the PVP folks are niche - I think marketers have just failed to deliver the right product. (Waits for eyes to roll.)
Great you won't be waiting long. [*] The Repopulation [*] Pathfinder Online [*] Black Desert [*] ArcheAge Perpetuum Star Citizen Embers of Caerus Origins of Malu
?
Perpetuum is already out. Has been for a while. There's no need to wait to play it, just some money and start playing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I still wonder why some people get all butthurt the moment the words 'full pvp' are mentioned anywhere. Obviously people don't know what the name even stands for, or why others want it, and why should they? If a game does not cater your needs, then I dunno... don't play it then? You aren't really a massive investor to have a saying of what is viable for the market and what's not. So what if a certain game is not going to have a high player base? Do your games require a minimum of 5 million players to be able to enjoy them or something? Almost everytime someone discusses an actual game the focus always changes to "but game X is more popular". Like ?? If that made any sense, the entire modern worldwould be playing world of warcraft by now. If we're so into numbers does this mean Maple story and runescape represent the future of gaming? Because, you know these are actually the most played mmorpgs ever. Why does nobody compare games to them?
Eve is out there for 10 years so it does show that it's more than possible for a game like this to survive in the longterm. And I couldn't care less if it's not a mainstream title because despite only having 500k players it's still the largest virtual world ever created since all of them inhabitate the same server. Other games like DF are also around and stil subscription based after all these years so the argument about these games not surviving is moot.
Why would a gamer even remotely care about numbers and popularity, anyway? The only thing I care about in the games I play is how entertaining they are to me and nothing else. Now why would someone that does NOT want to play a game want to complain about others' popularity? It honestly makes no sense.
I still wonder why some people get all butthurt the moment the words 'full pvp' are mentioned anywhere.
only the ones who always lose and never win in PvP... I´d be butthurt too and go kill easy trash mobs if I woulnd´t stand a chance by facing a real player.
I still wonder why some people get all butthurt the moment the words 'full pvp' are mentioned anywhere.
only the ones who always lose and never win in PvP... I´d be butthurt too and go kill easy trash mobs if I woulnd´t stand a chance by facing a real player.
You are missing the point. The problem is that most "hard core PVP" types also shun challenge and risk. Here is the evidence when "full PVP" has been tried in the past:
- high levels camping low level zones
- people flocking to the FoTM PVP template which = whatever is the most broken and exploitable game mechanic at that moment
- formation of zergs and mega-guilds, especially in siege games like Shadowbane
- in gear-dependent games, seeking out opponents whom you know to be poorly-geared
I have seen all of these. The common link is that the "hard core" are the biggest manipulators of risk of all. Their "hard coreness" comes from working hard at shaving the odds in their favor.
There is nothing bad about this - its basic human behavior. But let's not pretend the PVP community is full of players seeking out the greatest challenges and risks. Most of the time, the "hard core" are doing what everyone else does - lining up the situation so that it turns out well for them.
Don't get me wrong. I hope PVP is in EQN. PVP can be a lot of fun. But my hope is that it is the sort of fun that the largest number of players will want to participate in.
I read the OP's post and a few others and the issue here is that everyone is splitting this argument into a Black and White issue.
There is a grey area when done corectly and in order to do so there needs to be BOUNDARIES... Now by that I don't mean safe zones or some "wall of invulnerability" or PVP switch. I mean a set of governing laws (game mechanics) where as PvP is a lot more RISK than reward, as opposed to Risk = REWARD.
Games like Darkfall basically send you off into the wild a lonely fawn in a land of hungry wolves waiting for you to step out of some invisible wall of invulnerability. Your only option to be moderately successful in a game as such is to e forced to join a guild and hunt in packs... This is all good and well if that is your brand of playstyle. Factor in this is also a full loot game, any chance of playing solo is shunted. If you wander out of your invisible wall your dead and naked in a matter of minutes of being seen or you must endure some cat and mouse race to the safe area game.
Compare this to a game like Age of Wushu... I gave this game a fair shot but had issues with Snail and also I really couldn't immerse myself that deep into the Chinese cultural setting. HOWEVER! The game itself is a full PvP anywhere (not full loot) but is centered around a set of laws... Meaning if you are the griefing type you will spend many of hours in a jail cell... If you are the griefing type that has a lot of friends, you may be the type that gets broken out of jail a bit... The point here being, these governing laws allows players to make a conscious decision whether or not they want to actually engage someone else for no other reason than to kill them... There are circumstances where MEANINGFUL PvP is actually rewarded such as kidnappings or instances.
Darkfall is the Black to the PVE only (insert game here) White where a good example of gray area is Age of Wushu... You can (pretty much) play through the entire game and see most of the world without ever having to once engage another player... In my opinion this is PvP done correctly.
I still wonder why some people get all butthurt the moment the words 'full pvp' are mentioned anywhere.
only the ones who always lose and never win in PvP... I´d be butthurt too and go kill easy trash mobs if I woulnd´t stand a chance by facing a real player.
thats actually total bs, since such "real pvper" is who plays controlled pvp (arenas, battlegrounds), not the ones who want open world pvp. controlled pvp is "fair", open world more or less never is
I read the OP's post and a few others and the issue here is that everyone is splitting this argument into a Black and White issue.
There is a grey area when done corectly and in order to do so there needs to be BOUNDARIES... Now by that I don't mean safe zones or some "wall of invulnerability" or PVP switch. I mean a set of governing laws (game mechanics) where as PvP is a lot more RISK than reward, as opposed to Risk = REWARD.
Games like Darkfall basically send you off into the wild a lonely fawn in a land of hungry wolves waiting for you to step out of some invisible wall of invulnerability. Your only option to be moderately successful in a game as such is to e forced to join a guild and hunt in packs... This is all good and well if that is your brand of playstyle. Factor in this is also a full loot game, any chance of playing solo is shunted. If you wander out of your invisible wall your dead and naked in a matter of minutes of being seen or you must endure some cat and mouse race to the safe area game.
Compare this to a game like Age of Wushu... I gave this game a fair shot but had issues with Snail and also I really couldn't immerse myself that deep into the Chinese cultural setting. HOWEVER! The game itself is a full PvP anywhere (not full loot) but is centered around a set of laws... Meaning if you are the griefing type you will spend many of hours in a jail cell... If you are the griefing type that has a lot of friends, you may be the type that gets broken out of jail a bit... The point here being, these governing laws allows players to make a conscious decision whether or not they want to actually engage someone else for no other reason than to kill them... There are circumstances where MEANINGFUL PvP is actually rewarded such as kidnappings or instances.
Darkfall is the Black to the PVE only (insert game here) White where a good example of gray area is Age of Wushu... You can (pretty much) play through the entire game and see most of the world without ever having to once engage another player... In my opinion this is PvP done correctly.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All PVPers are griefers and I don't want to be griefed, and World of Warcraft and stuff, so the game can't be profitable and shouldn't exist!!!!!!!!! >_< *goes off to start 'Dispelling the myths about full PVP, part trois'*
On a more serious note... Age of Wushu sounds great and I'll probably try it when it comes out on PS4. I'm not asking for a free-for-all bloodbath and would be happy if there was greater risk involved in PKing.
As for the idea that people who love open-world PVP don't actually take risks... for griefers, the reward is griefing presumably. The risk for them usually doesn't come from the target, but from everyone else in the world. I look back at Ultima Online and remember reds running the risk of being killed by virtually everyone. Because they couldn't enter town they had to carry enough equipment to get by for long periods of time, but also carried the heightened risk of losing it all.
What about all the other types of players who would play the game? I for one like to play the "survivor" in these games - getting into risky situations for the thrill of escaping or defeating someone who tries to ruin my day. This ends up requiring a lot of cunning and sometimes I feel like Odysseus - the mythological character who was revered by Greeks for overcoming stronger enemies (including a Cyclopse) with his smarts as opposed to brute force like Achilles, Hercules, etc.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All PVPers are griefers and I don't want to be griefed so the game can't be profitable and shouldn't exist!!!!!!!!! >_< *goes off to start 'Dispelling the myths about full PVP, part trois'*
This should actually be considered an anti-PVP post. It basically makes the case for the other side that hard core PVPers can't be reasoned with and are prone to insulting those who disagree. Honestly, does anyone believe this has to do with whose pixels are "tougher" in a video game?
Importing the FPS "crai more n00b!" mentality into full-featured MMOs hasn't worked and won't work. The two genres are different. It is like asking someone to open a brand new mall with many diverse shops, but with a crowd of angry teens blocking the main door screaming and attacking customers as they try to enter. "Just get tougher!" they howl. "If you can make it past me, you deserve to enter!"
There are good arguments to be made on behalf of PVP. This isn't one of them...
"All PVPers are griefers and I don't want to be griefed!"
No one really thinks that, but the thing you consistently fail to take into account is that even if a very large percentage of the population has zero interest in griefing (something you have no way of knowing, but regardless) it only takes a handful of people to engage in that type of activity to ruin it for the handful of people who might be interested in a game such as this.
I like PvP and have never rolled on a PvE server in any game I played that gave me the option, but you'd never catch me playing a game where I never had an area that was safe from PvP.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All PVPers are griefers and I don't want to be griefed so the game can't be profitable and shouldn't exist!!!!!!!!! >_< *goes off to start 'Dispelling the myths about full PVP, part trois'*
This should actually be considered an anti-PVP post. It basically makes the case for the other side that hard core PVPers can't be reasoned with and are prone to insulting those who disagree. Honestly, does anyone believe this has to do with whose pixels are "tougher" in a video game?
Importing the FPS "crai more n00b!" mentality into full-featured MMOs hasn't worked and won't work. The two genres are different. It is like asking someone to open a brand new mall with many diverse shops, but with a crowd of angry teens blocking the main door screaming and attacking customers as they try to enter. "Just get tougher!" they howl. "If you can make it past me, you deserve to enter!"
There are good arguments to be made on behalf of PVP. This isn't one of them...
The only people who can't be reasoned with here are the ones who STILL suggest I want to grief them after reading all 2500 posts.
"All PVPers are griefers and I don't want to be griefed!"
No one really thinks that, but the thing you consistently fail to take into account is that even if a very large percentage of the population has zero interest in griefing (something you have no way of knowing, but regardless) it only takes a handful of people to engage in that type of activity to ruin it for the handful of people who might be interested in a game such as this.
I like PvP and have never rolled on a PvE server in any game I played that gave me the option, but you'd never catch me playing a game where I never had an area that was safe from PvP.
But people like me - who are not griefers, but "survivors" who thrive on the feeling of risk they can only get from an open-world PVP game, are willing to play this hypothetical triple-A full PVP game. I believe there is more than enough of a playerbase for this scattered throughout various games.
Just look at DayZ - a mod for another game that has FFA open-world PVP and perma death. No levels, just the stuff you find in the world. In other words, maximum and equal risk for everyone. The game ballooned to 1.7 million players and is getting a standalone version that Sony and Microsoft are fighting over for the console exclusive. This represents a TON of griefers and survivors - and only part of the ecosystem of players that would be drawn in by a triple-A MMO with full PVP.
BTW - I also like to have some safe zones, like hi-sec in EVE.
I hate PvP and I truly believe the only people that 'win' at PvP are the ones that PvP in a zerg gang and prey on other players or actual, skilled, arena PvP players that gear up and practice - A LOT.
I don't like anything in a game that allows players to grief other players. I don't like when they can emote over and over to annoy others, gank others or corpse camp. I don't like when they can prevent a non pvp player from getting to a resource node or prevent them from simply travelling across a zone. I don't like when players can tag a mob first and prevent another player from getting a quest objective. I don't like when they can jump in and harvest a node when another player has done all the work to clear to that node. I don't like global chat where people think they can talk about anything or be obnoxious or offensive because other global chat players who are their friends find it funny. I don't like players who don't have any consideration or respect for other players. Unfortunately, the PVP crowd seems to harvest up more of these type of people than the PVE crowd does, which just gives me another several reasons not to want PVP in my game.
I basically don't like rude dicks IRL and I don't like them in game.
I can turn off global chat and I can choose not to participate by not flagging... then I'm ok with pvp in a game I play. If those options are removed and I'm forced to deal with jackasses then no thanks, I'll pass. It's not because of half the shit the OP thinks, it's simply because I refuse to deal with dickheads during my coveted spare time in a hobby I'm supposed to be enjoying.
You want PvE players to also want wide open world PvP, the first step for you is to convince the PvP crowd to learn how to be respectful of other players and stop wagging their 'swords' in other players faces. Most Asian open world PvP isn't obnoxious like NA open world PvP because they understand something about honor and decency.
The only things in my opinion that Smedley could do to absolutely KILL EQ NEXT is to make it F2P and open world PvP LOL! So with his track record, he will likely do just that.
Rinna... Sorry if it was unclear somehow. I don't care if you want to play the same kind of game as me. I'm just hoping you will see what I actually want, which is probably something separate that doesn't affect people who feel the way you do. A separate game for PVPers. I don't want to grief you, but I do want griefers in my game. Because they make it more fun for me.
See what I mean? Not trying to force anything on anyone or convince people to like it, or convince people to make room for it in their game. I'm talking about a hypothetical future game that probably isn't your cup of tea and that is okay.
I think people have gotten so comfortable with the most recent mmos. When you get everything handed to you on a silver platter it does give one a comfort level that maybe old school mmos didn't. People are afraid of change, particularly drastic change. It's not just with games, it happens everywhere. Every time there has been major technological innovations, instead of embracing them, people tend to fear them.
That being said, someone will eventually push the envelope, test the waters, and whether you hate PvP or not, the addition of a triple A open world ffa pvp game is inevitable. If it isn't SOE, it will be someone else. You can choose not to give it a try, but it will only help to make mmos better games as a whole, and I want to be apart of that. It benefits everyone, and to say otherwise is foolish and selfish.
The only people who can't be reasoned with here are the ones who STILL suggest I want to grief them after reading all 2500 posts.
PVPers are their own worst enemies. They ignore arguments that don't fit into the idea that those who disagree are just weaklings. They post pics of crying babies and then wonder why people don't want them running things. Let me show how to make a pro-PVP in EQN argument:
***
THE BEST PRO-OPEN WORLD FULL LOOT ARGUMENTS
1. Open world full loot PVP creates an exciting risk and consequence filled experience that enriches the game
2. Properly implemented, it also helps roleplayers since it allows for conflict and makes roles like thief and robber viable
3. Having a living world that changes and is subject to power politics is impossible without open world full loot PVP
4. Full loot ensures the economy doesn't get stale and items and gold circulate
5. While many of us think that open world full loot PVP is the best approach, we realize that many don't. And we agree it is important that full loot open world PVP not be implemented in ways that drive away new players. To that end we support appropriate compromises such as some geographic restrictions (e.g. safe zones"), especially in main cities and crafting areas, and also the ability of players in some situations to opt-out (e.g. to use instanced settings for roleplay events).
***
Now, I am not sure how many you will convert. A lot of anti-PVP players are dead set against it. But I think there are a LOT of people in a grey area. People who WOULD enjoy full PVP if it wasn't something they were forced to do 24/7.
But many "hard-core" PVPers don't want an inch of compromise. They seem to enjoy debating through taunts. It is almost as if they need to act like Internet "gangstas" in order to keep their "street cred" with the other PVPers.
I get that you want to dispel myths about full pvp. However, your approach is pretty condescending and a bit dismissive of the reasons some people don't like it. You're attacking straw men -- the reasons you want to believe people have.
That's cool, if what you're doing is "defending" pvp in an internet-style debate. That isn't going to change anyone's minds. It's not going to help a "hater" come to terms with pvp in a constructive way, but it will sure make you feel good to be right.
Or, you could drop the straw men and find out what it is exactly that people don't like and a) help them find useful approaches to problems that minimize their frustration, and b) help the community create more well-implemented PVP schemes that allow carebears to *be* carebears within the pvp environment (like Eve does).
It's my opinion (your mileage may vary) that the common theme of *resistance* to approaching this debate in constructive ways to expand the appeal of pvp to include people who hate person-v-person combat (like me) is because people that resist being helpful **actually do want** to grief me. They want a return to UO-style pvp where poor helpless carebears get squashed and still have to come back and take some more punishment.
Now, of course, that's a straw man too -- but figuring out what I think, showing me that pvp doesn't actually have to be a gankfest if implemented right -- would be more effective at converting the "haters" than a condescending and dismissive post like yours.
Do what you want, of course. Just don't expect people to come around to your point of view when all you do is bash them for seeing things differently.
"All PVPers are griefers and I don't want to be griefed!"
No one really thinks that, but the thing you consistently fail to take into account is that even if a very large percentage of the population has zero interest in griefing (something you have no way of knowing, but regardless) it only takes a handful of people to engage in that type of activity to ruin it for the handful of people who might be interested in a game such as this.
I like PvP and have never rolled on a PvE server in any game I played that gave me the option, but you'd never catch me playing a game where I never had an area that was safe from PvP.
But people like me - who are not griefers, but "survivors" who thrive on the feeling of risk they can only get from an open-world PVP game, are willing to play this hypothetical triple-A full PVP game. I believe there is more than enough of a playerbase for this scattered throughout various games.
Just look at DayZ - a mod for another game that has FFA open-world PVP and perma death. No levels, just the stuff you find in the world. In other words, maximum and equal risk for everyone. The game ballooned to 1.7 million players and is getting a standalone version that Sony and Microsoft are fighting over for the console exclusive. This represents a TON of griefers and survivors - and only part of the ecosystem of players that would be drawn in by a triple-A MMO with full PVP.
BTW - I also like to have some safe zones, like hi-sec in EVE.
Whenever this topic comes up, people like to play the DayZ card, completely forgetting that DayZ works because most players don't give a flying crap about their character. Saying "But look at DayZ!" is like saying "But look at Quake!"
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
"All PVPers are griefers and I don't want to be griefed!"
No one really thinks that, but the thing you consistently fail to take into account is that even if a very large percentage of the population has zero interest in griefing (something you have no way of knowing, but regardless) it only takes a handful of people to engage in that type of activity to ruin it for the handful of people who might be interested in a game such as this.
I like PvP and have never rolled on a PvE server in any game I played that gave me the option, but you'd never catch me playing a game where I never had an area that was safe from PvP.
But people like me - who are not griefers, but "survivors" who thrive on the feeling of risk they can only get from an open-world PVP game, are willing to play this hypothetical triple-A full PVP game. I believe there is more than enough of a playerbase for this scattered throughout various games.
Just look at DayZ - a mod for another game that has FFA open-world PVP and perma death. No levels, just the stuff you find in the world. In other words, maximum and equal risk for everyone. The game ballooned to 1.7 million players and is getting a standalone version that Sony and Microsoft are fighting over for the console exclusive. This represents a TON of griefers and survivors - and only part of the ecosystem of players that would be drawn in by a triple-A MMO with full PVP.
BTW - I also like to have some safe zones, like hi-sec in EVE.
Whenever this topic comes up, people like to play the DayZ card, completely forgetting that DayZ works because most players don't give a flying crap about their character. Saying "But look at DayZ!" is like saying "But look at Quake!"
And why do they care less about their characters in DayZ than in let's say WoW? What if an MMORPG can be designed so that people do care less about their characters in that MMORPG compared to WoW?
And why do they care less about their characters in DayZ than in let's say WoW? What if an MMORPG can be designed so that people do care less about their characters in that MMORPG compared to WoW?
Because of the origi0ns of mmoRPGs... Roleplaying games. You SHOULD care about your character. IMHO it is one of the reasons of MMORPGs decline... They don't even try to be RPGs with a life world and characters to care about. It is all throwaway and IMHO one of the reasons people jump games.. They do not care. Create a char, burn throw, throw away... NEXT!
I guess more PVE players care for their char and their playtime and their enviromental experience, so they wouldn't want to play a game like that? Perhaps for some even a lobby with random dungeons to jump in would suffice, but for others that's no virtual world anymore.
And why do they care less about their characters in DayZ than in let's say WoW? What if an MMORPG can be designed so that people do care less about their characters in that MMORPG compared to WoW?
Because of the origi0ns of mmoRPGs... Roleplaying games. You SHOULD care about your character. IMHO it is one of the reasons of MMORPGs decline... They don't even try to be RPGs with a life world and characters to care about. It is all throwaway and IMHO one of the reasons people jump games.. They do not care. Create a char, burn throw, throw away... NEXT!
I guess more PVE players care for their char and their playtime and their enviromental experience, so they wouldn't want to play a game like that? Perhaps for some even a lobby with random dungeons to jump in would suffice, but for others that's no virtual world anymore.
And well.. that is the point. At least for me i felt a lot more immersed in DayZ and i actually cared a lot more about dying then in almost any MMORPG(or RPG for that matter) i ever played before.
Death matters in DayZ, and you feel some satisfaction not do die for days. I couldn't care less in a game like WoW, GW2 or any similar game to die or for my character.. they are all the same anyway.. hell even in EvE were you do lose sometimes a lot of stuff i didn't cared as much as dying in DayZ. And you actually invest a lot of time, and effort not to die.. actually the game is about not dying, hence called survivor game.
Yeap you don't have a steep vertical progression in DayZ.. but i personally never did see the advantage of a steep vertical progression. But i will not deny, that different people feel different about different games, and enjoy different gameplays, but in all honestly this thread is all about it. Some do like PvP some don't. And it is nothing wrong one way or the other. So my dear pve player just accept, that there are some players, which don't like what you want and do enjoy other kind of experiences.
I don't enjoy power progressing. I don't enjoy endless raiding and hunting for the better gear. I don't enjoy boring kill 10 rats quests. I did not enjoy most of the level experience from DAoC from Level 1 to Level 50. But i enjoyed the RvR experience afterwards, i did enjoyed some casual pveing in Darkness Falls(at lvl 50) to get some money. I did enjoy to run sometimes for fun(without any requirement as it is in almost any pve game) to go with a few friends into some dungeon and fight some. I do enjoy resource gathering(especially in a dangerous environment, aka open pvp), i do enjoy a well made crafting experience, where crafting matters, where the made items matter, and not just the high end stuff. I do enjoy socializing with friends, roleplaying in a tavern, look for different looking outfits or tailor/craft them, i do enjoy roleplaying a guard or a bandit. I do enjoy playing as trader, transporter or mercenary to protect caravans. And a lot of other stuff.
I am not the usual PvE player(or a PvE player at all) i don't enjoy 99% of all PvE mmorpgs. I did not enjoy WoW. But i did like UO, especially before Trammel. I did enjoy Shadowbane(although graphics and bugs were somewhat disturbing). I did enjoy as i said DAoC from lvl 50 until ToA. I do enjoy EvE(also i don't like the boring and slow combat that much, or the slow pace gameplay in general). I like PvP games, especially when PvP matters, or at least the PvP is a challenge. I do like Battlefield, i do like almost all RTS games, i don't like in most cases Battlegrounds in MMORPGs, i do like sometimes a nice MOBA game. I do like a good game of Civilization with a few friends. I do like a good game of The Settlers with a few friends. I do like the Anno/Dawn of Discovery series. And i do like DayZ, Minecraft and a lot of other games. And i do like Pen&Paper Roleplaying games.. and if we play Pen&Paper PlayerKilling is actually part of the game.
So please spare me to say that the MMORPGs i enjoy, or which i would enjoy are not worth playing. Because as with all things it is all about personal preference.
I never told you what you have to like. Due to the battleground stuff I started to like some PvP light, even though I die alot. I'm not the normal PvE player either. I don't "die to go home". I completely dislike the system of killing oneself to fasttravel. I get bored at "max level end game", I want an enjoyable journey, better if I can have some roleplaying here and there and some nice chat. I do understand the fear of griefing though, since I noticed that the moment you give someone the means to be a jerk someone WILL be a jerk and if enough people are jerks a critical mass is reached that drives others away. I would prefer a game where there are real PvP areas that have effects for your faction, so that people like me also have interest going there and those who don't can stick to their stuff, without being hassled.
Where is the realism if someone kills someone else just outside city gates and then passes the city gates, merryly passes the guards and sells the looted stuff? People talk risk vs reward, but the moment you throw in consequences for your action they scream "That can't be!". I would play a game where a marauding murderer only could go to certain cities and would be KoS for every guard and patrol around, since it adds realism. I even tip my toe into those waters with Age of Wushu/ Wulin (will try the latter to compare them) and I'm using the trial of Vendetta Online, even though it has two things I usually don't like in MMORPGS: OW PvP & Twitch Combat. It should not only be Risk vs Reward, but Risk vs. Reward vs. Consequence for your actions. I guess this would open such a game to a wider audience, since griefing would have consequences for the griefer.
I never told you what you have to like. Due to the battleground stuff I started to like some PvP light, even though I die alot. I'm not the normal PvE player either. I don't "die to go home". I completely dislike the system of killing oneself to fasttravel. I get bored at "max level end game", I want an enjoyable journey, better if I can have some roleplaying here and there and some nice chat. I do understand the fear of griefing though, since I noticed that the moment you give someone the means to be a jerk someone WILL be a jerk and if enough people are jerks a critical mass is reached that drives others away. I would prefer a game where there are real PvP areas that have effects for your faction, so that people like me also have interest going there and those who don't can stick to their stuff, without being hassled.
Where is the realism if someone kills someone else just outside city gates and then passes the city gates, merryly passes the guards and sells the looted stuff? People talk risk vs reward, but the moment you throw in consequences for your action they scream "That can't be!". I would play a game where a marauding murderer only could go to certain cities and would be KoS for every guard and patrol around, since it adds realism. I even tip my toe into those waters with Age of Wushu/ Wulin (will try the latter to compare them) and I'm using the trial of Vendetta Online, even though it has two things I usually don't like in MMORPGS: OW PvP & Twitch Combat. It should not only be Risk vs Reward, but Risk vs. Reward vs. Consequence for your actions. I guess this would open such a game to a wider audience, since griefing would have consequences for the griefer.
The part about my preference and that i am sick of getting said what i have to like or what don't work was not addressed to you alone, and more to a general audience replying in that thread.
And about consequences.. i am completely for consquences for different actions and to minimize griefing.. and even think that a good consequence system increases the immersion. And i have to agree that not a lot of pvp mmorpgs implemented a good consequence system or even a consequence system at all.
But at least in my perception the very most players argueing about a ffa pvp mmorpg do favor one with a good consequence system for different actions. If my clan/nation/faction with a other clan/nation there should not be a lot or even any consequence for pvp, but pking should have consequences. As other actions should also have consequences. As example i would like to see a good thief system, where thiefs could actually break into houses, fortresses or even pickpocket players.. but to do it, you have first of all balance it, that it isn't to easy, and the risk of getting caught is huge, and of course with a consequence system. So if you get caught you will have to face some serious consequence. But truth is, it isn't easy to implement, and i never did see a working system.. but i would extremely like it.
It is, at least in my mind, somewhat ironically that almost any mmorpg do have a thief or rogue class, but you can't do anything like that at all. It is somewhat mind-boggling.
The part about my preference and that i am sick of getting said what i have to like or what don't work was not addressed to you alone, and more to a general audience replying in that thread.
And about consequences.. i am completely for consquences for different actions and to minimize griefing.. and even think that a good consequence system increases the immersion. And i have to agree that not a lot of pvp mmorpgs implemented a good consequence system or even a consequence system at all.
But at least in my perception the very most players argueing about a ffa pvp mmorpg do favor one with a good consequence system for different actions. If my clan/nation/faction with a other clan/nation there should not be a lot or even any consequence for pvp, but pking should have consequences. As other actions should also have consequences. As example i would like to see a good thief system, where thiefs could actually break into houses, fortresses or even pickpocket players.. but to do it, you have first of all balance it, that it isn't to easy, and the risk of getting caught is huge, and of course with a consequence system. So if you get caught you will have to face some serious consequence. But truth is, it isn't easy to implement, and i never did see a working system.. but i would extremely like it.
It is, at least in my mind, somewhat ironically that almost any mmorpg do have a thief or rogue class, but you can't do anything like that at all. It is somewhat mind-boggling.
Agree about the rouge/ thief stuff. The ultimate MMORPG would mirror a world for me. The clan/ guild PvP stuff is easily solved. Add a "declare war" system. Your clan declares war on clan B. They now have the option to accept the war or back down, which should have consequences, like a ransom or some faction loss, something like that. If war is accepted players form both factions can go for it without consequences almost everywhere (city guards wont appreciate people fighting in the middle of the market square or town hall). Perhaps there could even be an ambush mode, to force another clan into war, but that should have consequences, too. The pickpoket thingy is much harder to implement.
I guess many players would like a well balanced game, but if I read "If I see a player, I want to kill him", or in an Age of Wushu thread someone complains his murdering actions acutally had consequences I just know you need this stuff to keep out PKers, who just want to ruin another ones game. Those who enjoy a broad experience are the majority I guess and hope, but the hardliners are the most vocal ones.
Originally posted by Bidwood Rinna... Sorry if it was unclear somehow. I don't care if you want to play the same kind of game as me. I'm just hoping you will see what I actually want, which is probably something separate that doesn't affect people who feel the way you do. A separate game for PVPers. I don't want to grief you, but I do want griefers in my game. Because they make it more fun for me.
See what I mean? Not trying to force anything on anyone or convince people to like it, or convince people to make room for it in their game. I'm talking about a hypothetical future game that probably isn't your cup of tea and that is okay.
You are trying to force your playstyle on everyone, its why you made this whole thread in the first place, its why you made that OP with every one of your "facts" which is total bull and false.
We know people like you don't care if we don't want to play the same kind of game as you, you just want us in so you can gank people, its why you destroy every game you come across, I'll say this again, there are games with full pvp out there, why aren't you playing them? I'll tell you why, because you won't be happy till you destroy the games other people like to play.
Comments
You forgot EverQuest Next.
You're welcome.
?
Perpetuum is already out. Has been for a while. There's no need to wait to play it, just some money and start playing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I still wonder why some people get all butthurt the moment the words 'full pvp' are mentioned anywhere. Obviously people don't know what the name even stands for, or why others want it, and why should they? If a game does not cater your needs, then I dunno... don't play it then? You aren't really a massive investor to have a saying of what is viable for the market and what's not. So what if a certain game is not going to have a high player base? Do your games require a minimum of 5 million players to be able to enjoy them or something? Almost everytime someone discusses an actual game the focus always changes to "but game X is more popular". Like ?? If that made any sense, the entire modern worldwould be playing world of warcraft by now. If we're so into numbers does this mean Maple story and runescape represent the future of gaming? Because, you know these are actually the most played mmorpgs ever. Why does nobody compare games to them?
Eve is out there for 10 years so it does show that it's more than possible for a game like this to survive in the longterm. And I couldn't care less if it's not a mainstream title because despite only having 500k players it's still the largest virtual world ever created since all of them inhabitate the same server. Other games like DF are also around and stil subscription based after all these years so the argument about these games not surviving is moot.
Why would a gamer even remotely care about numbers and popularity, anyway? The only thing I care about in the games I play is how entertaining they are to me and nothing else. Now why would someone that does NOT want to play a game want to complain about others' popularity? It honestly makes no sense.
only the ones who always lose and never win in PvP... I´d be butthurt too and go kill easy trash mobs if I woulnd´t stand a chance by facing a real player.
You are missing the point. The problem is that most "hard core PVP" types also shun challenge and risk. Here is the evidence when "full PVP" has been tried in the past:
- high levels camping low level zones
- people flocking to the FoTM PVP template which = whatever is the most broken and exploitable game mechanic at that moment
- formation of zergs and mega-guilds, especially in siege games like Shadowbane
- in gear-dependent games, seeking out opponents whom you know to be poorly-geared
I have seen all of these. The common link is that the "hard core" are the biggest manipulators of risk of all. Their "hard coreness" comes from working hard at shaving the odds in their favor.
There is nothing bad about this - its basic human behavior. But let's not pretend the PVP community is full of players seeking out the greatest challenges and risks. Most of the time, the "hard core" are doing what everyone else does - lining up the situation so that it turns out well for them.
Don't get me wrong. I hope PVP is in EQN. PVP can be a lot of fun. But my hope is that it is the sort of fun that the largest number of players will want to participate in.
I read the OP's post and a few others and the issue here is that everyone is splitting this argument into a Black and White issue.
There is a grey area when done corectly and in order to do so there needs to be BOUNDARIES... Now by that I don't mean safe zones or some "wall of invulnerability" or PVP switch. I mean a set of governing laws (game mechanics) where as PvP is a lot more RISK than reward, as opposed to Risk = REWARD.
Games like Darkfall basically send you off into the wild a lonely fawn in a land of hungry wolves waiting for you to step out of some invisible wall of invulnerability. Your only option to be moderately successful in a game as such is to e forced to join a guild and hunt in packs... This is all good and well if that is your brand of playstyle. Factor in this is also a full loot game, any chance of playing solo is shunted. If you wander out of your invisible wall your dead and naked in a matter of minutes of being seen or you must endure some cat and mouse race to the safe area game.
Compare this to a game like Age of Wushu... I gave this game a fair shot but had issues with Snail and also I really couldn't immerse myself that deep into the Chinese cultural setting. HOWEVER! The game itself is a full PvP anywhere (not full loot) but is centered around a set of laws... Meaning if you are the griefing type you will spend many of hours in a jail cell... If you are the griefing type that has a lot of friends, you may be the type that gets broken out of jail a bit... The point here being, these governing laws allows players to make a conscious decision whether or not they want to actually engage someone else for no other reason than to kill them... There are circumstances where MEANINGFUL PvP is actually rewarded such as kidnappings or instances.
Darkfall is the Black to the PVE only (insert game here) White where a good example of gray area is Age of Wushu... You can (pretty much) play through the entire game and see most of the world without ever having to once engage another player... In my opinion this is PvP done correctly.
What are your other Hobbies?
Gaming is Dirt Cheap compared to this...
thats actually total bs, since such "real pvper" is who plays controlled pvp (arenas, battlegrounds), not the ones who want open world pvp. controlled pvp is "fair", open world more or less never is
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All PVPers are griefers and I don't want to be griefed, and World of Warcraft and stuff, so the game can't be profitable and shouldn't exist!!!!!!!!! >_< *goes off to start 'Dispelling the myths about full PVP, part trois'*
On a more serious note... Age of Wushu sounds great and I'll probably try it when it comes out on PS4. I'm not asking for a free-for-all bloodbath and would be happy if there was greater risk involved in PKing.
As for the idea that people who love open-world PVP don't actually take risks... for griefers, the reward is griefing presumably. The risk for them usually doesn't come from the target, but from everyone else in the world. I look back at Ultima Online and remember reds running the risk of being killed by virtually everyone. Because they couldn't enter town they had to carry enough equipment to get by for long periods of time, but also carried the heightened risk of losing it all.
What about all the other types of players who would play the game? I for one like to play the "survivor" in these games - getting into risky situations for the thrill of escaping or defeating someone who tries to ruin my day. This ends up requiring a lot of cunning and sometimes I feel like Odysseus - the mythological character who was revered by Greeks for overcoming stronger enemies (including a Cyclopse) with his smarts as opposed to brute force like Achilles, Hercules, etc.
This should actually be considered an anti-PVP post. It basically makes the case for the other side that hard core PVPers can't be reasoned with and are prone to insulting those who disagree. Honestly, does anyone believe this has to do with whose pixels are "tougher" in a video game?
Importing the FPS "crai more n00b!" mentality into full-featured MMOs hasn't worked and won't work. The two genres are different. It is like asking someone to open a brand new mall with many diverse shops, but with a crowd of angry teens blocking the main door screaming and attacking customers as they try to enter. "Just get tougher!" they howl. "If you can make it past me, you deserve to enter!"
There are good arguments to be made on behalf of PVP. This isn't one of them...
"All PVPers are griefers and I don't want to be griefed!"
No one really thinks that, but the thing you consistently fail to take into account is that even if a very large percentage of the population has zero interest in griefing (something you have no way of knowing, but regardless) it only takes a handful of people to engage in that type of activity to ruin it for the handful of people who might be interested in a game such as this.
I like PvP and have never rolled on a PvE server in any game I played that gave me the option, but you'd never catch me playing a game where I never had an area that was safe from PvP.
The only people who can't be reasoned with here are the ones who STILL suggest I want to grief them after reading all 2500 posts.
But people like me - who are not griefers, but "survivors" who thrive on the feeling of risk they can only get from an open-world PVP game, are willing to play this hypothetical triple-A full PVP game. I believe there is more than enough of a playerbase for this scattered throughout various games.
Just look at DayZ - a mod for another game that has FFA open-world PVP and perma death. No levels, just the stuff you find in the world. In other words, maximum and equal risk for everyone. The game ballooned to 1.7 million players and is getting a standalone version that Sony and Microsoft are fighting over for the console exclusive. This represents a TON of griefers and survivors - and only part of the ecosystem of players that would be drawn in by a triple-A MMO with full PVP.
BTW - I also like to have some safe zones, like hi-sec in EVE.
I hate PvP and I truly believe the only people that 'win' at PvP are the ones that PvP in a zerg gang and prey on other players or actual, skilled, arena PvP players that gear up and practice - A LOT.
I don't like anything in a game that allows players to grief other players. I don't like when they can emote over and over to annoy others, gank others or corpse camp. I don't like when they can prevent a non pvp player from getting to a resource node or prevent them from simply travelling across a zone. I don't like when players can tag a mob first and prevent another player from getting a quest objective. I don't like when they can jump in and harvest a node when another player has done all the work to clear to that node. I don't like global chat where people think they can talk about anything or be obnoxious or offensive because other global chat players who are their friends find it funny. I don't like players who don't have any consideration or respect for other players. Unfortunately, the PVP crowd seems to harvest up more of these type of people than the PVE crowd does, which just gives me another several reasons not to want PVP in my game.
I basically don't like rude dicks IRL and I don't like them in game.
I can turn off global chat and I can choose not to participate by not flagging... then I'm ok with pvp in a game I play. If those options are removed and I'm forced to deal with jackasses then no thanks, I'll pass. It's not because of half the shit the OP thinks, it's simply because I refuse to deal with dickheads during my coveted spare time in a hobby I'm supposed to be enjoying.
You want PvE players to also want wide open world PvP, the first step for you is to convince the PvP crowd to learn how to be respectful of other players and stop wagging their 'swords' in other players faces. Most Asian open world PvP isn't obnoxious like NA open world PvP because they understand something about honor and decency.
The only things in my opinion that Smedley could do to absolutely KILL EQ NEXT is to make it F2P and open world PvP LOL! So with his track record, he will likely do just that.
No bitchers.
See what I mean? Not trying to force anything on anyone or convince people to like it, or convince people to make room for it in their game. I'm talking about a hypothetical future game that probably isn't your cup of tea and that is okay.
I think people have gotten so comfortable with the most recent mmos. When you get everything handed to you on a silver platter it does give one a comfort level that maybe old school mmos didn't. People are afraid of change, particularly drastic change. It's not just with games, it happens everywhere. Every time there has been major technological innovations, instead of embracing them, people tend to fear them.
That being said, someone will eventually push the envelope, test the waters, and whether you hate PvP or not, the addition of a triple A open world ffa pvp game is inevitable. If it isn't SOE, it will be someone else. You can choose not to give it a try, but it will only help to make mmos better games as a whole, and I want to be apart of that. It benefits everyone, and to say otherwise is foolish and selfish.
PVPers are their own worst enemies. They ignore arguments that don't fit into the idea that those who disagree are just weaklings. They post pics of crying babies and then wonder why people don't want them running things. Let me show how to make a pro-PVP in EQN argument:
***
THE BEST PRO-OPEN WORLD FULL LOOT ARGUMENTS
1. Open world full loot PVP creates an exciting risk and consequence filled experience that enriches the game
2. Properly implemented, it also helps roleplayers since it allows for conflict and makes roles like thief and robber viable
3. Having a living world that changes and is subject to power politics is impossible without open world full loot PVP
4. Full loot ensures the economy doesn't get stale and items and gold circulate
5. While many of us think that open world full loot PVP is the best approach, we realize that many don't. And we agree it is important that full loot open world PVP not be implemented in ways that drive away new players. To that end we support appropriate compromises such as some geographic restrictions (e.g. safe zones"), especially in main cities and crafting areas, and also the ability of players in some situations to opt-out (e.g. to use instanced settings for roleplay events).
***
Now, I am not sure how many you will convert. A lot of anti-PVP players are dead set against it. But I think there are a LOT of people in a grey area. People who WOULD enjoy full PVP if it wasn't something they were forced to do 24/7.
But many "hard-core" PVPers don't want an inch of compromise. They seem to enjoy debating through taunts. It is almost as if they need to act like Internet "gangstas" in order to keep their "street cred" with the other PVPers.
You will catch more bees with honey.
OP:
I get that you want to dispel myths about full pvp. However, your approach is pretty condescending and a bit dismissive of the reasons some people don't like it. You're attacking straw men -- the reasons you want to believe people have.
That's cool, if what you're doing is "defending" pvp in an internet-style debate. That isn't going to change anyone's minds. It's not going to help a "hater" come to terms with pvp in a constructive way, but it will sure make you feel good to be right.
Or, you could drop the straw men and find out what it is exactly that people don't like and a) help them find useful approaches to problems that minimize their frustration, and b) help the community create more well-implemented PVP schemes that allow carebears to *be* carebears within the pvp environment (like Eve does).
It's my opinion (your mileage may vary) that the common theme of *resistance* to approaching this debate in constructive ways to expand the appeal of pvp to include people who hate person-v-person combat (like me) is because people that resist being helpful **actually do want** to grief me. They want a return to UO-style pvp where poor helpless carebears get squashed and still have to come back and take some more punishment.
Now, of course, that's a straw man too -- but figuring out what I think, showing me that pvp doesn't actually have to be a gankfest if implemented right -- would be more effective at converting the "haters" than a condescending and dismissive post like yours.
Do what you want, of course. Just don't expect people to come around to your point of view when all you do is bash them for seeing things differently.
Whenever this topic comes up, people like to play the DayZ card, completely forgetting that DayZ works because most players don't give a flying crap about their character. Saying "But look at DayZ!" is like saying "But look at Quake!"
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
And why do they care less about their characters in DayZ than in let's say WoW? What if an MMORPG can be designed so that people do care less about their characters in that MMORPG compared to WoW?
Because of the origi0ns of mmoRPGs... Roleplaying games. You SHOULD care about your character. IMHO it is one of the reasons of MMORPGs decline... They don't even try to be RPGs with a life world and characters to care about. It is all throwaway and IMHO one of the reasons people jump games.. They do not care. Create a char, burn throw, throw away... NEXT!
I guess more PVE players care for their char and their playtime and their enviromental experience, so they wouldn't want to play a game like that? Perhaps for some even a lobby with random dungeons to jump in would suffice, but for others that's no virtual world anymore.
And well.. that is the point. At least for me i felt a lot more immersed in DayZ and i actually cared a lot more about dying then in almost any MMORPG(or RPG for that matter) i ever played before.
Death matters in DayZ, and you feel some satisfaction not do die for days. I couldn't care less in a game like WoW, GW2 or any similar game to die or for my character.. they are all the same anyway.. hell even in EvE were you do lose sometimes a lot of stuff i didn't cared as much as dying in DayZ. And you actually invest a lot of time, and effort not to die.. actually the game is about not dying, hence called survivor game.
Yeap you don't have a steep vertical progression in DayZ.. but i personally never did see the advantage of a steep vertical progression. But i will not deny, that different people feel different about different games, and enjoy different gameplays, but in all honestly this thread is all about it. Some do like PvP some don't. And it is nothing wrong one way or the other. So my dear pve player just accept, that there are some players, which don't like what you want and do enjoy other kind of experiences.
I don't enjoy power progressing. I don't enjoy endless raiding and hunting for the better gear. I don't enjoy boring kill 10 rats quests. I did not enjoy most of the level experience from DAoC from Level 1 to Level 50. But i enjoyed the RvR experience afterwards, i did enjoyed some casual pveing in Darkness Falls(at lvl 50) to get some money. I did enjoy to run sometimes for fun(without any requirement as it is in almost any pve game) to go with a few friends into some dungeon and fight some. I do enjoy resource gathering(especially in a dangerous environment, aka open pvp), i do enjoy a well made crafting experience, where crafting matters, where the made items matter, and not just the high end stuff. I do enjoy socializing with friends, roleplaying in a tavern, look for different looking outfits or tailor/craft them, i do enjoy roleplaying a guard or a bandit. I do enjoy playing as trader, transporter or mercenary to protect caravans. And a lot of other stuff.
I am not the usual PvE player(or a PvE player at all) i don't enjoy 99% of all PvE mmorpgs. I did not enjoy WoW. But i did like UO, especially before Trammel. I did enjoy Shadowbane(although graphics and bugs were somewhat disturbing). I did enjoy as i said DAoC from lvl 50 until ToA. I do enjoy EvE(also i don't like the boring and slow combat that much, or the slow pace gameplay in general). I like PvP games, especially when PvP matters, or at least the PvP is a challenge. I do like Battlefield, i do like almost all RTS games, i don't like in most cases Battlegrounds in MMORPGs, i do like sometimes a nice MOBA game. I do like a good game of Civilization with a few friends. I do like a good game of The Settlers with a few friends. I do like the Anno/Dawn of Discovery series. And i do like DayZ, Minecraft and a lot of other games. And i do like Pen&Paper Roleplaying games.. and if we play Pen&Paper PlayerKilling is actually part of the game.
So please spare me to say that the MMORPGs i enjoy, or which i would enjoy are not worth playing. Because as with all things it is all about personal preference.
I never told you what you have to like. Due to the battleground stuff I started to like some PvP light, even though I die alot. I'm not the normal PvE player either. I don't "die to go home". I completely dislike the system of killing oneself to fasttravel. I get bored at "max level end game", I want an enjoyable journey, better if I can have some roleplaying here and there and some nice chat. I do understand the fear of griefing though, since I noticed that the moment you give someone the means to be a jerk someone WILL be a jerk and if enough people are jerks a critical mass is reached that drives others away. I would prefer a game where there are real PvP areas that have effects for your faction, so that people like me also have interest going there and those who don't can stick to their stuff, without being hassled.
Where is the realism if someone kills someone else just outside city gates and then passes the city gates, merryly passes the guards and sells the looted stuff? People talk risk vs reward, but the moment you throw in consequences for your action they scream "That can't be!". I would play a game where a marauding murderer only could go to certain cities and would be KoS for every guard and patrol around, since it adds realism. I even tip my toe into those waters with Age of Wushu/ Wulin (will try the latter to compare them) and I'm using the trial of Vendetta Online, even though it has two things I usually don't like in MMORPGS: OW PvP & Twitch Combat. It should not only be Risk vs Reward, but Risk vs. Reward vs. Consequence for your actions. I guess this would open such a game to a wider audience, since griefing would have consequences for the griefer.
The part about my preference and that i am sick of getting said what i have to like or what don't work was not addressed to you alone, and more to a general audience replying in that thread.
And about consequences.. i am completely for consquences for different actions and to minimize griefing.. and even think that a good consequence system increases the immersion. And i have to agree that not a lot of pvp mmorpgs implemented a good consequence system or even a consequence system at all.
But at least in my perception the very most players argueing about a ffa pvp mmorpg do favor one with a good consequence system for different actions. If my clan/nation/faction with a other clan/nation there should not be a lot or even any consequence for pvp, but pking should have consequences. As other actions should also have consequences. As example i would like to see a good thief system, where thiefs could actually break into houses, fortresses or even pickpocket players.. but to do it, you have first of all balance it, that it isn't to easy, and the risk of getting caught is huge, and of course with a consequence system. So if you get caught you will have to face some serious consequence. But truth is, it isn't easy to implement, and i never did see a working system.. but i would extremely like it.
It is, at least in my mind, somewhat ironically that almost any mmorpg do have a thief or rogue class, but you can't do anything like that at all. It is somewhat mind-boggling.
Agree about the rouge/ thief stuff. The ultimate MMORPG would mirror a world for me. The clan/ guild PvP stuff is easily solved. Add a "declare war" system. Your clan declares war on clan B. They now have the option to accept the war or back down, which should have consequences, like a ransom or some faction loss, something like that. If war is accepted players form both factions can go for it without consequences almost everywhere (city guards wont appreciate people fighting in the middle of the market square or town hall). Perhaps there could even be an ambush mode, to force another clan into war, but that should have consequences, too. The pickpoket thingy is much harder to implement.
I guess many players would like a well balanced game, but if I read "If I see a player, I want to kill him", or in an Age of Wushu thread someone complains his murdering actions acutally had consequences I just know you need this stuff to keep out PKers, who just want to ruin another ones game. Those who enjoy a broad experience are the majority I guess and hope, but the hardliners are the most vocal ones.
You are trying to force your playstyle on everyone, its why you made this whole thread in the first place, its why you made that OP with every one of your "facts" which is total bull and false.
We know people like you don't care if we don't want to play the same kind of game as you, you just want us in so you can gank people, its why you destroy every game you come across, I'll say this again, there are games with full pvp out there, why aren't you playing them? I'll tell you why, because you won't be happy till you destroy the games other people like to play.