Originally posted by oldschoolpunk Mass Effect, The Witcher, Divinity, Wasteland 2, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, Deus Ex....etc, etc...No option for PVP...if they knew it was SO popular in the RPG community, why didn't they add it??
I will add Diablo ... and they actually tried and decide not to bother with pvp in D3.
There is no good reason pve and pvp have to be in the same game. There are plenty of RPGs with zero pvp, and plenty of pvp game with no RPG/pve.
I never said "GoD was L2". (see "prelude" above) I suspect I have more "actual L2 experience" than you do.
Secondly, Regardless of you not seeing red clans or perma reds they were there. EvilSeed? The red who had so many kills he found a bug where he turned "white" at a certain number. Though I liked EvilSeed, at least he was a good player and not an ass.
and yes, at the start of L2 Talking island was a pain to get there. Money was hard to come by so people took the boat. Remember the boat? no you don't because you never played L2 at its earliest most savage days.
Quite frankly, you are trying to talk about L2 that you never experienced. What about the people who would try to walk to the mainland because you couldn't die from drowning but didn't want to take the boat because they would get pk'ed waiting for it?
IN any case "that's my whole point": The reds on Talking Island didn't care about cleaning Karma.
The red system didn't dissuade players from camping Talking Island, or even taking over Dion. Or taking over Cruma for that matter as one of the clans took it over for a bit so that their players could level.
then again, I was on Himdemith so maybe you are forgiven for not seeing these things as they didn't happen on "your" server. Though again, I really doubt you played the game in its heyday but seem to think that your experience "is L2".
Maybe you are right, but seems I have better experience from playing L2 without major bugs and with working PvP/PK system, which is important in this case.
@Dmkano And about AA, sry but PvP system there is terrible, even in GW2 it was better. Factions are other way to make instanced game, do not say that is good. If players are so weak and scary to play without risk, seems they deserve shit games, and nariusseldon is right in his delusions.
My thought is that the time you played didn't have those people who weren't dissuaded by what was a more aggressive pvp system.
Remember, the heyday when I played had a more aggressive pvp/pk system. It was then lessened as time went by.
So the people who were die hard reds weren't even dissuaded by them dropping a lot of items for so few pk's.
My other thought is the other game you mentioned, EVE. Though I was pk'ed in the high sec (that's the less pk area correct?), and I have very little idea of how that happened (I was mining while another ship hovered about me, I went to get my canister and I was dead. at least that's how I remember it) it seems that at least EVE has a more regulated system.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think it's interesting that people mentioned the FPS as a comparison.
Old online FPS had the same problem as open world PVP. The first few weeks of FPS, all servers were always packed. After a few weeks 90% had left.
The reason for this was that a small percentage that plays 24/7 starts to massively outperform people that play only once a week.
That small percentage of the game destroys any fun others have.
So now FPS change, you now have ranking systems, it ranks equally skilled people together, you now have progression systems independent of wins, you now have low precision weapons that don't need dead-on aim, most FPS now have "luck" weapons, you can get a kill by simply having luck. In old FPS the best players would destroy bad player with 40-0 kills, now you rarely see that anymore.
FPS changed a lot, because when a small percentage of the game ends up dominating it, everyone else bails. This happened with FPS, they changed them. This happened with open world PVP, they changed them to instanced PVP, added safe zones, and PVP is no longer all or nothing.
But while the PVP games changed, many of the PVP players did not, many PVP players are still hostile people towards newbees, they still try to boast about their PVP skill and their ability to make someone's gaming experience miserable. This stigma of PVP players will stick around, and because of it, convincing PVE players to try PVP has become impossible.
Many PVE players play games like FPS or other competitive games, but don't play PVP. In an FPS, people frag someone and leave it at that, you don't antagonise that players, you don't go spawn camp that player and you certainly don't chain frag someone who is new to the game, you explain things. Many MMO PVP players don't do that, many will instead boast on forums how they killed such and such, many times players who aren't even interested in the PVP part of the game. This is why PVP has the stigma it has and why it's really hard for PVP MMO to get enough players to survive.
In, MMO gaming, a genre with millons of players, PVP MMO still struggle, much more than they used to because PVP MMO often revolve around things people don't enjoy, harrasment, PK'ing, boasting that you're better than X and Y, drama, and a general atmosphere of hostility.
I think it's interesting that people mentioned the FPS as a comparison.
Old online FPS had the same problem as open world PVP. The first few weeks of FPS, all servers were always packed. After a few weeks 90% had left.
The reason for this was that a small percentage that plays 24/7 starts to massively outperform people that play only once a week.
That small percentage of the game destroys any fun others have.
So now FPS change, you now have ranking systems, it ranks equally skilled people together, you now have progression systems independent of wins, you now have low precision weapons that don't need dead-on aim, most FPS now have "luck" weapons, you can get a kill by simply having luck. In old FPS the best players would destroy bad player with 40-0 kills, now you rarely see that anymore.
FPS changed a lot, because when a small percentage of the game ends up dominating it, everyone else bails. This happened with FPS, they changed them. This happened with open world PVP, they changed them to instanced PVP, added safe zones, and PVP is no longer all or nothing.
But while the PVP games changed, many of the PVP players did not, many PVP players are still hostile people towards newbees, they still try to boast about their PVP skill and their ability to make someone's gaming experience miserable. This stigma of PVP players will stick around, and because of it, convincing PVE players to try PVP has become impossible.
Many PVE players play games like FPS or other competitive games, but don't play PVP. In an FPS, people frag someone and leave it at that, you don't antagonise that players, you don't go spawn camp that player and you certainly don't chain frag someone who is new to the game, you explain things. Many MMO PVP players don't do that, many will instead boast on forums how they killed such and such, many times players who aren't even interested in the PVP part of the game. This is why PVP has the stigma it has and why it's really hard for PVP MMO to get enough players to survive.
In, MMO gaming, a genre with millons of players, PVP MMO still struggle, much more than they used to because PVP MMO often revolve around things people don't enjoy, harrasment, PK'ing, boasting that you're better than X and Y, drama, and a general atmosphere of hostility.
I understand and agree with most all your saying . However i don't feel you are blaming the right villains for their crimes.
First the FPS.
I played every FPS you can think of and i tend to be in the top scores on just about all of them. Now i play on the hardcore servers because getting shot with a bullet multiple times and not dying is just plain retarded. For example if i sneak up to your sniper ars and do you point blank in the head with the desert eagle, in no way shape or form should you still be standing. I bring up the hardcore servers for this reason. On those servers it did not matter one bit what lvl you where, ok you have more toys to chose from. But a noobs bullet playing for the first time still killed the must seasoned vet with one shot. it didn't matter one bit how many levels i had over the first time player , you get shot you die, period. That is balance in its purest form.
But i would be one of those people with 40-45 kills and less then 5 deaths. Not because my weapons where better or the people i played against didn't have my skill level. that has nothing to do with it. the key to my success and the reason why i could so easily and still so easily own in these games is this .. i know the maps , witch means i know the choke points. And with that and a mini map showing me where the enemy is basically moving and that's all the recon i need to set an ambush or relocate to a more secure area.
It has only been sense the maps have gotten bigger and the terrain has become destroyable that there has become more of a challenge to a person like me and seems more balanced to a person probably like you. it didn't have anything to do with who i get to go against and what their skill level is or what weapons they have, none of that balanced the FPS experience. It really just took a bigger more realistic combat experience to add balance.
Same thing kinda applies to everything you said about the PvP experience. Those griefing, spawn camping, noob taunting, forum tuff guys, only existed in MMO's because the MMO was never made with PvP in mind. Even the MMO's made today that are supposedly for the PvPers they didn't come up with any solutions to the problems either. The best they could come up with is only allow PvP in certain area's ? Really ? That's the brilliant solution to the problem ? I mean with innovation like that , its no wounder why you would have a problem getting any MMO PvEer to get excited about PvP. There is nothing to get excited about.
This is why i still say not one MMO to date has come anywhere close to pulling off a really good PvP / PKing game. In order to do it right i think you have to change almost everything about the current MMO format . The only game that might come close to this is Everquest Next. but i honestly think they will not go hardcore enough to make a world dynamic enough to support real meaningful plot driven , true consequence to choices PvP.
I'm only interested in games with cooperation and working together. I will not play games where there are FFA and other pk aspects. Lots of people like those games and there are games that have those things but I will not play them. I will not accept anyone else having any control over my game play period !
That is my opinion if you think its stupid it is still an opinion I hold. I'm not about to change my mind with your insults either but you have not presented any convincing argument nor does your attitude help me see players of your ilk in any better light. It only serves to strengthen my argument that I am very happy not to play with people like you.
The safeguards developers built in usually serves to help the PKers grief others as evidenced by some threads I have read. Don't waste your time on my views they are quite entrenched and the only type of PvP I accept are battlegrounds where I decide when I PvP.
All you're are capable of is belittling others. Well be happy with the games you have and their small population. I bet driving people away is a good method of game play in most of these games.
You are wrong to think that cooperation needs competition . That is not true I have seen in real life and in games people working together because they enjoy the company and the fact that they are working towards a common goal. Communities build things all the time without any need for competiton. You only see things in a conflict scenario so your opinion is in fact faulty because it is narrow. You opinion is motivated with ridiculing which is why you couched it as stupid without actually understanding that people play for different reasons. Anything not your way is stupid in your book.
The way I play is I like to help others and keep them alive and help to complete objectives I do not need to compete with anyone to achieve that. You instead cannot see that and attacked it as a stupid view. Anyway I'm done here and as you said my view is of no interest to you and yet you saw fit to attack it. How sad you felt you had to call it stupid without any real understanding.
Again with the WoW. Don't you people have any other game for a point of reference ? It must really irk you that that game has that many players. Well League of Legends has more players. I actually got introduced to PvP in WoW and I enjoyed it immensely. I do not however enjoy being camped and killed so sorry PK is not something I will accept in a game I like and will actively campaign against it in new games too if my opinion is valued by a developer.
If people didn't like PVP then games like Battlefield, COD or even more hardcore games like EVE and Dayz wouldn't be so popular.
The problem is the developers, you cannot blame the players.
WoW used to have amazing world PVP, then Blizzard killed it off with Battlegrounds and then flying mounts... nothing to do with the players not wanting it, Blizzard just made it so putting your time into world PVP was worthless.
Just like what was said in an earlier post, MMORPG PvP is dead. Every single popular PvP game that you just named is not an MMORPG. You named 3 lobby/server based shooter games and a space combat game that isn't very popular.
You can blame the players for that. Because the developers will make whatever the players want or their game will die.
Obviously not true because every MMO since WoW has come out and flopped, apparently they weren't delivering what players wanted at all.
Originally posted by ikcin It is not winning, it is a prove I'm right. And I have enough arguments for my opinion. Competitive games with ffa PvP and open world are far more social.
So, in your opinion, you have enough "arguments" to support your opinion ?
Originally posted by Forgrimm MMORPG PVP often sucks because it usually falls into one of these categories: High levels ganking lower levels, roaming gank squads targeting lone players, or gear-dependent games where you stand no chance against better geared players. If you want good PVP you're much better off playing an FPS or a MOBA.
We hear this excuse too many times. Maybe its time for PVE losers to learn PVP, instead of blaming game mechanics?
Perfect example of the mindset of a griefer. Nice way to label all pve players with a derrogatory term. Enjoy your barren and empty games as very few people enjoy playing the pvpcentric MMO's anymore. Too many of your kind has ruined the community.
Most people I think realized that it ends up boiling down to simple ganking... and often done by players with a huge advantage. its not really fun when your ganked and you pretty much have no chance of ever fighting back. It has come to a point I don't feel much desire to play in pvp servers since the bits of actual open world pvp that is fun (faction vs factions big battles) is so rare and is ever really 'balanced', typically seeing a LOT more group gankings making an already usually 1 sided affair even worst.
Its just devolving into being rather pitiful that it makes it a waste of time, much better kept for games more tailored for it.
Why do you think I insulted you? I say nothing about you, I just think your opinion is very stupid...
It is not winning, it is a prove I'm right. And I have enough arguments for my opinion.
So why so called pve players do not want PvP or ask only for "fair" PvP in arenas. Because they are cowards. They are so afraid not to lose, and they ask for games without losers. But if there is no losers, there is no winners too.
Originally posted by cheyane I'm only interested in games with cooperation and working together. I will not play games where there are FFA and other pk aspects. Lots of people like those games and there are games that have those things but I will not play them. I will not accept anyone else having any control over my game play period !
This is the most stupid thing I ever read. First, the PK as game mechanism is made to protect the pve players. It becomes broken as mechanism when the dev uses it like roleplaying feature.
Second, there is no cooperation without competition. The other way is players to be forced to cooperate with stronger mobs. And always somebody else have control on your game. You choose to be controlled by dev. But when you play with other players you have a control too. And seems you do not like to play with other players, so why the hell you play MMOs?
Lol You managed to say something FAR more stupid. You are absolutely wrong in what you say. What you say isnt even an opinion, it is jsut wrong and ignorant. You dont need competition to have cooperation. What if two people wanted to work togather to craft something? no competition there, but plenty of cooperation.
PK systems were NOT invented to be a means of protecting Pve players. Define PK = PLAYER KILLER. Killing <> protection. Think before you speak, its good for you.
Why any player will prefer to play vs mobs instead vs other players? I can understand so called pve players if we are talking about a game without fight, some kind of Sims or Farmville. But we are talking about fight vs AI or vs other human player.
The difference is, you cannot lose in fight with AI. There is no losers in solo games. There is no losers in fights with mobs. If the mob kills the player, that does not mean the player is weak, stupid or noob. It just happens. It is even acceptable to lose gear and experience in pve, but not in PvP. But to win vs AI is totally delusional.
What changes, when instead vs AI, you fight vs other player? It is simple, you can lose, and the other player can win. You can be a weak, stupid, noob loser. Of course you can be a winner too. So why so called pve players do not want PvP or ask only for "fair" PvP in arenas. Because they are cowards. They are so afraid not to lose, and they ask for games without losers. But if there is no losers, there is no winners too.
The only difference among AI and human opponent is the risk. In both cases you fight with some pixels. But when the pixels are controlled from another player, they are more dangerous and my be cruel to losers.
This makes me wish I was a dev. If I knew how to program I could make an AI that no real person could ever defeat. It would move so chaotically, so quickly, that you wouldnt even be able to target it. So to say that you cannot lose a fight with an A.I. is just wrong. There is no losers in solo games? PLay skyrim on the highest difficulty, with fully moddeed AI and using Skyre, with no followers, no gear, no spells and lets see you defeat almost any mob. even a wolf. Cannot be done without cheating.
Now I realize my stupidity: following this thread.
Obviously not true because every MMO since WoW has come out and flopped, apparently they weren't delivering what players wanted at all.
What?
How is Marvel Heroes a flop when it is continuing to thrive and adding content?
How is TOR a flop when it makes more than $200M just in 2013?
How is GW2 a flop when it sold 3.5M copies in the first 2 weeks?
You have a weird definition of "flop".
Easy, as a player/consumer, the amount of profit that the game makes does not increase my enjoyment of said game. When a game releases as P2P and goes F2P/P2W, it has not "flopped" it has "failed", this is augmented x999 when it has the advantage of a popular IP.
When a 10 year old game is still "King", there is something extremely wrong with the competition, specially with the difference in technology.
Obviously not true because every MMO since WoW has come out and flopped, apparently they weren't delivering what players wanted at all.
What?
How is Marvel Heroes a flop when it is continuing to thrive and adding content?
How is TOR a flop when it makes more than $200M just in 2013?
How is GW2 a flop when it sold 3.5M copies in the first 2 weeks?
You have a weird definition of "flop".
Easy, as a player/consumer, the amount of profit that the game makes does not increase my enjoyment of said game. When a game releases as P2P and goes F2P/P2W, it has not "flopped" it has "failed", this is augmented x999 when it has the advantage of a popular IP.
When a 10 year old game is still "King", there is something extremely wrong with the competition, specially with the difference in technology.
Enjoyment is subjective.
I enjoy marvel Heroes very much .... so now, using your logic, that is not a flop.
So now using objective measures (financial performance, or even metacritic scores), none of these games failed.
Using subjective measures (enjoyment), marvel heroes does not "flop" by my subjective judgment. So unless the whole basis of determining "flop" is your opinion, there is no reason to say these game flopped.
How is Marvel Heroes a flop when it is continuing to thrive and adding content?
How is TOR a flop when it makes more than $200M just in 2013?
How is GW2 a flop when it sold 3.5M copies in the first 2 weeks?
You have a weird definition of "flop".
I thought LOTRO just released an expansion not to long ago............. yet they just went through their 2nd round of layoffs in the last year. Games always release content and it doesn't mean that it is thriving.
Nobody knows how much TOR made last year. It wasn't even reported in EA's financials. If you want to believe a 3rd party consulting group that makes money on advising microtransaction design, then I guess that is your choice, but don't quote their estimations as facts.
Games always sell lots of copies at their release, and GW2 is a very good price (as far as MMORPGs are concerned). Why wouldn't they sell lots of copies? Besides a large number of sales just means the game had a lot of hype. D3 sold tens of millions and players still consider it a flop, since its' gameplay fell well below expectations.
Why any player will prefer to play vs mobs instead vs other players? I can understand so called pve players if we are talking about a game without fight, some kind of Sims or Farmville. But we are talking about fight vs AI or vs other human player.
The difference is, you cannot lose in fight with AI. There is no losers in solo games. There is no losers in fights with mobs. If the mob kills the player, that does not mean the player is weak, stupid or noob. It just happens. It is even acceptable to lose gear and experience in pve, but not in PvP. But to win vs AI is totally delusional.
What changes, when instead vs AI, you fight vs other player? It is simple, you can lose, and the other player can win. You can be a weak, stupid, noob loser. Of course you can be a winner too. So why so called pve players do not want PvP or ask only for "fair" PvP in arenas. Because they are cowards. They are so afraid not to lose, and they ask for games without losers. But if there is no losers, there is no winners too.
The only difference among AI and human opponent is the risk. In both cases you fight with some pixels. But when the pixels are controlled from another player, they are more dangerous and my be cruel to losers.
This makes me wish I was a dev. If I knew how to program I could make an AI that no real person could ever defeat. It would move so chaotically, so quickly, that you wouldnt even be able to target it. So to say that you cannot lose a fight with an A.I. is just wrong. There is no losers in solo games? PLay skyrim on the highest difficulty, with fully moddeed AI and using Skyre, with no followers, no gear, no spells and lets see you defeat almost any mob. even a wolf. Cannot be done without cheating.
Now I realize my stupidity: following this thread.
This is already possible. They passed the point where AIs had to cheat to win years ago. The reasons for making AI as simple as they are or as predictable as they are pretty much all fall under the category of "players enjoy it more". The difference is in the experience.
Players can either spend time thinking about how to beat the boss, coming up with ways to win inside a defined framework, or they can mindlessly grind away at the system until they have enough resources to zerg the boss. Both require an investment of time and effort, but only the one gets the players to think about what they are doing and only the first one provides a framework where players can gradually improve both their game play and character stats.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Why any player will prefer to play vs mobs instead vs other players? I can understand so called pve players if we are talking about a game without fight, some kind of Sims or Farmville. But we are talking about fight vs AI or vs other human player.
The difference is, you cannot lose in fight with AI. There is no losers in solo games. There is no losers in fights with mobs. If the mob kills the player, that does not mean the player is weak, stupid or noob. It just happens. It is even acceptable to lose gear and experience in pve, but not in PvP. But to win vs AI is totally delusional.
What changes, when instead vs AI, you fight vs other player? It is simple, you can lose, and the other player can win. You can be a weak, stupid, noob loser. Of course you can be a winner too. So why so called pve players do not want PvP or ask only for "fair" PvP in arenas. Because they are cowards. They are so afraid not to lose, and they ask for games without losers. But if there is no losers, there is no winners too.
The only difference among AI and human opponent is the risk. In both cases you fight with some pixels. But when the pixels are controlled from another player, they are more dangerous and my be cruel to losers.
Because I can't be bothered to chase around some bunny hopping, trash talking, smash mouth idiot.
That's why!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Comments
I will add Diablo ... and they actually tried and decide not to bother with pvp in D3.
There is no good reason pve and pvp have to be in the same game. There are plenty of RPGs with zero pvp, and plenty of pvp game with no RPG/pve.
That's just, like, my opinion, man.
My thought is that the time you played didn't have those people who weren't dissuaded by what was a more aggressive pvp system.
Remember, the heyday when I played had a more aggressive pvp/pk system. It was then lessened as time went by.
So the people who were die hard reds weren't even dissuaded by them dropping a lot of items for so few pk's.
My other thought is the other game you mentioned, EVE. Though I was pk'ed in the high sec (that's the less pk area correct?), and I have very little idea of how that happened (I was mining while another ship hovered about me, I went to get my canister and I was dead. at least that's how I remember it) it seems that at least EVE has a more regulated system.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think it's interesting that people mentioned the FPS as a comparison.
Old online FPS had the same problem as open world PVP. The first few weeks of FPS, all servers were always packed. After a few weeks 90% had left.
The reason for this was that a small percentage that plays 24/7 starts to massively outperform people that play only once a week.
That small percentage of the game destroys any fun others have.
So now FPS change, you now have ranking systems, it ranks equally skilled people together, you now have progression systems independent of wins, you now have low precision weapons that don't need dead-on aim, most FPS now have "luck" weapons, you can get a kill by simply having luck. In old FPS the best players would destroy bad player with 40-0 kills, now you rarely see that anymore.
FPS changed a lot, because when a small percentage of the game ends up dominating it, everyone else bails. This happened with FPS, they changed them. This happened with open world PVP, they changed them to instanced PVP, added safe zones, and PVP is no longer all or nothing.
But while the PVP games changed, many of the PVP players did not, many PVP players are still hostile people towards newbees, they still try to boast about their PVP skill and their ability to make someone's gaming experience miserable. This stigma of PVP players will stick around, and because of it, convincing PVE players to try PVP has become impossible.
Many PVE players play games like FPS or other competitive games, but don't play PVP. In an FPS, people frag someone and leave it at that, you don't antagonise that players, you don't go spawn camp that player and you certainly don't chain frag someone who is new to the game, you explain things. Many MMO PVP players don't do that, many will instead boast on forums how they killed such and such, many times players who aren't even interested in the PVP part of the game. This is why PVP has the stigma it has and why it's really hard for PVP MMO to get enough players to survive.
In, MMO gaming, a genre with millons of players, PVP MMO still struggle, much more than they used to because PVP MMO often revolve around things people don't enjoy, harrasment, PK'ing, boasting that you're better than X and Y, drama, and a general atmosphere of hostility.
I understand and agree with most all your saying . However i don't feel you are blaming the right villains for their crimes.
First the FPS.
I played every FPS you can think of and i tend to be in the top scores on just about all of them. Now i play on the hardcore servers because getting shot with a bullet multiple times and not dying is just plain retarded. For example if i sneak up to your sniper ars and do you point blank in the head with the desert eagle, in no way shape or form should you still be standing. I bring up the hardcore servers for this reason. On those servers it did not matter one bit what lvl you where, ok you have more toys to chose from. But a noobs bullet playing for the first time still killed the must seasoned vet with one shot. it didn't matter one bit how many levels i had over the first time player , you get shot you die, period. That is balance in its purest form.
But i would be one of those people with 40-45 kills and less then 5 deaths. Not because my weapons where better or the people i played against didn't have my skill level. that has nothing to do with it. the key to my success and the reason why i could so easily and still so easily own in these games is this .. i know the maps , witch means i know the choke points. And with that and a mini map showing me where the enemy is basically moving and that's all the recon i need to set an ambush or relocate to a more secure area.
It has only been sense the maps have gotten bigger and the terrain has become destroyable that there has become more of a challenge to a person like me and seems more balanced to a person probably like you. it didn't have anything to do with who i get to go against and what their skill level is or what weapons they have, none of that balanced the FPS experience. It really just took a bigger more realistic combat experience to add balance.
Same thing kinda applies to everything you said about the PvP experience. Those griefing, spawn camping, noob taunting, forum tuff guys, only existed in MMO's because the MMO was never made with PvP in mind. Even the MMO's made today that are supposedly for the PvPers they didn't come up with any solutions to the problems either. The best they could come up with is only allow PvP in certain area's ? Really ? That's the brilliant solution to the problem ? I mean with innovation like that , its no wounder why you would have a problem getting any MMO PvEer to get excited about PvP. There is nothing to get excited about.
This is why i still say not one MMO to date has come anywhere close to pulling off a really good PvP / PKing game. In order to do it right i think you have to change almost everything about the current MMO format . The only game that might come close to this is Everquest Next. but i honestly think they will not go hardcore enough to make a world dynamic enough to support real meaningful plot driven , true consequence to choices PvP.
Archeage pvp sucks compared to Darkfall.
Infact Archeage pvp + the rest of the game made me realize how much of an awesome full loot OpenPVP game Darkfall is.
So yeah in short.
If you want a real pvp game you have to play Darkfall unholy wars, there is no other better pvp game out there.
That is my opinion if you think its stupid it is still an opinion I hold. I'm not about to change my mind with your insults either but you have not presented any convincing argument nor does your attitude help me see players of your ilk in any better light. It only serves to strengthen my argument that I am very happy not to play with people like you.
The safeguards developers built in usually serves to help the PKers grief others as evidenced by some threads I have read. Don't waste your time on my views they are quite entrenched and the only type of PvP I accept are battlegrounds where I decide when I PvP.
All you're are capable of is belittling others. Well be happy with the games you have and their small population. I bet driving people away is a good method of game play in most of these games.
You are wrong to think that cooperation needs competition . That is not true I have seen in real life and in games people working together because they enjoy the company and the fact that they are working towards a common goal. Communities build things all the time without any need for competiton. You only see things in a conflict scenario so your opinion is in fact faulty because it is narrow. You opinion is motivated with ridiculing which is why you couched it as stupid without actually understanding that people play for different reasons. Anything not your way is stupid in your book.
The way I play is I like to help others and keep them alive and help to complete objectives I do not need to compete with anyone to achieve that. You instead cannot see that and attacked it as a stupid view. Anyway I'm done here and as you said my view is of no interest to you and yet you saw fit to attack it. How sad you felt you had to call it stupid without any real understanding.
Again with the WoW. Don't you people have any other game for a point of reference ? It must really irk you that that game has that many players. Well League of Legends has more players. I actually got introduced to PvP in WoW and I enjoyed it immensely. I do not however enjoy being camped and killed so sorry PK is not something I will accept in a game I like and will actively campaign against it in new games too if my opinion is valued by a developer.
Neither of you have any "arguments", only opinions, so there is no question of "winning".
Your tastes differ, just leave it at that.
Obviously not true because every MMO since WoW has come out and flopped, apparently they weren't delivering what players wanted at all.
So, in your opinion, you have enough "arguments" to support your opinion ?
Perfect example of the mindset of a griefer. Nice way to label all pve players with a derrogatory term. Enjoy your barren and empty games as very few people enjoy playing the pvpcentric MMO's anymore. Too many of your kind has ruined the community.
No thanks. I have too much self-respect for that.
Most people I think realized that it ends up boiling down to simple ganking... and often done by players with a huge advantage. its not really fun when your ganked and you pretty much have no chance of ever fighting back. It has come to a point I don't feel much desire to play in pvp servers since the bits of actual open world pvp that is fun (faction vs factions big battles) is so rare and is ever really 'balanced', typically seeing a LOT more group gankings making an already usually 1 sided affair even worst.
Its just devolving into being rather pitiful that it makes it a waste of time, much better kept for games more tailored for it.
Lol You managed to say something FAR more stupid. You are absolutely wrong in what you say. What you say isnt even an opinion, it is jsut wrong and ignorant. You dont need competition to have cooperation. What if two people wanted to work togather to craft something? no competition there, but plenty of cooperation.
PK systems were NOT invented to be a means of protecting Pve players. Define PK = PLAYER KILLER. Killing <> protection. Think before you speak, its good for you.
This makes me wish I was a dev. If I knew how to program I could make an AI that no real person could ever defeat. It would move so chaotically, so quickly, that you wouldnt even be able to target it. So to say that you cannot lose a fight with an A.I. is just wrong. There is no losers in solo games? PLay skyrim on the highest difficulty, with fully moddeed AI and using Skyre, with no followers, no gear, no spells and lets see you defeat almost any mob. even a wolf. Cannot be done without cheating.
Now I realize my stupidity: following this thread.
What?
How is Marvel Heroes a flop when it is continuing to thrive and adding content?
How is TOR a flop when it makes more than $200M just in 2013?
How is GW2 a flop when it sold 3.5M copies in the first 2 weeks?
You have a weird definition of "flop".
Easy, as a player/consumer, the amount of profit that the game makes does not increase my enjoyment of said game. When a game releases as P2P and goes F2P/P2W, it has not "flopped" it has "failed", this is augmented x999 when it has the advantage of a popular IP.
When a 10 year old game is still "King", there is something extremely wrong with the competition, specially with the difference in technology.
Enjoyment is subjective.
I enjoy marvel Heroes very much .... so now, using your logic, that is not a flop.
So now using objective measures (financial performance, or even metacritic scores), none of these games failed.
Using subjective measures (enjoyment), marvel heroes does not "flop" by my subjective judgment. So unless the whole basis of determining "flop" is your opinion, there is no reason to say these game flopped.
I thought LOTRO just released an expansion not to long ago............. yet they just went through their 2nd round of layoffs in the last year. Games always release content and it doesn't mean that it is thriving.
Nobody knows how much TOR made last year. It wasn't even reported in EA's financials. If you want to believe a 3rd party consulting group that makes money on advising microtransaction design, then I guess that is your choice, but don't quote their estimations as facts.
Games always sell lots of copies at their release, and GW2 is a very good price (as far as MMORPGs are concerned). Why wouldn't they sell lots of copies? Besides a large number of sales just means the game had a lot of hype. D3 sold tens of millions and players still consider it a flop, since its' gameplay fell well below expectations.
This is already possible. They passed the point where AIs had to cheat to win years ago. The reasons for making AI as simple as they are or as predictable as they are pretty much all fall under the category of "players enjoy it more". The difference is in the experience.
Players can either spend time thinking about how to beat the boss, coming up with ways to win inside a defined framework, or they can mindlessly grind away at the system until they have enough resources to zerg the boss. Both require an investment of time and effort, but only the one gets the players to think about what they are doing and only the first one provides a framework where players can gradually improve both their game play and character stats.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Because I can't be bothered to chase around some bunny hopping, trash talking, smash mouth idiot.
That's why!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!