That would maybe stop some of the problems that plagued shadowbane where one nation would get out of control and dominate the server and destroy all pvp, and cause guilds to quit etc etc.
This is what worries me about this type of game. It's what happened both Darkfall and Mortal Online when I played, but I don't know how those games are doing today. One clan/guild or specific alliance gets so powerful, all other clans get marginalized. There is no place for small clans to contribute. They just get rolled for their loot. There doesn't seem to be a way to stimulate long-term rivalry and competition to keep conflicts fresh and relevant to most players.
It also can happen in faction based games. Certain factions have a larger population and start to win and dominate maps more and more. This has a snowball effect as many players switch sides or re-roll the the winning side. Then those remaining in the minority factions start to lose incentive to pvp. If they play the game for pvp, they lose incentive to play/pay.
I also want to acknowledge what Dullahan and Pratt2112 have said. I don't have anything to add, but your thoughts are worthwhile to consider and I appreciated reading them in this this thread. I hope devs consider these things, too.
Thinking about games as worlds along those lines has kind of ruined the other games I've been killing time with recently. Think about the atrocities committed by GW2, ESO, or SWTOR, if you think about creating a game world where players are interdependent. These games are (or will soon be) so close to fashion studios where people just want to model their vanity outfits which they buy in the cash shop. It makes me queezy thinking about it.
I guess I will just go play some War Thunder instead.
Comments
This is what worries me about this type of game. It's what happened both Darkfall and Mortal Online when I played, but I don't know how those games are doing today. One clan/guild or specific alliance gets so powerful, all other clans get marginalized. There is no place for small clans to contribute. They just get rolled for their loot. There doesn't seem to be a way to stimulate long-term rivalry and competition to keep conflicts fresh and relevant to most players.
It also can happen in faction based games. Certain factions have a larger population and start to win and dominate maps more and more. This has a snowball effect as many players switch sides or re-roll the the winning side. Then those remaining in the minority factions start to lose incentive to pvp. If they play the game for pvp, they lose incentive to play/pay.
I also want to acknowledge what Dullahan and Pratt2112 have said. I don't have anything to add, but your thoughts are worthwhile to consider and I appreciated reading them in this this thread. I hope devs consider these things, too.
Thinking about games as worlds along those lines has kind of ruined the other games I've been killing time with recently. Think about the atrocities committed by GW2, ESO, or SWTOR, if you think about creating a game world where players are interdependent. These games are (or will soon be) so close to fashion studios where people just want to model their vanity outfits which they buy in the cash shop. It makes me queezy thinking about it.
I guess I will just go play some War Thunder instead.