Imo it is a terrible scenario not likely to ever happen.Stuff like that works 100x better in a PVE scenario than pvp.
These guys need to sit back and think about the players and what is likely going to happen.
Do they think there is going to be large groups of guilds sitting there waiting to take part in a scenario?No players login,ask what do we do now,then what?Some guild leader says hey every player that login lets ask them to form a group and wait for more to login.Then maybe we will find another group also waiting to fill their ranks to fight us along the way.
That is what really happens and it almost never works.On the other hand if you have set NPC/PVE's you knwo are possibly at various parts of the world,it means everyone is in on the grouping up and going out to fight,knowing they will have instant action.Then you add in REASON,i definitely would not want to pvp just because i can,i couldn't care less.
An example is your guild goes out and conquers an Orc Stronghold to gain some valuable crafting ideas or perhaps it allows your guild to hire those Orcs to farm wood for your guild or whatever other cool rpg aspect you can add to the game.You can even think along the lowest lines such as going into Deathfist Citadel to earn some crafting recipes.
The reason PVE rules big time over pvp,is because when you defeat say a stronghold of Orcs or that giant Boss you feel like you accomplished a great feat.You kill a bunch of other meaningless players it just feels ho hum,sort of like ok what now?
Personally, i disagree from my experience playing certain games. Now I agree though that PVE is a key component. PVP should happen around pve events or pve/crafting goals. Now much more complex pvp happenstances have happened to me than was described in the video in uo,swg, and EVE many many times. When "the harrower" fights happened in UO it got crazy strategic and the fights were some of the best i've ever had in a game period. It was all centered around a pve boss fight though and the loot you got from it.
Killing these players never felt ho hum to me becuase there was so much to gain from looting them or controlling the field and killing the boss after. Killing the players as they are trying to get out wtih the loot they acquired and ambushing and killing them and taking it for yourself was pretty damn fun too.
While they all had different styles of PVE, for many that entire side was only to get to the "real game."
I do agree to some extent when a game is a static and or persistent world/experience, but with short term campaigns meant to incorporate some of the "lobby" experience that most PVP is today, PVE has little to no use. There is less time/need to go kill mobs for X or for devs to waste time/resources on creating gamey artificial experiences to get players to interact.
There will still be monsters to add danger and some resources for crafting, but quests and BIS gear from mobs has no real place in a game like CF. If players can't find enough entertainment from each other, either ACE messed up or players don't really want to play with others in a MMO designed entirely around the concept of social game play.
The simple fact is that PVP just doesn't hold any sustained mass-appeal in MMO format.
The vast majority of PVP games are lobby-based instant action games. There's no need for grinding, character progression, gear, etc.. Classic MMO's are not designed that way, which is why they cannot ever rival MOBA'a and the CS/CoD/Battlefield /WoT type shooters.
Every time a new "PVP-focused" MMO is announced, everyone hopes that "this time it will be different". It never is, because it cannot be.
Don't believe they are trying to overtake lobby PVP games. They seem content on having a player base large enough to sustain the game and feed the devs. Obviously they wouldn't turn away more fans and profit though.
CF is different while being the same. A good chunk of the ideas/features aren't new, but haven't been packaged together. Which in itself is new. A game should be a sum of its parts, not each weighted individually against entire other games or their features.
Almost every major MMO has PVP in some form. A decent chunk of players participate in it. There is a ton of appeal.
FFA-player loot-open world PVP games do not hold sustained mass appeal (assuming that's what you meant). Big reason is these games for the most part have had serious issues as I said above. ACE seems to have gone down the list and figured out how to remedy most of the problems head on. A huge solution is borrowing aspects of lobby PVP which is pretty much what the majority of "PVP" is these days and letting it loose into a more open world experience.
Could be terrible, but clearly there are plenty of folks willing to give it a try. Only one way to find out if it will work or not and I'd rather a company try and fail then not try at all or produce yet another game that will receive all the same negativity (on this site at least) regardless if it is PVE 100% or whatever design.
Comments
Personally, i disagree from my experience playing certain games. Now I agree though that PVE is a key component. PVP should happen around pve events or pve/crafting goals. Now much more complex pvp happenstances have happened to me than was described in the video in uo,swg, and EVE many many times. When "the harrower" fights happened in UO it got crazy strategic and the fights were some of the best i've ever had in a game period. It was all centered around a pve boss fight though and the loot you got from it.
Killing these players never felt ho hum to me becuase there was so much to gain from looting them or controlling the field and killing the boss after. Killing the players as they are trying to get out wtih the loot they acquired and ambushing and killing them and taking it for yourself was pretty damn fun too.
What about games like UO, SB, DAoC, DF, GW1?
While they all had different styles of PVE, for many that entire side was only to get to the "real game."
I do agree to some extent when a game is a static and or persistent world/experience, but with short term campaigns meant to incorporate some of the "lobby" experience that most PVP is today, PVE has little to no use. There is less time/need to go kill mobs for X or for devs to waste time/resources on creating gamey artificial experiences to get players to interact.
There will still be monsters to add danger and some resources for crafting, but quests and BIS gear from mobs has no real place in a game like CF. If players can't find enough entertainment from each other, either ACE messed up or players don't really want to play with others in a MMO designed entirely around the concept of social game play.
Don't believe they are trying to overtake lobby PVP games. They seem content on having a player base large enough to sustain the game and feed the devs. Obviously they wouldn't turn away more fans and profit though.
CF is different while being the same. A good chunk of the ideas/features aren't new, but haven't been packaged together. Which in itself is new. A game should be a sum of its parts, not each weighted individually against entire other games or their features.
Almost every major MMO has PVP in some form. A decent chunk of players participate in it. There is a ton of appeal.
FFA-player loot-open world PVP games do not hold sustained mass appeal (assuming that's what you meant). Big reason is these games for the most part have had serious issues as I said above. ACE seems to have gone down the list and figured out how to remedy most of the problems head on. A huge solution is borrowing aspects of lobby PVP which is pretty much what the majority of "PVP" is these days and letting it loose into a more open world experience.
Could be terrible, but clearly there are plenty of folks willing to give it a try. Only one way to find out if it will work or not and I'd rather a company try and fail then not try at all or produce yet another game that will receive all the same negativity (on this site at least) regardless if it is PVE 100% or whatever design.