I'm not saying UO was the "best of all time", for that is purely subjective. How about looking at "percentage of MMO players playing the games" instead of raw numbers? Maybe put some context into the mix?
How about not? It is the ONLY MMORPG game at the time .. of course it is going to do well, even when it is making a very small splash (compared to the games i listed) in the gaming world.
Don't confuse lots of press (because it is first) and the ability to take over a big market.
I see... Does not fit what you wish, so ignore. Got it.
Back when I played The Matrix Online, the game involved a lot of mystery and secret meetings. It was kinda cool. BUT! Our secret meetings were often interrupted by rival factions. It was PvE at the time, so the best we could do was challenge them to a duel, use harsh language, or just go to a different location. It really broke the immersion, and I thought, "Wouldn't it be nice (and realistic) if we could shoot these infiltrators?"
The problem, of course, is that if a game is PvP it is ONLY PvP. It's essentially just a bloodbath shooting range with no rhyme or reason. That works fine for games like COD, or MOBAs, but not an RPG.
So the question is this; is it possible to walk the line? Can you create a realistic, immersive world that focuses on exploration, crafting, socializing and a fair amount of PvE, AND allow PvP without it degrading into a warzone? Or is PvP all or nothing?
This is too general. There are MMOs where you either PvP, PvE or both, like SWToR, FFXIV etc.. and there are games where you must PvP to PvE and vice versa like Aion, and then there is the annoying bit like TERA where you often don't want to PvP but you get hammered in Guild battle anyway.
In a way. The problem with PVP in the vast majority of MMORPG simply doesn't matter. There are very few games that get PVP right. Eve is one of them.
The problem above comes from one simple issue: PVP without consequences is meaningless.
Agreed. I personally hate griefers who PK for no reason other than "it's fun", but I'm also not a fan of this powderpuff approach devs have taken to player death. "Let's not penalize them for dying, cuz then they'll be sad."
The problem with post-wow MMOs is that the pvp has become so meaningless that it's better to play counter strike or other multiplayer games like LoL, Halo, BF or CoD multiplayer arenas.
Back when I played The Matrix Online, the game involved a lot of mystery and secret meetings. It was kinda cool. BUT! Our secret meetings were often interrupted by rival factions. It was PvE at the time, so the best we could do was challenge them to a duel, use harsh language, or just go to a different location. It really broke the immersion, and I thought, "Wouldn't it be nice (and realistic) if we could shoot these infiltrators?"
The problem, of course, is that if a game is PvP it is ONLY PvP. It's essentially just a bloodbath shooting range with no rhyme or reason. That works fine for games like COD, or MOBAs, but not an RPG.
So the question is this; is it possible to walk the line? Can you create a realistic, immersive world that focuses on exploration, crafting, socializing and a fair amount of PvE, AND allow PvP without it degrading into a warzone? Or is PvP all or nothing?
Yes it's possible. What you do is based on a layered design.
First you add "justice" for PvP done as a "crime". Real penalties that hurt, and no way out of those penalties. Without this, PKing runs rampant and players leave the game.
Then you add warfare. Included in this needs to be enlistment, and only those who enlist are participants. This protects all those who don't want to participate.
Then you add ownership of lands and resources. This provides something to fight over and gives meaning.
Number 1 is the big thing missing. UO almost had it way back when, just before they gave up and went with Trammel. They had an increasing penalty for PKing, but they also had workarounds to get out of paying that penalty. This included using thievery to entice a victim into attacking them and thus avoid being flagged as the aggressor. These things need to be taken into account. In real life, the get-away driver is held equally responsible for robbing the bank, including if someone gets shot. There's a reason for that, and that reasoning is entirely missing in MMOs.
Yes it's possible. What you do is based on a layered design.
First you add "justice" for PvP done as a "crime". Real penalties that hurt, and no way out of those penalties. Without this, PKing runs rampant and players leave the game.
Then you add warfare. Included in this needs to be enlistment, and only those who enlist are participants. This protects all those who don't want to participate.
Then you add ownership of lands and resources. This provides something to fight over and gives meaning.
Number 1 is the big thing missing. UO almost had it way back when, just before they gave up and went with Trammel. They had an increasing penalty for PKing, but they also had workarounds to get out of paying that penalty. This included using thievery to entice a victim into attacking them and thus avoid being flagged as the aggressor. These things need to be taken into account. In real life, the get-away driver is held equally responsible for robbing the bank, including if someone gets shot. There's a reason for that, and that reasoning is entirely missing in MMOs.
Good points, and we do have a crime/legal system in the game. However, those last two pretty much require that the game be designed specifically around those elements, and they just don't fit into all settings (including mine).
I'm not saying UO was the "best of all time", for that is purely subjective. How about looking at "percentage of MMO players playing the games" instead of raw numbers? Maybe put some context into the mix?
How about not? It is the ONLY MMORPG game at the time .. of course it is going to do well, even when it is making a very small splash (compared to the games i listed) in the gaming world.
Don't confuse lots of press (because it is first) and the ability to take over a big market.
I see... Does not fit what you wish, so ignore. Got it.
Ignore reasons and attack others' motivate because you have no argument. Got it.
The problem with post-wow MMOs is that the pvp has become so meaningless that it's better to play counter strike or other multiplayer games like LoL, Halo, BF or CoD multiplayer arenas.
I'm not saying UO was the "best of all time", for that is purely subjective. How about looking at "percentage of MMO players playing the games" instead of raw numbers? Maybe put some context into the mix?
How about not? It is the ONLY MMORPG game at the time .. of course it is going to do well, even when it is making a very small splash (compared to the games i listed) in the gaming world.
Don't confuse lots of press (because it is first) and the ability to take over a big market.
I see... Does not fit what you wish, so ignore. Got it.
Ignore reasons and attack others' motivate because you have no argument. Got it.
Say what? Come again.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I'm not saying UO was the "best of all time", for that is purely subjective. How about looking at "percentage of MMO players playing the games" instead of raw numbers? Maybe put some context into the mix?
How about not? It is the ONLY MMORPG game at the time .. of course it is going to do well, even when it is making a very small splash (compared to the games i listed) in the gaming world.
Don't confuse lots of press (because it is first) and the ability to take over a big market.
I see... Does not fit what you wish, so ignore. Got it.
Ignore reasons and attack others' motivate because you have no argument. Got it.
Not ignoring at all. Just made a suggestion, which you refuse to acknowledge because your "agenda" is not met with that. Got it?
Anyhoo! Let's bring things back on topic. Lot's a of mixed opinions, and I'm really interested in people's thoughts. Is PvP all or nothing, OR, how would you safely integrate PvP into a PvE-centric world?
Yes it's possible. What you do is based on a layered design.
First you add "justice" for PvP done as a "crime". Real penalties that hurt, and no way out of those penalties. Without this, PKing runs rampant and players leave the game.
Then you add warfare. Included in this needs to be enlistment, and only those who enlist are participants. This protects all those who don't want to participate.
Then you add ownership of lands and resources. This provides something to fight over and gives meaning.
Number 1 is the big thing missing. UO almost had it way back when, just before they gave up and went with Trammel. They had an increasing penalty for PKing, but they also had workarounds to get out of paying that penalty. This included using thievery to entice a victim into attacking them and thus avoid being flagged as the aggressor. These things need to be taken into account. In real life, the get-away driver is held equally responsible for robbing the bank, including if someone gets shot. There's a reason for that, and that reasoning is entirely missing in MMOs.
Good points, and we do have a crime/legal system in the game. However, those last two pretty much require that the game be designed specifically around those elements, and they just don't fit into all settings (including mine).
Well, I think you are looking for a way to allow a sanctioned PvP, but without any of the warfare stuff. Sanctioned as opposed to your Justice System. In an open world environment. Correct?
Can you give one or more general examples of the kinds of situations you want PvP to foster in?
Yes it's possible. What you do is based on a layered design.
First you add "justice" for PvP done as a "crime". Real penalties that hurt, and no way out of those penalties. Without this, PKing runs rampant and players leave the game.
Then you add warfare. Included in this needs to be enlistment, and only those who enlist are participants. This protects all those who don't want to participate.
Then you add ownership of lands and resources. This provides something to fight over and gives meaning.
Number 1 is the big thing missing. UO almost had it way back when, just before they gave up and went with Trammel. They had an increasing penalty for PKing, but they also had workarounds to get out of paying that penalty. This included using thievery to entice a victim into attacking them and thus avoid being flagged as the aggressor. These things need to be taken into account. In real life, the get-away driver is held equally responsible for robbing the bank, including if someone gets shot. There's a reason for that, and that reasoning is entirely missing in MMOs.
Good points, and we do have a crime/legal system in the game. However, those last two pretty much require that the game be designed specifically around those elements, and they just don't fit into all settings (including mine).
Well, I think you are looking for a way to allow a sanctioned PvP, but without any of the warfare stuff. Sanctioned as opposed to your Justice System. In an open world environment. Correct?
Can you give one or more general examples of the kinds of situations you want PvP to foster in?
Basically, I want people to be able to engage in PvP, but I want it to be a fairly significant act when they do. I'm hoping to find a way that, normally, the disadvantages of killing another player outweigh the benefits... until they don't.
(Although there are situations/locations where there is less risk in player-killing, such as "Downtown" where police are generally not welcome... violently.)
I'm not saying UO was the "best of all time", for that is purely subjective. How about looking at "percentage of MMO players playing the games" instead of raw numbers? Maybe put some context into the mix?
How about not? It is the ONLY MMORPG game at the time .. of course it is going to do well, even when it is making a very small splash (compared to the games i listed) in the gaming world.
Don't confuse lots of press (because it is first) and the ability to take over a big market.
I see... Does not fit what you wish, so ignore. Got it.
Ignore reasons and attack others' motivate because you have no argument. Got it.
Not ignoring at all. Just made a suggestion, which you refuse to acknowledge because your "agenda" is not met with that. Got it?
Not ignoring? I don't see you address how small UO's subs are compared to the gaming market.
Anyhoo! Let's bring things back on topic. Lot's a of mixed opinions, and I'm really interested in people's thoughts. Is PvP all or nothing, OR, how would you safely integrate PvP into a PvE-centric world?
All or nothing. Don't integrate pvp into a pve-centric game. Oh, if you make it optional, i don't care since it will never affect me.
I'm not saying UO was the "best of all time", for that is purely subjective. How about looking at "percentage of MMO players playing the games" instead of raw numbers? Maybe put some context into the mix?
How about not? It is the ONLY MMORPG game at the time .. of course it is going to do well, even when it is making a very small splash (compared to the games i listed) in the gaming world.
Don't confuse lots of press (because it is first) and the ability to take over a big market.
I see... Does not fit what you wish, so ignore. Got it.
Ignore reasons and attack others' motivate because you have no argument. Got it.
Not ignoring at all. Just made a suggestion, which you refuse to acknowledge because your "agenda" is not met with that. Got it?
Not ignoring? I don't see you address how small UO's subs are compared to the gaming market.
Guess you argument is "whatever i said". Got it.
But UO's subs peaked is still the current average for MMORPG. How many MMORPG aren't in 250k-500k range in active players?
Anyhoo! Let's bring things back on topic. Lot's a of mixed opinions, and I'm really interested in people's thoughts. Is PvP all or nothing, OR, how would you safely integrate PvP into a PvE-centric world?
I do not think you can integrate the 2, due to the players not the capabilities. There are lots of players that do enjoy both activities, and some have found "acceptable" homes in MMOs where they are satisfied. However, if your goal is to intermingle them both to help more players enjoy the game, I think you will only succeed in mediocrity.
There is just no way to control online players' behavior. They (We) will always find a work around.
Anyhoo! Let's bring things back on topic. Lot's a of mixed opinions, and I'm really interested in people's thoughts. Is PvP all or nothing, OR, how would you safely integrate PvP into a PvE-centric world?
All or nothing. Don't integrate pvp into a pve-centric game. Oh, if you make it optional, i don't care since it will never affect me.
It will never affect you because you will hate my game. I'm not too worried about that.
Anyhoo! Let's bring things back on topic. Lot's a of mixed opinions, and I'm really interested in people's thoughts. Is PvP all or nothing, OR, how would you safely integrate PvP into a PvE-centric world?
I do not think you can integrate the 2, due to the players not the capabilities. There are lots of players that do enjoy both activities, and some have found "acceptable" homes in MMOs where they are satisfied. However, if your goal is to intermingle them both to help more players enjoy the game, I think you will only succeed in mediocrity.
There is just no way to control online players' behavior. They (We) will always find a work around.
Oh, no no. I'm not trying to appease both crowds. Not at all. I agree 100% that if you try to make everyone happy, you'll succeed only in boring them all to death.
My game will absolutely focus more on the PvE players. Exploring, crafting, socializing, customizing, etc. But it's cyberpunk, dangerous and violent by definition, and I don't want your only recourse in tough situations to be harsh language and challenging your enemies to a duel.
Anyhoo! Let's bring things back on topic. Lot's a of mixed opinions, and I'm really interested in people's thoughts. Is PvP all or nothing, OR, how would you safely integrate PvP into a PvE-centric world?
All or nothing. Don't integrate pvp into a pve-centric game. Oh, if you make it optional, i don't care since it will never affect me.
It will never affect you because you will hate my game. I'm not too worried about that.
Oh, your specific game .... you are right ... i probably won't even notice it.
Anyhoo! Let's bring things back on topic. Lot's a of mixed opinions, and I'm really interested in people's thoughts. Is PvP all or nothing, OR, how would you safely integrate PvP into a PvE-centric world?
All or nothing. Don't integrate pvp into a pve-centric game. Oh, if you make it optional, i don't care since it will never affect me.
It will never affect you because you will hate my game. I'm not too worried about that.
Oh, your specific game .... you are right ... i probably won't even notice it.
Or any game like mine with these traits (PvE focus with meaningful PvP)
"Meaningful PvP" is still one of the stupidest things I've heard on these forums. Its all meaningless.
Even in Eve, wars are started because people are bored to tears. Hows that for meaningful PvP?
Really? That's one of the stupidest things you've heard here? You must have a really low bar for stupid.
If you need an explanation, "meaningful PvP" is when you attack other players for game-related reasons. Meaning there is a goal or purpose to it beyond "I once shot a man jist to watch 'im die. Yepper".
These secret to that is doing more design work beyond "It's PvP. Yay!"
Comments
VG
The problem above comes from one simple issue: PVP without consequences is meaningless.
Screw that! They died! It's supposed to suck.
What you do is based on a layered design.
- First you add "justice" for PvP done as a "crime". Real penalties that hurt, and no way out of those penalties. Without this, PKing runs rampant and players leave the game.
- Then you add warfare. Included in this needs to be enlistment, and only those who enlist are participants. This protects all those who don't want to participate.
- Then you add ownership of lands and resources. This provides something to fight over and gives meaning.
Number 1 is the big thing missing. UO almost had it way back when, just before they gave up and went with Trammel. They had an increasing penalty for PKing, but they also had workarounds to get out of paying that penalty. This included using thievery to entice a victim into attacking them and thus avoid being flagged as the aggressor. These things need to be taken into account. In real life, the get-away driver is held equally responsible for robbing the bank, including if someone gets shot. There's a reason for that, and that reasoning is entirely missing in MMOs.Once upon a time....
hmm .. e-sports is the new meaning.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
VG
Sanctioned as opposed to your Justice System. In an open world environment.
Correct?
Can you give one or more general examples of the kinds of situations you want PvP to foster in?
Once upon a time....
(Although there are situations/locations where there is less risk in player-killing, such as "Downtown" where police are generally not welcome... violently.)
Guess you argument is "whatever i said". Got it.
All or nothing. Don't integrate pvp into a pve-centric game. Oh, if you make it optional, i don't care since it will never affect me.
There is just no way to control online players' behavior. They (We) will always find a work around.
VG
Oh, no no. I'm not trying to appease both crowds. Not at all. I agree 100% that if you try to make everyone happy, you'll succeed only in boring them all to death.
My game will absolutely focus more on the PvE players. Exploring, crafting, socializing, customizing, etc. But it's cyberpunk, dangerous and violent by definition, and I don't want your only recourse in tough situations to be harsh language and challenging your enemies to a duel.
Even in Eve, wars are started because people are bored to tears. Hows that for meaningful PvP?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
If you need an explanation, "meaningful PvP" is when you attack other players for game-related reasons. Meaning there is a goal or purpose to it beyond "I once shot a man jist to watch 'im die. Yepper".
These secret to that is doing more design work beyond "It's PvP. Yay!"