Thus a WoW battleground and other forms of arena PvP satisfy this requirement. The zone is generated for a match in which a set number of players fight until a victory condition is met and then that copy of the zone is deleted.
The Ettenmoors are constant. If I log into the Ettenmoors on any server it is the same Ettenmoors anyone else on that server will log into. It's the same Ettenmoors there was yesterday, the same Ettenmoors there will be tomorrow. The same Ettenmoors there will be if nobody is logged into the Ettenmoors at all (As is evident by the fact the keeps won't just suddenly switch control and reset if the Ettenmoors are empty.)
It does not satisfy the conditions of an instance. It does satisfy the conditions of being open world.
Thus a WoW battleground and other forms of arena PvP satisfy this requirement. The zone is generated for a match in which a set number of players fight until a victory condition is met and then that copy of the zone is deleted.
The Ettenmoors are constant. If I log into the Ettenmoors on any PvP server is the same Ettenmoors anyone else on that server will log into. It's the same Ettenmoors there was yesterday, the same Ettenmoors there will be tomorrow. The same Ettenmoors there will be if nobody is logged into the Ettenmoors at all (As is evident by the fact the keeps won't just suddenly switch control and reset if the Ettenmoors are empty.)
It does not satisfy the conditions of an instance. It does satisfy the conditions of being open world.
ummm its a persistent Instance .... seperate from the World , now if i could gank you in the Shire or say Bree you would be onto something otherwise .... you are Wrong... tell ya what ..
Go roll a tune in UO on Atlantic and spawn and stay only in Felucca or on Siege Perilous .. Then come back and tell us what you see the difference is between UO open world pvp and erhmmm Ettenmoors Open world Pvp .. do that and come back and let us know your experience in each and the differences ...
At minimum I believe I have provided sufficient evidence that Open World PvP being defined as "Non-instanced PvP" or "PvP which takes place in an Open World" is a commonly accepted definition by many within the gaming community.
I honestly almost think you are joking/trolling at this point. Tell ya what... go have fun in your "Open World". If it makes you happy to call it that and you have fun in game, don't worry what the other 99% of us think. You won't convince us any more than you will convince us that the Earth is hollow and you found an English professor in Singapore that wrote a journal about his trip there.
It doesn't really matter. Call it green bologna for all I care.
These are the boards who went on at length about how D&D was a trinity based game in an older topic I took part of so I have come to the conclusion that there is no statement or position that can be taken on these boards too dumb for people to hop on the bandwagon.
Apparently there is... as nobody has hopped on your one man bandwagon, As I said, call it green bologna if it makes you happy. Personally I don't care what you call it.
Nah. Just the vast majority of the rest of the internet outside these boards. Go through the definitions yourself. Read up. Educate yourself. Looks like you need it.
You said: I have come to the conclusion that there is no statement or position that can be taken on these boards too dumb for people to hop on the bandwagon.
I said: Apparently there is... as nobody has hopped on your one man bandwagon
You said: Just the vast majority of the rest of the internet outside these boards
So you admit you have created a position on these boards too dumb for people to hop on the bandwagon of. Congratulations I guess?
Get me a more reliable source than mine if you expect me to consider your definition. I don't mean attack my source. I mean find a better or equivalent one backing up your position.
Get me a more reliable source than mine if you expect me to consider your definition. I don't mean attack my source. I mean find a better or equivalent one backing up your position.
you do understand that your defintion , removes players from the world , seperates them from each other .... Only allows in a certain number ... I wonder what the rest of the World is doing .. well they arent participating in this Open World event .. Because they cant .. because its not a fuggin open world event .. its a close event .. Specifcally closed by your own defintion restricted to group/and or number of players ...
ANd go figure in the first paragraph of the defintion you link , they say that instances lower the risk of pvp enviroments .. lmao .. and huh Koster and McQuaid dont agree with it ..
and i gotta ask ....... Axehilt is that you ?
gettin tired , gotta sleep , ill check this tommorrow after go out into the Open World
Compare the results of these two non-biased search terms and see for the first, how many of the top results will tell you the earth is hollow, and how many of the top results will tell you something to the effect of "Open World PvP means PvP in an Open World."
Compile your evidence for both sides of each article.
Then read this article and re-examine your evidence.
Admittedly not all the sources I am using are the best because it's hard to find scholarly peer-reviewed information on subjects pertaining to gaming. But as of yet it's 100% better than the evidence you've compiled. Because you compiled absolutely none.
Get me a more reliable source than mine if you expect me to consider your definition. I don't mean attack my source. I mean find a better or equivalent one backing up your position.
you do understand that your defintion , removes players from the world , seperates them from each other .... Only allows in a certain number ... I wonder what the rest of the World is doing .. well they arent participating in this Open World event .. Because they cant .. because its not a fuggin open world event .. its a close event .. Specifcally closed by your own defintion restricted to group/and or number of players ...
ANd go figure in the first paragraph of the defintion you link , they say that instances lower the risk of pvp enviroments .. lmao .. and huh Koster and McQuaid dont agree with it ..
You're just arguing to be right at this point.
Does it generate a new copy of the location for each group or for a certain numbers of players, that enter the area? No
So it's not an instance. End of story.
"Only allows in a certain number"
False. There are not restrictions on the number of players that can enter the Ettenmoors.
"its a close event"
False. With the possible exception of level requirements (I seem to recall a level 40 requirement to enter way back when they first released) there is no restrictions on who can and can't enter.
"Specifcally closed by your own defintion restricted to group/and or number of players"
You obviously don't know anything about what you are talking about.
"Open world, free roam, or (more loosely) sandbox are terms for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in regard to how and when to approach particular objectives, as opposed to other video games that have a more linear structure to their gameplay.[1][2]
Video games with open or free-roaming worlds typically lack the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations imposed by a game's linearity.[3] Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) or in single-player games adhering to the open world concept such as the Fallout series. The main appeal of open world gameplay is that they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behavior in the direction of their choosing. In these cases, there is often no concrete goal or end to the game."
There we go. This term seems to fit much better:
"considerable freedom in regard to how and when to approach particular objectives"
Thats true. You can roam around the zone questing, fight over keeps, hunt for random ganks etc.
"there is often no concrete goal or end to the game"
Absolutely. While taking the keeps tend to be a major focus it is not a win condition that ends the scenario.
"Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations imposed by a game's linearity."
Cool. So you don't need 100% freedom in all things to satisfy the conditions.
Eldurian, could you name me one game that fits your viewpoint of Open World PvP? I'm sorry but I think it will be easier and healthier if you type something instead of pasting previous pages, could you do that for me?
I'm genuinely interested in your point.
The discussion started with his assertion LOTRO is an open world PVP game.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Eldurian, could you name me one game that fits your viewpoint of Open World PvP? I'm sorry but I think it will be easier and healthier if you type something instead of pasting previous pages, could you do that for me?
I'm genuinely interested in your point.
Most games at this point have some kind of Open World PvP, and some kind of Arena PvP.
World of Warcraft
Open World PvP: PvP out in PvP zones, particularly as found on PvP servers. Arena PvP: Battlegrounds.
ArcheAge
Open World PvP: PvP out in PvP zones. Arena PvP: Arenas
Star Wars The Old Republic
Open World PvP: PvP out in PvP zones, particularly as found on PvP servers and Ilum when it was open. Arena PvP: Warzones
EVE
Open World PvP: PvP in the world.
Darkfall
Open World PvP: PvP in the world.
Wurm Online
Open World PvP: Chaos and Epic servers.
Lord of the Rings Online
Open World PvP: The Ettenmoors
______________________________
I think the issue here largely is emotions. Slapshot and Scorchin don't want to admit to my definitions of Open World PvP because they are coming from games like EVE that are more hardcore, and seem to resent the term being used to describe more carebear games like LOTRO and WoW.
ZionBane on the other hand thinks Open World PvP is the devil and so he is horrified at the fact it could used to be describe his precious World vs. World PvP in Guild Wars 2. Excession seems to reek of similar motives to me.
I don't care. The term is broad and covers many different things. Some more hardcore, some less hardcore. I only care about the truth in this subject matter. Open World PvP is not as open for interpretation as terms like "Hardcore PvP game" which seems to be what all four of the aforementioned parties are substituting it for.
Eldurian, could you name me one game that fits your viewpoint of Open World PvP? I'm sorry but I think it will be easier and healthier if you type something instead of pasting previous pages, could you do that for me?
I'm genuinely interested in your point.
The discussion started with his assertion LOTRO is an open world PVP game.
All downhill from there.
Yes... I give up. He and his English Professor from Singapore can enjoy their "Open World PvP" in LOTRO. Like I said, if he's happy calling it that... no skin off my back.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Eldurian, could you name me one game that fits your viewpoint of Open World PvP? I'm sorry but I think it will be easier and healthier if you type something instead of pasting previous pages, could you do that for me?
I'm genuinely interested in your point.
The discussion started with his assertion LOTRO is an open world PVP game.
All downhill from there.
I would make a distinction between "Open World PvP Game" and "Game with Open World PvP."
If you're going to classify the entire game as an "Open World PvP game" then I think it would be more appropriate to assert something along the lines that 50%+ of the territory in the game should be Open World PvP.
In order to be a "Game With Open World PvP" you need to have open world PvP somewhere in the game. Ettenmoors does qualify LOTRO as the later.
Eldurian, could you name me one game that fits your viewpoint of Open World PvP? I'm sorry but I think it will be easier and healthier if you type something instead of pasting previous pages, could you do that for me?
I'm genuinely interested in your point.
The discussion started with his assertion LOTRO is an open world PVP game.
All downhill from there.
Yes... I give up. He and his English Professor from Singapore can enjoy their "Open World PvP" in LOTRO. Like I said, if he's happy calling it that... no skin off my back.
Despite the fact that the Singapore reference is still by default 100% better than all the evidence you've offered, it's one of like what? Somewhere in the range of 10 different references I've given to support my point thus far?
I've continually challenged you to provide supporting references to your position. You won't. I've given the non-biased search terms I used to find the majority of of my references. You ignore it.
You're playing a high school popularity contest here in which nothing but opinions are thrown around. I'm actually attempting at a serious debate in which evidence and supporting data is exchanged. Guess it's a waste of time with people like you.
Eldurian, could you name me one game that fits your viewpoint of Open World PvP? I'm sorry but I think it will be easier and healthier if you type something instead of pasting previous pages, could you do that for me?
I'm genuinely interested in your point.
The discussion started with his assertion LOTRO is an open world PVP game.
All downhill from there.
Yes... I give up. He and his English Professor from Singapore can enjoy their "Open World PvP" in LOTRO. Like I said, if he's happy calling it that... no skin off my back.
Despite the fact that the Singapore reference is still by default 100% better than all the evidence you've offered, it's one of like what? Somewhere in the range of 10 different references I've given to support my point thus far?
I've continually challenged you to provide supporting references to your position. You won't. I've given the non-biased search terms I used to find the majority of of my references. You ignore it.
You're playing a high school popularity contest here in which nothing but opinions are thrown around. I'm actually attempting at a serious debate in which evidence and supporting data is exchanged. Guess it's a waste of time with people like you.
I explained to you before and will do so one last time. I shall not respond again. WE are the experts in MMORPGs. Not some random search result with 60 views. THIS community is the foremost MMORPG community on the planet. You think that some paper written by a professor in Singapore viewed by 60 people is some sort of "evidence" that you are right. It's not. NOBODY here agrees with you. It's not a popularity contest. It's one stubborn person shouting that nobody here understand his intellect.
We get it. You like googling. Apparently you are much more familiar with that than what everyone else considers OPEN WORLD PvP. But I don't care. Go enjoy your "Open World PvP" in the Ettenmores. I'm sure it's fun to you and as long as it's fun to you don't worry what the rest of the site calls it.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It's neigh impossible to balance a class for both PvE and PvP Play.
Two: Progression.
Lets face facts, PvE players like levels, they like gaining and questing after special and powerful gear, they like the power creep, and they want to feel distinctly more powerful as they play.
Levels, Power Disparity, and Gear Grind.. suck for PvP games.
Three: Inter Dependency.
Works great for PvE, Sucks for PvP.
There are many more issues.. but since we can't even get past something as simple as the character itself.. I believe that shows how improbably trying to fully blend the two really is.
The core concept of Open World PvP is that you can not be eternally sheltered from it as you evolve and explore the game world - that's the design focus.
Hmm that sounds like FFA PVP to me, since that would exclude a few open world pvp systems, like SWG as an example. I'd say a better descriptor would be a game that allows PVP pretty much any where in the game's world, that would exclude something like LOTOR or SWTOR , which only have designated PVP areas.
LOTRO's PVP is what I'd call an open PVP zone, since it's more akin to a battleground.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The core concept of Open World PvP is that you can not be eternally sheltered from it as you evolve and explore the game world - that's the design focus.
Hmm that sounds like FFA PVP to me, since that would exclude a few open world pvp systems, like SWG as an example. I'd say a better descriptor would be a game that allows PVP pretty much any where in the game's world, that would exclude something like LOTOR or SWTOR , which only have designated PVP areas.
LOTRO's PVP is what I'd call an open PVP zone, since it's more akin to a battleground.
No man, with sheltered from it I meant from the PVP mechanics it has, not from the act of being attacked.
"that allows" could imply that Duel System is an Open World PvP game.
I read not sheltered to mean not protected from it, hence it sounding like FFA PVP.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
By your definition (anyone who uses mmorpg.com) I am an expert too. Though I utterly reject the premise that this site is somehow any higher on the level of experts than anyone else who posts about the subject of gaming on the internet.
I'll tell you something I was trying to convey to Slapshot. One of the best ways to gauge a topic is to do an unbiased search.
A biased search is something along the lines of "Evidence that the earth is hollow" You can even get some bias from a seemingly unbiased question such as "Is the earth hollow" because you're only looking through sources that consider the idea the earth might be hollow is a notion worth entertaining.
These are perfect examples of non-bias searches because they make no presumptions as to what the term means. They simply ask what they mean.
You can see I've used the top results of every search (IE, I didn't cherrypick). Conveniently the top result for the first search is a direct answer to the question "Would you consider the PvMP in The Lord of the Rings Online open world?"
I would challenge you to look through the results of me searches and attempt to come up with some unbiased searches of your own. You'll see when you do that I didn't really cherrypick at all. I just went through the results for anything that sounded like an actual definition, cutted, and pasted.
As I've said before. The meaning of words are defined by their usage. The word horse is just a random utterance of sounds until you consider that in the English language anyone who hears those sounds together will immediately think of the animal that we call a horse.
The words "Open World PvP" are just a random utterance of sounds until you realize it conveys a particular idea to the majority of English speaking gamers who hear it. And if you go off of the results you will find in unbiased searches most of them suggest people believe those sounds used together form the idea of a type of PvP that is definable by its separation from instanced PvP.
You can also find plenty of people in agreement that it is a term that applies to the Ettenmoors. I'm not even going to argue against your definition because I have no idea where you got it and sounds like you made the criteria up.
I guess that we will have to agree to disagree that the collective opinions of the "experts" on mmorpg.com carry more weight than the consistent theme found in every unbiased search into the matter, many complete with references and research.
It's neigh impossible to balance a class for both PvE and PvP Play.
Two: Progression.
Lets face facts, PvE players like levels, they like gaining and questing after special and powerful gear, they like the power creep, and they want to feel distinctly more powerful as they play.
Levels, Power Disparity, and Gear Grind.. suck for PvP games.
Three: Inter Dependency.
Works great for PvE, Sucks for PvP.
There are many more issues.. but since we can't even get past something as simple as the character itself.. I believe that shows how improbably trying to fully blend the two really is.
You could make that classes works X for PvE and Y for PvP, with new entire set of skills and gears.
Well you could.. but to make that work, it would involve two separate EXP tracks, one for PvP and one PvE, They also would most likely require different gear, since they would be balanced for different tasks, and to make things work the zones would need to be separate from each other, one for PvP and one for PvE, so that players know when to swap from their PvE build to their PvP Build...
In short.. you would need to make two complexly separate games...
It's neigh impossible to balance a class for both PvE and PvP Play.
Two: Progression.
Lets face facts, PvE players like levels, they like gaining and questing after special and powerful gear, they like the power creep, and they want to feel distinctly more powerful as they play.
Levels, Power Disparity, and Gear Grind.. suck for PvP games.
Three: Inter Dependency.
Works great for PvE, Sucks for PvP.
There are many more issues.. but since we can't even get past something as simple as the character itself.. I believe that shows how improbably trying to fully blend the two really is.
1. That is why you go with a classless system and adjustable builds. Or at least a more fluid class system.
IE give characters many skills to pick from and limited slots to put them in or limited points to spend on skills at any given time. People will naturally create different builds for different purposes.
Some may call this unrealistic but static builds aren't based on realism. In a real life scenario people are going to grab certain tools for a specific job, or specific weapons for a specific mission. This mimics build swapping.
EVE is a great example of this done well in a PvP game but Guild Wars (The good one, not GW2) is a great example of this done really well on a PvE game.
2. No you like those things, and you are a PvEer. You want proof there are millions of PvEers who don't need stat progression to enjoy a game? Minecraft. Enough said.
3. Sounds like you had a bad guild if you don't think inter dependency works in PvP. Bad builds suck in PvE too.
I never said an EVE clone. Many ideas in EVE are worth borrowing. Many are not. It's proof of concept. That not only can Open World PvP succeed, it can succeed from the humble beginnings of of an indie title made by a company that was small at the time.
If you pour over my ideas from an MMO you'll see that while many of them have elements of EVE the game I describe is by no means an EVE clone. Not saying my model is the only model or the best model. Just saying you can take the good parts of EVE and even improve upon them without cloning EVE.
I don't want an EvE clone, I want an PvE EvE. Good music; beautiful space; best crafting and trade system in games; and never knowing what maybe around the corner (entices exploration).
I'm with @Eldurian and I consider LotRO's Ettenmoors to be open world PvP.
The key characteristics of open world pvp in my opinion are:
1) Persistance 2) No restriction on player numbers 3) Freeform gameplay
Thats it. Thats my only criteria and is the only criteria that seems to matter. The Ettenmoors is always there, it's not an instance that gets re-generated when the first one gets full. There is no restriction of player numbers, so you can enjoy the zone with only 2 people online, or with 500 people all there. There is also nothing to say how I should play. I'm not forced into groups, there is no time limit, I can ignore objectives, I can really do whatever I want.
Now, that said, I could never class LotRO as an open world pvp game, because only a very small part of the overall game has open world pvp.
I also don't think any of the other criteria really matters (being restricted to one zone instead of anywhere, having to zone in etc). The important thing is the resultant gameplay. Restricting the open world pvp to the Ettenmoors is, in essence, the same as the flagging system in SWG, or the PvP lakes in WAR. Its a way of saying "we have open world pvp, but we want to make it consensual, so here are the rules that make it consensual". Do I wish there was more pvp zones or full open world pvp in LotRO? Of course, but the Ettenmoors was all they were allowed to do.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
It's neigh impossible to balance a class for both PvE and PvP Play.
One way to negate this issue, is how they did it for SWG.
They made abilities do different damage in PvP than they did in PvE.
That way, any change's made to benefit PvP balance, had no detrimental effect on PvE, and vice versa.
Another way is to actually create challenging AI. The reason there is an issue is that in today's games in order to make a PvE challenging, developers rely on giving insane HP to the adversaries. The best example of this would be "human" boss mobs that literally have 100 times the HP of a max level player character. Instead, if the "boss" mob was actually an intelligent AI that could react like another player maybe the fight between my party and him and his guards would actually resemble a fight between 2 groups of players. Even look at non-boss mobs in most games and how insane their HP get.
That is the real reason for the issues between PvE and PvP skills. Let the challenge come from intelligently responding enemies that don't stand in a room and allow you to "pull" and fight them one at a time literally 30 feet away.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
Thus a WoW battleground and other forms of arena PvP satisfy this requirement. The zone is generated for a match in which a set number of players fight until a victory condition is met and then that copy of the zone is deleted.
The Ettenmoors are constant. If I log into the Ettenmoors on any server it is the same Ettenmoors anyone else on that server will log into. It's the same Ettenmoors there was yesterday, the same Ettenmoors there will be tomorrow. The same Ettenmoors there will be if nobody is logged into the Ettenmoors at all (As is evident by the fact the keeps won't just suddenly switch control and reset if the Ettenmoors are empty.)
It does not satisfy the conditions of an instance. It does satisfy the conditions of being open world.
Go roll a tune in UO on Atlantic and spawn and stay only in Felucca or on Siege Perilous .. Then come back and tell us what you see the difference is between UO open world pvp and erhmmm Ettenmoors Open world Pvp .. do that and come back and let us know your experience in each and the differences ...
I said: Apparently there is... as nobody has hopped on your one man bandwagon
You said: Just the vast majority of the rest of the internet outside these boards
So you admit you have created a position on these boards too dumb for people to hop on the bandwagon of. Congratulations I guess?
Look.. I found supporting evidence for my Earth is Hollow theory by searching "Earth is Hollow"!
http://humansarefree.com/2015/09/13-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-hollow.html
This is actual evidence man. 13 points! And it was on the internet!
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"Separate from the world" is the condition of an instance according to you.
"An instance is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy of the location for each group, or for certain number of players, that enters the area." is the definition of instance according to the first good response for "define instance gaming" / an article with 6 references.
Get me a more reliable source than mine if you expect me to consider your definition. I don't mean attack my source. I mean find a better or equivalent one backing up your position.
ANd go figure in the first paragraph of the defintion you link , they say that instances lower the risk of pvp enviroments .. lmao .. and huh Koster and McQuaid dont agree with it ..
and i gotta ask ....... Axehilt is that you ?
gettin tired , gotta sleep , ill check this tommorrow after go out into the Open World
Google search for What is the core of the earth like?
Google search for Define Open World PvP
Compare the results of these two non-biased search terms and see for the first, how many of the top results will tell you the earth is hollow, and how many of the top results will tell you something to the effect of "Open World PvP means PvP in an Open World."
Compile your evidence for both sides of each article.
Then read this article and re-examine your evidence.
Admittedly not all the sources I am using are the best because it's hard to find scholarly peer-reviewed information on subjects pertaining to gaming. But as of yet it's 100% better than the evidence you've compiled. Because you compiled absolutely none.
Does it generate a new copy of the location for each group or for a certain numbers of players, that enter the area? No
So it's not an instance. End of story.
"Only allows in a certain number"
False. There are not restrictions on the number of players that can enter the Ettenmoors.
"its a close event"
False. With the possible exception of level requirements (I seem to recall a level 40 requirement to enter way back when they first released) there is no restrictions on who can and can't enter.
"Specifcally closed by your own defintion restricted to group/and or number of players"
You obviously don't know anything about what you are talking about.
"Open world, free roam, or (more loosely) sandbox are terms for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in regard to how and when to approach particular objectives, as opposed to other video games that have a more linear structure to their gameplay.[1][2]
Video games with open or free-roaming worlds typically lack the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations imposed by a game's linearity.[3] Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) or in single-player games adhering to the open world concept such as the Fallout series. The main appeal of open world gameplay is that they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behavior in the direction of their choosing. In these cases, there is often no concrete goal or end to the game."
There we go. This term seems to fit much better:
"considerable freedom in regard to how and when to approach particular objectives"
Thats true. You can roam around the zone questing, fight over keeps, hunt for random ganks etc.
"there is often no concrete goal or end to the game"
Absolutely. While taking the keeps tend to be a major focus it is not a win condition that ends the scenario.
"Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations imposed by a game's linearity."
Cool. So you don't need 100% freedom in all things to satisfy the conditions.
_________________________________
Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?
All downhill from there.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
World of Warcraft
Open World PvP: PvP out in PvP zones, particularly as found on PvP servers.
Arena PvP: Battlegrounds.
ArcheAge
Open World PvP: PvP out in PvP zones.
Arena PvP: Arenas
Star Wars The Old Republic
Open World PvP: PvP out in PvP zones, particularly as found on PvP servers and Ilum when it was open.
Arena PvP: Warzones
EVE
Open World PvP: PvP in the world.
Darkfall
Open World PvP: PvP in the world.
Wurm Online
Open World PvP: Chaos and Epic servers.
Lord of the Rings Online
Open World PvP: The Ettenmoors
______________________________
I think the issue here largely is emotions. Slapshot and Scorchin don't want to admit to my definitions of Open World PvP because they are coming from games like EVE that are more hardcore, and seem to resent the term being used to describe more carebear games like LOTRO and WoW.
ZionBane on the other hand thinks Open World PvP is the devil and so he is horrified at the fact it could used to be describe his precious World vs. World PvP in Guild Wars 2. Excession seems to reek of similar motives to me.
I don't care. The term is broad and covers many different things. Some more hardcore, some less hardcore. I only care about the truth in this subject matter. Open World PvP is not as open for interpretation as terms like "Hardcore PvP game" which seems to be what all four of the aforementioned parties are substituting it for.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
If you're going to classify the entire game as an "Open World PvP game" then I think it would be more appropriate to assert something along the lines that 50%+ of the territory in the game should be Open World PvP.
In order to be a "Game With Open World PvP" you need to have open world PvP somewhere in the game. Ettenmoors does qualify LOTRO as the later.
I've continually challenged you to provide supporting references to your position. You won't. I've given the non-biased search terms I used to find the majority of of my references. You ignore it.
You're playing a high school popularity contest here in which nothing but opinions are thrown around. I'm actually attempting at a serious debate in which evidence and supporting data is exchanged. Guess it's a waste of time with people like you.
We get it. You like googling. Apparently you are much more familiar with that than what everyone else considers OPEN WORLD PvP. But I don't care. Go enjoy your "Open World PvP" in the Ettenmores. I'm sure it's fun to you and as long as it's fun to you don't worry what the rest of the site calls it.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
PvE and PvP can't really co-exist well.
One: Balance.
It's neigh impossible to balance a class for both PvE and PvP Play.
Two: Progression.
Lets face facts, PvE players like levels, they like gaining and questing after special and powerful gear, they like the power creep, and they want to feel distinctly more powerful as they play.
Levels, Power Disparity, and Gear Grind.. suck for PvP games.
Three: Inter Dependency.
Works great for PvE, Sucks for PvP.
There are many more issues.. but since we can't even get past something as simple as the character itself.. I believe that shows how improbably trying to fully blend the two really is.
LOTRO's PVP is what I'd call an open PVP zone, since it's more akin to a battleground.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
By your definition (anyone who uses mmorpg.com) I am an expert too. Though I utterly reject the premise that this site is somehow any higher on the level of experts than anyone else who posts about the subject of gaming on the internet.
@Nyctelios
I'll tell you something I was trying to convey to Slapshot. One of the best ways to gauge a topic is to do an unbiased search.
A biased search is something along the lines of "Evidence that the earth is hollow" You can even get some bias from a seemingly unbiased question such as "Is the earth hollow" because you're only looking through sources that consider the idea the earth might be hollow is a notion worth entertaining.
I've provided you guys with many of my searches:
"Define Open World PvP"
"Define instance in gaming"
"Define open world"
These are perfect examples of non-bias searches because they make no presumptions as to what the term means. They simply ask what they mean.
You can see I've used the top results of every search (IE, I didn't cherrypick). Conveniently the top result for the first search is a direct answer to the question "Would you consider the PvMP in The Lord of the Rings Online open world?"
I would challenge you to look through the results of me searches and attempt to come up with some unbiased searches of your own. You'll see when you do that I didn't really cherrypick at all. I just went through the results for anything that sounded like an actual definition, cutted, and pasted.
As I've said before. The meaning of words are defined by their usage. The word horse is just a random utterance of sounds until you consider that in the English language anyone who hears those sounds together will immediately think of the animal that we call a horse.
The words "Open World PvP" are just a random utterance of sounds until you realize it conveys a particular idea to the majority of English speaking gamers who hear it. And if you go off of the results you will find in unbiased searches most of them suggest people believe those sounds used together form the idea of a type of PvP that is definable by its separation from instanced PvP.
You can also find plenty of people in agreement that it is a term that applies to the Ettenmoors. I'm not even going to argue against your definition because I have no idea where you got it and sounds like you made the criteria up.
I guess that we will have to agree to disagree that the collective opinions of the "experts" on mmorpg.com carry more weight than the consistent theme found in every unbiased search into the matter, many complete with references and research.
In short.. you would need to make two complexly separate games...
IE give characters many skills to pick from and limited slots to put them in or limited points to spend on skills at any given time. People will naturally create different builds for different purposes.
Some may call this unrealistic but static builds aren't based on realism. In a real life scenario people are going to grab certain tools for a specific job, or specific weapons for a specific mission. This mimics build swapping.
EVE is a great example of this done well in a PvP game but Guild Wars (The good one, not GW2) is a great example of this done really well on a PvE game.
2. No you like those things, and you are a PvEer. You want proof there are millions of PvEers who don't need stat progression to enjoy a game? Minecraft. Enough said.
3. Sounds like you had a bad guild if you don't think inter dependency works in PvP. Bad builds suck in PvE too.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Instead of posting a straw man argument about my like or dislike of PvP, try answering the question's I asked you.
I will not post them again, there is no need, as long as you can navigate this thread a little bit and actually read my post.
Refrain, if you can, from re-posting the same shite you have already re-posted, and actually think before you post an answer.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
They made abilities do different damage in PvP than they did in PvE.
That way, any change's made to benefit PvP balance, had no detrimental effect on PvE, and vice versa.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
The key characteristics of open world pvp in my opinion are:
1) Persistance
2) No restriction on player numbers
3) Freeform gameplay
Thats it. Thats my only criteria and is the only criteria that seems to matter. The Ettenmoors is always there, it's not an instance that gets re-generated when the first one gets full. There is no restriction of player numbers, so you can enjoy the zone with only 2 people online, or with 500 people all there. There is also nothing to say how I should play. I'm not forced into groups, there is no time limit, I can ignore objectives, I can really do whatever I want.
Now, that said, I could never class LotRO as an open world pvp game, because only a very small part of the overall game has open world pvp.
I also don't think any of the other criteria really matters (being restricted to one zone instead of anywhere, having to zone in etc). The important thing is the resultant gameplay. Restricting the open world pvp to the Ettenmoors is, in essence, the same as the flagging system in SWG, or the PvP lakes in WAR. Its a way of saying "we have open world pvp, but we want to make it consensual, so here are the rules that make it consensual". Do I wish there was more pvp zones or full open world pvp in LotRO? Of course, but the Ettenmoors was all they were allowed to do.
That is the real reason for the issues between PvE and PvP skills. Let the challenge come from intelligently responding enemies that don't stand in a room and allow you to "pull" and fight them one at a time literally 30 feet away.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018