I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk.
The reason PvPer's may not want alternate servers is because it's messes with how the developers designed the game.
Those two sentances are fun. So for the second one, does ruleset mess it up for the pvpers because they can't attack the players who don't want to pvp with them? If not, then it doesn't matter. If so, then doesn't that kind of make the first sentance true? pvpers don't need sheep to kill now do they?
Fun stuff eh?
You are also labelling PvPer's as griefers, when the majority are not. PvPer's usually fight with other PvPer's.
The next two sentences also helped explain myself as well, but you cut them out.
Answer the questions I asked instead of avoiding them.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
If a dev team is determined to release the game that fits their vision, even if it costs them some profit, I fully suport that. As long as the dev team is up front about their vision for their game. CCP is a great example of being up front. You know that almost all forms of griefing and skulduggery are allowed, if you've done even the slightest bit of research before you started the free trial. If you didn't know, you'll find out soon enough just by reading in game channels. Better yet, browse the forum.
Xsyon's main dev has communicated constantly with the player base, and he listens to the community too, but he never intended for Prelude (the game's current phase) to have no safe areas, and despite the pressure from some beta pvpers, the game did not launch without safe zones. On the other hand, room was made for solo players early on in the beta (before I bought the game), and that was not at first part of the devs' vision. As a solo player, I wouldn't be subbed if that change hadn't happened, and that would be fine, too, again, as long as it's clear to players after a minimal amount of research that this is the case. Changes were even made right before launch to ensure that solo players would have a place in the game world despite a larger-than-expected starting playerbase.
ArcheAge needs to be brutally honest about it's pvp rulesets, otherwise, it will seem as though they are luring in both the pvp and the pve crowd for launch and maybe for the early levels, with every intention of mostly catering to the forced pvp crowd for the vast majority of the game.
If there won't be pve servers, people need to know what they're getting into from the start, and that information needs to be readily available. Prominently linked from page one of their website and written in a way that will warn off the pve crowd before they buy. That would be the professional way to do it. And the smart way. Angry customers tend to hold grudges, especially MMO customers!
They don't need to tell you anything, but i'm sure there will be Q&A's that make things clear.
Just because other successfull games make different kinds of servers doesn't mean they all have to. Keep in mind it's a game, and you play it how the developers intend for you to play it. Many games especially the olders ones didn't have different server types.
I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk.
The reason PvPer's may not want alternate servers is because it's messes with how the developers designed the game.
Those two sentances are fun. So for the second one, does ruleset mess it up for the pvpers because they can't attack the players who don't want to pvp with them? If not, then it doesn't matter. If so, then doesn't that kind of make the first sentance true? pvpers don't need sheep to kill now do they?
Fun stuff eh?
You are also labelling PvPer's as griefers, when the majority are not. PvPer's usually fight with other PvPer's.
The next two sentences also helped explain myself as well, but you cut them out.
Answer the questions I asked instead of avoiding them.
Lol, man those questions are irrelevant, but ok.
-No, Most PvPer's don't attack players who they have no beef with...
-If so ? Confucious say what? My first sentence I believe to be true if the answer was yes or no. Which is "A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk."
-No no they don't need sheep to kill. Like I said PvPer's fight with other PvPer's.
They don't need to tell you anything, but i'm sure there will be Q&A's that make things clear.
Just because other successfull games make different kinds of servers doesn't mean they all have to. Keep in mind it's a game, and you play it how the developers intend for you to play it. Many games especially the olders ones didn't have different server types.
And again, angry customers tend to hold grudges, especially MMO customers. You're right, they can tell everything except possibly outright lies about their game, get the max number of people to sub possible, then laugh at all the pvers quitting over being constantly ganked. But would it be a good idea for them to do this? Probably not.
I will thoroughly investigate the pvp rulesets before I even consider trying this game, and I will read up on what other players have to say about the game, too. Because this one is just barely even on my radar, despite having many features I love to see in an MMO. And the reason it's barely on my radar is because I have a bad feeling it will be overly hostile to solo players and too friendly to griefers.
I wouldn't mind being wrong, but until I know I'm wrong, my wallet stays closed. I've blown way too much money on MMOs that I quit after less than a month lately!
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk.
The reason PvPer's may not want alternate servers is because it's messes with how the developers designed the game.
Separate the servers and you may very well have 2 diferent games, twice as much complaining, and half as much content for both sides.
It's obvious the game was designed around player inteactions, such as trade, crafting, PvP and PvE. Cutting out a part of their game is foolish and could lead the game into an unintended direction. How would ship battles work on a PvE server? Ship duels? Lol..
Well, heres a radical idea... they could just make certain distance around the controlled continents shores as safe water, and have the rest as 'international' waters where ship PvP is fully enabled. Even almost like RL in fact, if you think about it.
But see? Easy to solve issues. What others do you forsee in simply turning off PvP on the controlled continents? lets see if we can solve them as well.
"they could just", yep JUST make changes to their game and cater to you your magical wonderland of a server. I'm sure they could buddy, I'm sure they could. Do you really think it is just that easy?
oh good lord... stop being so literal. No, I don't think it's 'easy', if were 'easy' you and I both would be doing it. I am obviosuly just demonstarting that for problems there are answers, answers that do exist despite you not personally wanting to see them.
The question is though would the relatively small investment required to make a server option such as this pay off for XL in the West? Would implementing changes on seperate realms to enable optional PvP, and by doing so moving this title from the niche market and into the mainstream, be worth it?
The answer I am obviously arguing is yes it would, hugely.
The question is though would the relatively small investment required to make a server option such as this pay off for XL in the West? Would implementing changes on seperate realms to enable optional PvP, and by doing so moving this title from the niche market and into the mainstream, be worth it?The answer I am obviously arguing is yes it would, hugely.
I'm sure it would help for initial sales. If the game starts getting a bad rap for possibly not having enough PvE content, then it could very well hurt the game in the long run. Many people will think since it's a PvE server that it's going to be a PvE centered game, but it won't be.
If the game is good enough people will talk. Who's to say AA can't go mainstream without PvE servers?
With the large majority of MMO's out having PvE be the main source of content, you would think a game that balances PvP,PvE,Crafting, and Trade would be a welcome change.
I bet most of the PvE'rs don't even know how the PvP rules work, it won't be WoW style free for all. It will likely have a flagging system that has consequences for being a murderer.
There are many game companies that make games for people, the genre can't move forward when every one of them cater to the same crowd. People need to learn to accept change.
The question is though would the relatively small investment required to make a server option such as this pay off for XL in the West? Would implementing changes on seperate realms to enable optional PvP, and by doing so moving this title from the niche market and into the mainstream, be worth it?The answer I am obviously arguing is yes it would, hugely.
I'm sure it would help for initial sales. If the game starts getting a bad rap for possibly not having enough PvE content, then it could very well hurt the game in the long run. Many people will think since it's a PvE server that it's going to be a PvE centered game, but it won't be.
"Not to derail this thought, but having a PVE server ultimately means a PVE biased content, doesnt mean its completely PVE, just that the vast majority of that server would be PVE based, otherwise, why even dub a server with any label, just call it a server."
If the game is good enough people will talk. Who's to say AA can't go mainstream without PvE servers?
"It certainly can go mainstream without PVE servers, however, the vast majority of the middle and lower tiers of PVPer playstyles wouldnt support the mainstream PVP that many long for, people put money and time into these games, and nobody wants some griefer whos sole objective is your discomfort. So if they could figure out a system that caters to both (which is unlikely at best), then you are talking to Faction Based middle ground which then upsets the FFA players, so ultimately, going mainstream would waterdown some playstyle(s) along the way"
With the large majority of MMO's out having PvE be the main source of content, you would think a game that balances PvP,PvE,Crafting, and Trade would be a welcome change.
"Most games hurt PVE because they waterdown the various playstyles by offering PVP, even if its watered down, so really, there are very few games that are PVE solely and dont try to balance every aspect based on PVP balance. PVP, PVE, Crafting/Trade and Raiding all are different variations and by focusing one way or the other, you are gonna have people ticked off, there is never a truly happy side in having it all"
I bet most of the PvE'rs don't even know how the PvP rules work, it won't be WoW style free for all. It will likely have a flagging system that has consequences for being a murderer.
"Great, another bounty system game, its simple for me, I just dont subscribe to games like these that are more about griefing either side, either the griefers or the griefed, so you want to talk about hurting numbers and going mainstream, this would be one of those mechanics in my opinion. Of course, there might be a small niche of players out there that like this method, but most of them, would rather play shooters on their consoles"
There are many game companies that make games for people, the genre can't move forward when every one of them cater to the same crowd. People need to learn to accept change.
"Agreed, people do need to accept change, including myself, then again, I am biased, the best system was DAOC and the frontiers. Of course they couldve added a harsher penatlies to that system, but the idea of it was that you werent forced to go into the Frontiers, it was at your own choice, and the future of games need to offer such choices, that is honestly the future, not forces a particular style one way or the other, but a complete world, that offers you choices. Story Arcs that have choices. Enough with the Dark/Light, Good/Bad Guy routine. Consequences/Rewards for your actions. But then again, that almost sounds like a single player MMORPG with Multiplayer FFA Full Loot enabled."
"In truth, nobody will ever agree, and the only real shot that this game has if they come west of going mainstream is to try to stick with similar trend, this is the harsh reality. True enough, they could stick their neck out and try something new of course, but its a gamble, and most companies these days just dont want to gamble their money like that. They are purely in it for full return with profit so that they can continue to make games and expand. So unless someone out there has several billion dollars they dont mind parting with to run a science experiment for a game, chances are if/when this game comes West, they will be trying to capitalize or get a chunk from this market and will follow in similar trends as games that have proven themselves"
The question is though would the relatively small investment required to make a server option such as this pay off for XL in the West? Would implementing changes on seperate realms to enable optional PvP, and by doing so moving this title from the niche market and into the mainstream, be worth it?The answer I am obviously arguing is yes it would, hugely.
I'm sure it would help for initial sales. If the game starts getting a bad rap for possibly not having enough PvE content, then it could very well hurt the game in the long run.
I'm sorry, but this isnt making sense really.
Bear in mind that we are talking about optional PvP servers, not PvEservers. They are different propositions. Optional PvP fans spend a ton of time in PvP content, it iis an imporatant part of the game for them, with the only real difference being that they don't want to gank farmed 24/7.
What your saying here only really makes sense if you suggesting that the gank play is going to make up a substantial amount of play content...
If the game is good enough people will talk. Who's to say AA can't go mainstream without PvE servers?
Well, we can look at history and what it shows us.sure, AA might be the one gankfest game that breaks it in the West, but there is really no evidence of that and it seems a foolish gamble for XL to take.
I bet most of the PvE'rs don't even know how the PvP rules work, it won't be WoW style free for all. It will likely have a flagging system that has consequences for being a murderer.
It actually appears you don't.
On the controlled islands you only generate bloods for killing your own faction, and then only if the victim takes the time to make the journey to town to hand them in. If eough bloods are handed in the PK goes to prison for a reduceable amount of time. If he persists he turns red and is banished to their city.
Other factions (including the Reds) do not generate bloods if they kill you, and so are free to 24/7 perma gank you at will.
The question is though would the relatively small investment required to make a server option such as this pay off for XL in the West? Would implementing changes on seperate realms to enable optional PvP, and by doing so moving this title from the niche market and into the mainstream, be worth it?The answer I am obviously arguing is yes it would, hugely.
I'm sure it would help for initial sales. If the game starts getting a bad rap for possibly not having enough PvE content, then it could very well hurt the game in the long run. Many people will think since it's a PvE server that it's going to be a PvE centered game, but it won't be.
"Not to derail this thought, but having a PVE server ultimately means a PVE biased content, doesnt mean its completely PVE, just that the vast majority of that server would be PVE based, otherwise, why even dub a server with any label, just call it a server."
I know, it's just that when you make a "PvE" server, people will likely assume that it has end game raiding content, but when it isn't the main focus of the game there's no doubt the PvE'ers will complain. In the Korean version it's just "a server". No bias.
If the game is good enough people will talk. Who's to say AA can't go mainstream without PvE servers?
"It certainly can go mainstream without PVE servers, however, the vast majority of the middle and lower tiers of PVPer playstyles wouldnt support the mainstream PVP that many long for, people put money and time into these games, and nobody wants some griefer whos sole objective is your discomfort. So if they could figure out a system that caters to both (which is unlikely at best), then you are talking to Faction Based middle ground which then upsets the FFA players, so ultimately, going mainstream would waterdown some playstyle(s) along the way"
Well, the lead developer Jake Song is the man behind Lineage. In Lineage the PvP was fantastic, and had very small amount of griefers.
With the large majority of MMO's out having PvE be the main source of content, you would think a game that balances PvP,PvE,Crafting, and Trade would be a welcome change.
"Most games hurt PVE because they waterdown the various playstyles by offering PVP, even if its watered down, so really, there are very few games that are PVE solely and dont try to balance every aspect based on PVP balance. PVP, PVE, Crafting/Trade and Raiding all are different variations and by focusing one way or the other, you are gonna have people ticked off, there is never a truly happy side in having it all"
Regardless of your statement's accuracy, a game that focuses on all aspects equally is a welcomed change.
I bet most of the PvE'rs don't even know how the PvP rules work, it won't be WoW style free for all. It will likely have a flagging system that has consequences for being a murderer.
"Great, another bounty system game, its simple for me, I just dont subscribe to games like these that are more about griefing either side, either the griefers or the griefed, so you want to talk about hurting numbers and going mainstream, this would be one of those mechanics in my opinion. Of course, there might be a small niche of players out there that like this method, but most of them, would rather play shooters on their consoles"
No, not a bounty system game. I don't know how the system works exactly, I know that it wont be consequence free PvP. FFA PvP with no consequences is what promotes griefing.
There are many game companies that make games for people, the genre can't move forward when every one of them cater to the same crowd. People need to learn to accept change.
"Agreed, people do need to accept change, including myself, then again, I am biased, the best system was DAOC and the frontiers. Of course they couldve added a harsher penatlies to that system, but the idea of it was that you werent forced to go into the Frontiers, it was at your own choice, and the future of games need to offer such choices, that is honestly the future, not forces a particular style one way or the other, but a complete world, that offers you choices. Story Arcs that have choices. Enough with the Dark/Light, Good/Bad Guy routine. Consequences/Rewards for your actions. But then again, that almost sounds like a single player MMORPG with Multiplayer FFA Full Loot enabled."
"In truth, nobody will ever agree, and the only real shot that this game has if they come west of going mainstream is to try to stick with similar trend, this is the harsh reality. True enough, they could stick their neck out and try something new of course, but its a gamble, and most companies these days just dont want to gamble their money like that. They are purely in it for full return with profit so that they can continue to make games and expand. So unless someone out there has several billion dollars they dont mind parting with to run a science experiment for a game, chances are if/when this game comes West, they will be trying to capitalize or get a chunk from this market and will follow in similar trends as games that have proven themselves"
I think going mainstream in the east and west is quite the challenge. AA will likely be a mainstream game in east already. Usually Korean games are shot down in the west anyway just for being Korean. Personally I find Korean game's to be my favorite and prefer they come to the west unmodified beyond translation.
The question is though would the relatively small investment required to make a server option such as this pay off for XL in the West? Would implementing changes on seperate realms to enable optional PvP, and by doing so moving this title from the niche market and into the mainstream, be worth it?The answer I am obviously arguing is yes it would, hugely.
I'm sure it would help for initial sales. If the game starts getting a bad rap for possibly not having enough PvE content, then it could very well hurt the game in the long run.
I'm sorry, but this isnt making sense really.
Bear in mind that we are talking about optional PvP servers, not PvEservers. They are different propositions. Optional PvP fans spend a ton of time in PvP content, it iis an imporatant part of the game for them, with the only real difference being that they don't want to gank farmed 24/7.
What your saying here only really makes sense if you suggesting that the gank play is going to make up a substantial amount of play content...
If the game is good enough people will talk. Who's to say AA can't go mainstream without PvE servers?
Well, we can look at history and what it shows us.sure, AA might be the one gankfest game that breaks it in the West, but there is really no evidence of that and it seems a foolish gamble for XL to take.
I bet most of the PvE'rs don't even know how the PvP rules work, it won't be WoW style free for all. It will likely have a flagging system that has consequences for being a murderer.
It actually appears you don't.
On the controlled islands you only generate bloods for killing your own faction, and then only if the victim takes the time to make the journey to town to hand them in. If eough bloods are handed in the PK goes to prison for a reduceable amount of time. If he persists he turns red and is banished to their city.
Other factions (including the Reds) do not generate bloods if they kill you, and so are free to 24/7 perma gank you at will.
The chance of them making "Optional PvP servers" is quite slim. I am not against this. "PvE server" i feel is misleading.
Again you assume AA will be a gankfest, which suggests you have only played pointless FFA PvP games. I don't think AA will be a gankfest. Sure you will get ganked at times, but it isn't that big of a deal. In fact it can add content to the game.
You are right, I don't know how the PvP works in AA, and I don't really care since I will take the game for what it is and then decide if it's the game for me. What I was suggesting is that most "PvE'rs" automatically assume the PvP is unrestricted FFA PvP like AoC on it's PvP servers, or WoW on it's PvP servers. This PvP imo is garbage since it has no death penalties, and makes for very pointless PvP and promotes griefing.
The question is though would the relatively small investment required to make a server option such as this pay off for XL in the West? Would implementing changes on seperate realms to enable optional PvP, and by doing so moving this title from the niche market and into the mainstream, be worth it?The answer I am obviously arguing is yes it would, hugely.
I'm sure it would help for initial sales. If the game starts getting a bad rap for possibly not having enough PvE content, then it could very well hurt the game in the long run.
I'm sorry, but this isnt making sense really.
Bear in mind that we are talking about optional PvP servers, not PvEservers. They are different propositions. Optional PvP fans spend a ton of time in PvP content, it iis an imporatant part of the game for them, with the only real difference being that they don't want to gank farmed 24/7.
What your saying here only really makes sense if you suggesting that the gank play is going to make up a substantial amount of play content...
If the game is good enough people will talk. Who's to say AA can't go mainstream without PvE servers?
Well, we can look at history and what it shows us.sure, AA might be the one gankfest game that breaks it in the West, but there is really no evidence of that and it seems a foolish gamble for XL to take.
I bet most of the PvE'rs don't even know how the PvP rules work, it won't be WoW style free for all. It will likely have a flagging system that has consequences for being a murderer.
It actually appears you don't.
On the controlled islands you only generate bloods for killing your own faction, and then only if the victim takes the time to make the journey to town to hand them in. If eough bloods are handed in the PK goes to prison for a reduceable amount of time. If he persists he turns red and is banished to their city.
Other factions (including the Reds) do not generate bloods if they kill you, and so are free to 24/7 perma gank you at will.
The chance of them making "Optional PvP servers" is quite slim. I am not against this. "PvE server" i feel is misleading.
If your not against optional PvP servers I don't really understand what we have been talking about lol, this whole thread has been about optional PvP servers
As for quite slim... maybe, but as said earlier they are open to alternate rule set servers. All that remains I feel is to show them that this might be a senisible way to go in the West if they want bigger then niche.
Again you assume AA will be a gankfest, which suggests you have only played pointless FFA PvP games. I don't think AA will be a gankfest. Sure you will get ganked at times, but it isn't that big of a deal. In fact it can add content to the game.
The fact that I assume AA will be open world gankfest (as it stands) is based on following it and understanding the current systems in place, and my personal experience of how Westerners play this kind of game (and the general community they seem to attract in the main, though I know there are decent and good PvPers amongst the 'leet badass' postering dicks).
Sure, it's beta, things will most likely be reviewed and tweaked, but as they stand right now this game will be a bloodbath from launch, let alone when people get geared up and a few lvls so they they feel safe as possible when crapping on lowbies.
As for adding content... well, I don't enjoy getting rolled by gank squads or being camped by PKs 10 levels or whatever above me, and certainly do not consider that 'content' that I want. I don't think I am alone in this either.
What I was suggesting is that most "PvE'rs" automatically assume the PvP is unrestricted FFA PvP like AoC on it's PvP servers, or WoW on it's PvP servers. This PvP imo is garbage since it has no death penalties, and makes for very pointless PvP and promotes griefing.
it's not an automatic assumption, it is a point of view formed by looking at the evidence.
At this point there are no controls on PKing by other factions on the controlled islands, nor any system there right now that suggests that it will be like anything but the games you talk about above.
While I would like ArcheAge to be something I would enjoy playing, I'm fine with the pvp crowd having another game that caters solely to them (Darkfall and Mortal Online are the other two I know of), as long as everyone is upfront about it.
I don't want to hear any crap from the devs or from the playerbase about how so and so is a pure builder and crafter and does just fine as a member of giant guild alliance X. That doesn't translate into the ability of solo players and players who prefer small guilds to enjoy the game.
If the game does well, but obviously drives away all pvers and those who pvp sometimes but dislike the pvp rulesets offered by ArcheAge, that's fine, and eventually, a similar game will be created that caters to us. We are the majority, at least in the west, and developers want our money.
It's the bait and switch, partial information, and lies told by devs and pvp-centric communities that irritates me. But I have no problem with a game existing solely for pvpers and politicking hypersocials. Actually, I'm in favor of a game that attracts the majority of these players into its fold, as that will mean they will not be annoying me in the games I play!
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
If the game does well, but obviously drives away all pvers and those who pvp sometimes but dislike the pvp rulesets offered by ArcheAge, that's fine, and eventually, a similar game will be created that caters to us. We are the majority, at least in the west, and developers want our money.
Yes, they do, and this is why itwould make sense to create alternate rule set servers for optional PvP for here.
Why would XL say no to our cash by simply not offering what so many want? Especially when it neednt impact on what the open world PvPers want.
To say 'don't bother about this one, we will wait for the next that is no shape or form anywhere in existence', seems somewhat... silly to me, especially considering how relatively cheap it is to make alternate servers compared with building a new game from scratch (and how much of a new market it would open this game to) and AA offers so much that is right already.
(and,for you, if those guys are all on another server, surely thats far enough away?)
If the game does well, but obviously drives away all pvers and those who pvp sometimes but dislike the pvp rulesets offered by ArcheAge, that's fine, and eventually, a similar game will be created that caters to us. We are the majority, at least in the west, and developers want our money.
Yes, they do, and this is why itwould make sense to create alternate rule set servers for optional PvP for here.
Why would XL say no to our cash by simply not offering what so many want? Especially when it neednt impact on what the open world PvPers want.
To say 'don't bother about this one, we will wait for the next that is no shape or form anywhere in existence', seems somewhat... silly to me, especially considering how relatively cheap it is to make alternate servers compared with building a new game from scratch (and how much of a new market it would open this game to) and AA offers so much that is right already.
(and,for you, if those guys are all on another server, surely thats far enough away?)
Well, if ArcheAge succeeds without a more pve-friendly ruleset server, we'll know there are more pvp players in the west than we thought there were. If it does poorly without a more pve-friendly ruleset server, perhaps it will be the last game of its kind marketed in the west.
Either way, if the devs are determined to have rulesets that do not cater to pvers, it's their game, and if they are willing to forgo the money they would have made by creating a game we would have enjoyed, that's fine with me. A bit strange, but it's their right to create the game the way they want it to be, so I won't get upset over it. I simply won't play it. But if pvers buy the game believing it does cater to them and in reality it does not, those pvers are going to be upset. Hopefully, whatever direction the game takes, we will all do our research carefully before we open our wallets.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Hopefully, whatever direction the game takes, we will all do our research carefully before we open our wallets.
doubt this actually happens, vast majority of gamers are either fanboys, trolls or simply followers, they don't usually do 'research' about any game before jumping onto the hate ship, thats why the western developers are all scared by this and go into the whole "when its ready' regimen, simply because a game cannot recover from a pre-launch bad rep, even if the game is god amazing.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
doubt this actually happens, vast majority of gamers are either fanboys, trolls or simply followers, they don't usually do 'research' about any game before jumping onto the hate ship, thats why the western developers are all scared by this and go into the whole "when its ready' regimen, simply because a game cannot recover from a pre-launch bad rep, even if the game is god amazing.
On the other side of the coin, some developers take advantage of our failure to do our research, and of our community's eagerness to overlook any negative things we have read about their games in the hopes of finally having something different from what we're all sick of. Some even offer lifetime or one year subs before their game is out of beta, and the vast majority don't give unhappy customers refunds if the game doesn't meet expectations.
ArcheAge could appeal to pvpers, sand box builders and crafters, and to those who enjoy a hybrid in between a sandbox and a themepark. But if any of those groups is capable of making the game unenjoyable for any of the other groups and does so, many of the people who leave will be sorry that they bought the game and some will feel cheated or misled if they did their basic homework before purchasing, then discovered that one or more group's impact on other groups is greater than they were led to expect.
I for one would be extremely annoyed if I bought a game, spent 20 or so levels in it with relatively few problems from pkers, then saw all of that change in later levels. And if I did decide to purchase the game, I would want to get in early. Not with a lifetime sub, mind you, but I wouldn't want to wait until everything is built up to start playing.
But if I knew in advance that, for example, pvpers would have the largest significant impact on the way everyone else plays the game, then it would be my own fault if I bought it and didn't like it. So if that will be the case, I hope the website makes it very clear. Like I said, it's their right to make the game that they want to make. But when devs and the pvp community downplay the impact of a particular game's pvp ruleset in hopes of attracting people who don't enjoy that type of game play, it isn't doing the game or the pvpers any favors in the long run.
Oh, and I'm actually pretty forgiving of bad launches. I'm still subbed to Xsyon, and it had a very rough launch. And then a second, rather rough relaunch. I could have gotten a refund, they actually did give refunds to a lot of players, but I waited it out and I still enjoy the game. It's ffa, full loot pvp, by the way, with only small safe areas, and while it is soloable, it isn't easy starting out alone. But then, who wants easy?
If Earthrise put some actual sand in the box, I'd come back and give it a try as well, bugs, pkers, and all. And I didn't cry for a refund even though I quit shortly after I bought that (expensive) game because I love eye candy, so for me, just wandering around in the game world for three weeks was worth it. Also, Earthrise made it pretty clear up front that it's a very pvp and group centric game. I was just sorry the crafting wasn't more interesting and the game play less grindy. I did think the community was much worse than, for example, Darkfall's, but that's my fault for not realizing the game wasn't even rated NC17 (I didn't do my homework on that one and bought it thinking for some reason that it was).
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Let me sum it up in as little of words as possible.
UO Version - Griefers that would often target crafters and fisherman, sometimes people simply going to their houses, to loot their spoils, in which case those Griefers had no real reprocusions (And dont tell me the timed stat regain was a punishment, that didnt stop most reds who would Macro afk in their houses while the timer expired). As far as population goes in the previous arguements, who cares. Fact is, I was playing UO since Alpha, then Beta, then Trammel, etc. And truth be told, when Trammel did come out, Felluca was deserted, even by most those supposed Reds (Who mostly dropped their subscriptions).
This is so untrue. I played Beta till Stygian Abyss. All but 2 chars I ever made were reds. We ate, slept, farmed, pvp'd, slept in fel. My blues hunted in fel. You sound like one of those guys that left around T2A or Blackthorn's Revenge. To this day UO is still populated enough that you can find pvp around every gate, dongeon, town. Now the 2 latest expansions is why I quit. after they finally balanced pvp and crafting, they decided to screw it up. Real reds don't macro off counts. And you obviously haven't played since T2A cause stat loss is faction only now.
I would like to think otherwise, and I know some pvpers couldn't care less if pvers have safe zones or safe servers, but I have also heard pvpers complain about separating servers because they want a healthy population of crafters and pvers to prey on, and yes, some will come right out and admit they want to prey on other players who aren't pvp-oriented and who therefore are unlikely to pose much of a threat when attacked!
When it comes to people, my son is usually far more of an optimist than I am. But not when it comes to gamers. Every time I try to make some excuse for pvpers in general and give reasonable explanations as to why they don't want harsh penalties for pking, or at least for ganking someone so low level or undergeared it's not really even a fight, he laughs at me and says things are that way because the pvpers will throw tantrums if they can't grief other players.
I'm starting to think he's right.
A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk.
The reason PvPer's may not want alternate servers is because it's messes with how the developers designed the game.
Separate the servers and you may very well have 2 diferent games, twice as much complaining, and half as much content for both sides.
It's obvious the game was designed around player inteactions, such as trade, crafting, PvP and PvE. Cutting out a part of their game is foolish and could lead the game into an unintended direction. How would ship battles work on a PvE server? Ship duels? Lol..
Well, heres a radical idea... they could just make certain distance around the controlled continents shores as safe water, and have the rest as 'international' waters where ship PvP is fully enabled. Even almost like RL in fact, if you think about it.
But see? It's easy to solve issues. What others do you forsee in simply turning off PvP on the controlled continents? lets see if we can solve them as well."
While that may seem like an easy fix to you that may seem a completely unacceptable solution to another player that wants to play on an optional pvp server. Now if the player does not want to pvp, he can not sail his boat to the other island and explore it. So either that have to make another server where only waters within a certain radius of the pvp island are pvp waters or allow for instant teleportation between islands. Basically your solution just made your optional pvp server no longer an optional pvp server unless you only want to see 1/3 of the game world.
An other issue with creating say a ffa pvp server, a faction based pvp server, a optional pvp server, and a pve server is that the further you segregate the community what happens when server merges are needed? what if they already only have 1 of each server type, but do not have the subs to justify 4 servers anymore? who gets the shaft of losing their prefered gameplay? Isn't it easier to accept never being given something in the first place than having it taken from you after say years of playing the game? Which customer is more jaded?
Open world PVP is a gateway for griefing. that has been made very clear by every game in recent history that does it. i think to the level that archage is doing open world pvp, there will definitely be griefing. having a jail system will not stop the fact that someone has lost invested time and items from getting griefed in the first place...... To some this is not a big deal... but i will put money on it that most gamers dont like open world pvp for griefing reasons. Overall PVP is always best when it can be controlled. There are too many people in the mmo world who love making other gamers miserable.... and thats a fact!
im definitely interested in this game but after playing AOC and Darkfall, i can say that the cons of open world pvp can decrease a games population very fast.
Whats sad is how scared some people are of open PvP and whats funny is how PvP can really make a game.
Now I have played truly amazing PvP...(Shadow Bane, Ultima Online, Ashrens Call )....and crudy PvP (World of Warcraft, Aion)...and the meh its ok PvP (DAOC, DCOU).
Now of the games listed...big PvE game is WoW, DAOC, DCOU......while the others were more about PvP or PvP with some quests lol. But either way you can easly see the catter type....if you catter to the PvE types you get WoW, etc....if you catter to the PvP types you get SB, UO, etc.....and if you try to go in between you get DCOU, etc...
Personaly I see this game cattering to the PvP type with trying to draw in the PvE ones as well. More reverse of PvE game trying to draw in PvPers (which has not always worked so well ie WoW). But should you be afraid of pvp and ganking is the real question I think. The awnser is NO. The reason i say no is cause in a pvp game you most learn to get better in pvp if you are not already good at it. Gankers are good ways to force you to learn pvp. Plus when you get to lvl of them their is a great satisfaction of destroying that person as well. As 98% of gankers are horrable pvpers and they can only kill those lower then them selves.
PvP is about challenging your self agianst other players and not just against the enviroment. Any players who complain as GANKING being the only reason open PvP shouldnt be. They are probably the ones that tried a game got ganked by a higher lvl player a few times. Cried about it and rage quit. They never tried to keep lvling up, learn what to do, what not to do or go, etc... To those people I say go back play WoW, or DCOU and let us PvPers have our fun for we are many!
Also on side note games with PvP servers and those with PvE servers....the PvP servers are always packed and loaded...from subscripton games to free game models...think that says a bit about how many really like PvP.
Also on side note games with PvP servers and those with PvE servers....the PvP servers are always packed and loaded...from subscripton games to free game models...think that says a bit about how many really like PvP.
1. There are more PvE servers, of course the players are more spread out
2. one of the more popular f2p games, Runes of magic, PvP servers are completely empty.
3. Actually can you show info indicating that PvP server are more popular than PvE?
There are 115 PvE server all from Medium population to high, with 8 servers on high (7 of them are Oceanic servers, one of them is US server)
There are 104 PvP server from low to high population, with 20 on low, 15 on high (6 of them Oceanic)
There are 17 RP server all from Medium to high population, with 2 servers on high (all from US)
There are 6 RP PvP server and all of them are on medium
so if you calculate ecah server is populate to a rate of 3, with low as 1, medium as 2, and high as 3
PvE = 238/345 = 70% full
PvP = 203/312 = 65% full
RP = 36/51 = 71% full
RP PVP = 12/18 = 67% full
OVERALL
PvE = 274/396 = 69% full
PvP = 215/330 = 65% full
of course this is fairly inaccurate, but this basically tells you that PvE servers are more loaded than PvP server, But of course, I'm still waiting on a game that do great in both areas, where PvE and PvP aren't needed to differentiate the players apart. It just needs a ruleset that are better designed and creates a balance between mindness killing and story driven gameplay.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
People just dont see that many "carebears" such as my self would love a sandbox game where we dont have to worry about being ganked over and over again till we lose all gold and gear. I am a PVE centric type person but i have yet to see a Sandbox type game where PVErs dont get the shaft. While many PVPers get the shaft in themepark mmo and i have no right to complain as PVPers do but, if AA had a PVE server with a flagging type system they would draw alot of people including myself.
The closest use carebears get is maybe vanguard. I dont see why these games dont offer a PVE server. Basically thing of AA as Oblivion instead of everybody killing each other on PVE servers people whould be doing various different open worled dungeons and epic quests. While people who do PVP could flag and see if they get a war going. I dont see why a sandbox game cant cater to us "carebears" and PVPers alike. While it may be a PVP centric game i wouldnt mind that cause id be busy crafting and just exploring a beautiful world without the worry that some 14 year old who stole his moms credit card kills me over and over again just because he has better gear because he plays nonstop.
AA with a PVE server would be an RPers dream, they would be allowed to create a character and essentially make a life for themselves without other players causing grief. While many PVPers will prolly just say GO PLAY WOW. I say this i dont want a themepark i want a sandbox that doesnt force me to watch over my back constantly.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
of course this is fairly inaccurate, but this basically tells you that PvE servers are more loaded than PvP server, But of course, I'm still waiting on a game that do great in both areas, where PvE and PvP aren't needed to differentiate the players apart. It just needs a ruleset that are better designed and creates a balance between mindness killing and story driven gameplay.
WoW is a PvE based game. The fact that there is that high of a PvP population in a PvE based game is a good indication of how many people like PvP.
Open world PVP is a gateway for griefing. that has been made very clear by every game in recent history that does it. i think to the level that archage is doing open world pvp, there will definitely be griefing. having a jail system will not stop the fact that someone has lost invested time and items from getting griefed in the first place...... To some this is not a big deal... but i will put money on it that most gamers dont like open world pvp for griefing reasons. Overall PVP is always best when it can be controlled. There are too many people in the mmo world who love making other gamers miserable.... and thats a fact!
im definitely interested in this game but after playing AOC and Darkfall, i can say that the cons of open world pvp can decrease a games population very fast.
How does open world PVP ruin Darkfall? That is the main focus of Darkfall open world pvp and clan warfare...
I think a lot of the people who bitch about open world pvp ruining Darkfall have probably never actually played Darkfall. I do mainly PVE on Darkfall and have only been griefed once in 3 weeks while doing some PVE. Darkfall's world is massive and there is a huge selection of npc monster spawns to farm so you can find a spot that not a ton of people travel on if you are not in to pvp.
The ONE Major con of open world PvP: Greifers...I think EVERYBODY who has EVER played a open world PvP game SOLO can attest to this. Greifing when you play as a solo player (I.E. Aren't grandfathered in with guilds/clans from other MMOs and people who do not have RL friends who play) is the worst experience ever. If you're always outnumbered 1 to X, you will always lose, 99.9% of the time. This is my major turn-off for MMO's with open PvP these days.
The ONE major con of NO open world PvP: It get BLOODY BORING, my god!!! "Oh look, I got this item, now that item, now this item, now that item! I am now a god of the digital world in which I reside and I'm so proud of the 200 hours it took me to achieve all these items!" Seriously? Spending countless hours of your RL time to obtain ditigal items, which I guarantee you will care less about within 3-4 years, MAYBE 10 years, when you quit, is FUN!?!? That sounds boring as all hell to me!!!!
People who do not want open world PvP simply want a chat room with the distraction of pressing buttons, casting pretty spells, and hoarding items - which feels rewards, I guess? This seems COMPLETELY lame.
I think the ultimate answer to "World PvP vs No World PvP" is quite simple in concept, though maybe a bit tougher to code because it considers multiple things:
New players who start out are given ONE, SINGLE chance to keep their Anti-PvP tag on as long as they wish (forever, if they choose), until they revoke it. The only way to revoke the tag is to type in a command and be prompted for assurance in their decision.
Players with "No-PvP" tags need to be easily distinguishable, even from a distance. However, a simple title could do, I guess?
When NOT in a group, solo players have the ability to turn on/off a "PvP Flag / Tag," this will give solo players the ability to play without being victims of small gank groups who simply want to get off by greifing others. There will need to be adjustments, like how often the tag can be turned on/off and so forth. (I.E. no turning the flag off if you had engaged in PvP combat within, say, the last 5 minutes, or 10 minutes) Problem #1 solved: Solo players can play in peace and in the way they choose.
When engaging in PvP combat, say a group of 5 attacks a group of 3, the group of 3 is given significant "hit point handicaps." This will keep teams relatively even, instead of seeing "ganking," you would see more fair fights that depend on the skills of the players and the skills/spells in which they choose.
These are some quick ideas I came up with in the past 20 minutes but I think it's a great start with little risk to ruining ANYBODY's gameplay, PvPer or not.
I must admit that when I played WoW, back in the day, I had a hard time choosing between PvP and Regular servers...I played with my wife and she couldn't handle PvP...Yet PvE servers would bore the crap out of me by level 40. We were torn, chose a PvP server, and getting ganked while trying to relax, level, and have fun was complete misery. It completely turned my wife off the game and we didn't play much beyond level 60.
Both open-world PvP and PvE servers have major problems. There needs to be a new, innovative way to combine the two into onw to keep people happy and keep servers fully populated IMHO!
Comments
Answer the questions I asked instead of avoiding them.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
They don't need to tell you anything, but i'm sure there will be Q&A's that make things clear.
Just because other successfull games make different kinds of servers doesn't mean they all have to. Keep in mind it's a game, and you play it how the developers intend for you to play it. Many games especially the olders ones didn't have different server types.
Lol, man those questions are irrelevant, but ok.
-No, Most PvPer's don't attack players who they have no beef with...
-If so ? Confucious say what? My first sentence I believe to be true if the answer was yes or no. Which is "A server could have a handfull of known griefers and people will assume all PvPer's are griefers. Your assumption is bunk."
-No no they don't need sheep to kill. Like I said PvPer's fight with other PvPer's.
And again, angry customers tend to hold grudges, especially MMO customers. You're right, they can tell everything except possibly outright lies about their game, get the max number of people to sub possible, then laugh at all the pvers quitting over being constantly ganked. But would it be a good idea for them to do this? Probably not.
I will thoroughly investigate the pvp rulesets before I even consider trying this game, and I will read up on what other players have to say about the game, too. Because this one is just barely even on my radar, despite having many features I love to see in an MMO. And the reason it's barely on my radar is because I have a bad feeling it will be overly hostile to solo players and too friendly to griefers.
I wouldn't mind being wrong, but until I know I'm wrong, my wallet stays closed. I've blown way too much money on MMOs that I quit after less than a month lately!
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
oh good lord... stop being so literal. No, I don't think it's 'easy', if were 'easy' you and I both would be doing it. I am obviosuly just demonstarting that for problems there are answers, answers that do exist despite you not personally wanting to see them.
The question is though would the relatively small investment required to make a server option such as this pay off for XL in the West? Would implementing changes on seperate realms to enable optional PvP, and by doing so moving this title from the niche market and into the mainstream, be worth it?
The answer I am obviously arguing is yes it would, hugely.
I'm sure it would help for initial sales. If the game starts getting a bad rap for possibly not having enough PvE content, then it could very well hurt the game in the long run. Many people will think since it's a PvE server that it's going to be a PvE centered game, but it won't be.
If the game is good enough people will talk. Who's to say AA can't go mainstream without PvE servers?
With the large majority of MMO's out having PvE be the main source of content, you would think a game that balances PvP,PvE,Crafting, and Trade would be a welcome change.
I bet most of the PvE'rs don't even know how the PvP rules work, it won't be WoW style free for all. It will likely have a flagging system that has consequences for being a murderer.
There are many game companies that make games for people, the genre can't move forward when every one of them cater to the same crowd. People need to learn to accept change.
The chance of them making "Optional PvP servers" is quite slim. I am not against this. "PvE server" i feel is misleading.
Again you assume AA will be a gankfest, which suggests you have only played pointless FFA PvP games. I don't think AA will be a gankfest. Sure you will get ganked at times, but it isn't that big of a deal. In fact it can add content to the game.
You are right, I don't know how the PvP works in AA, and I don't really care since I will take the game for what it is and then decide if it's the game for me. What I was suggesting is that most "PvE'rs" automatically assume the PvP is unrestricted FFA PvP like AoC on it's PvP servers, or WoW on it's PvP servers. This PvP imo is garbage since it has no death penalties, and makes for very pointless PvP and promotes griefing.
While I would like ArcheAge to be something I would enjoy playing, I'm fine with the pvp crowd having another game that caters solely to them (Darkfall and Mortal Online are the other two I know of), as long as everyone is upfront about it.
I don't want to hear any crap from the devs or from the playerbase about how so and so is a pure builder and crafter and does just fine as a member of giant guild alliance X. That doesn't translate into the ability of solo players and players who prefer small guilds to enjoy the game.
If the game does well, but obviously drives away all pvers and those who pvp sometimes but dislike the pvp rulesets offered by ArcheAge, that's fine, and eventually, a similar game will be created that caters to us. We are the majority, at least in the west, and developers want our money.
It's the bait and switch, partial information, and lies told by devs and pvp-centric communities that irritates me. But I have no problem with a game existing solely for pvpers and politicking hypersocials. Actually, I'm in favor of a game that attracts the majority of these players into its fold, as that will mean they will not be annoying me in the games I play!
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Yes, they do, and this is why itwould make sense to create alternate rule set servers for optional PvP for here.
Why would XL say no to our cash by simply not offering what so many want? Especially when it neednt impact on what the open world PvPers want.
To say 'don't bother about this one, we will wait for the next that is no shape or form anywhere in existence', seems somewhat... silly to me, especially considering how relatively cheap it is to make alternate servers compared with building a new game from scratch (and how much of a new market it would open this game to) and AA offers so much that is right already.
(and,for you, if those guys are all on another server, surely thats far enough away?)
Well, if ArcheAge succeeds without a more pve-friendly ruleset server, we'll know there are more pvp players in the west than we thought there were. If it does poorly without a more pve-friendly ruleset server, perhaps it will be the last game of its kind marketed in the west.
Either way, if the devs are determined to have rulesets that do not cater to pvers, it's their game, and if they are willing to forgo the money they would have made by creating a game we would have enjoyed, that's fine with me. A bit strange, but it's their right to create the game the way they want it to be, so I won't get upset over it. I simply won't play it. But if pvers buy the game believing it does cater to them and in reality it does not, those pvers are going to be upset. Hopefully, whatever direction the game takes, we will all do our research carefully before we open our wallets.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
doubt this actually happens, vast majority of gamers are either fanboys, trolls or simply followers, they don't usually do 'research' about any game before jumping onto the hate ship, thats why the western developers are all scared by this and go into the whole "when its ready' regimen, simply because a game cannot recover from a pre-launch bad rep, even if the game is god amazing.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
On the other side of the coin, some developers take advantage of our failure to do our research, and of our community's eagerness to overlook any negative things we have read about their games in the hopes of finally having something different from what we're all sick of. Some even offer lifetime or one year subs before their game is out of beta, and the vast majority don't give unhappy customers refunds if the game doesn't meet expectations.
ArcheAge could appeal to pvpers, sand box builders and crafters, and to those who enjoy a hybrid in between a sandbox and a themepark. But if any of those groups is capable of making the game unenjoyable for any of the other groups and does so, many of the people who leave will be sorry that they bought the game and some will feel cheated or misled if they did their basic homework before purchasing, then discovered that one or more group's impact on other groups is greater than they were led to expect.
I for one would be extremely annoyed if I bought a game, spent 20 or so levels in it with relatively few problems from pkers, then saw all of that change in later levels. And if I did decide to purchase the game, I would want to get in early. Not with a lifetime sub, mind you, but I wouldn't want to wait until everything is built up to start playing.
But if I knew in advance that, for example, pvpers would have the largest significant impact on the way everyone else plays the game, then it would be my own fault if I bought it and didn't like it. So if that will be the case, I hope the website makes it very clear. Like I said, it's their right to make the game that they want to make. But when devs and the pvp community downplay the impact of a particular game's pvp ruleset in hopes of attracting people who don't enjoy that type of game play, it isn't doing the game or the pvpers any favors in the long run.
Oh, and I'm actually pretty forgiving of bad launches. I'm still subbed to Xsyon, and it had a very rough launch. And then a second, rather rough relaunch. I could have gotten a refund, they actually did give refunds to a lot of players, but I waited it out and I still enjoy the game. It's ffa, full loot pvp, by the way, with only small safe areas, and while it is soloable, it isn't easy starting out alone. But then, who wants easy?
If Earthrise put some actual sand in the box, I'd come back and give it a try as well, bugs, pkers, and all. And I didn't cry for a refund even though I quit shortly after I bought that (expensive) game because I love eye candy, so for me, just wandering around in the game world for three weeks was worth it. Also, Earthrise made it pretty clear up front that it's a very pvp and group centric game. I was just sorry the crafting wasn't more interesting and the game play less grindy. I did think the community was much worse than, for example, Darkfall's, but that's my fault for not realizing the game wasn't even rated NC17 (I didn't do my homework on that one and bought it thinking for some reason that it was).
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
"Posted by vesavius on 6/18/11 at 2:25:00 PM
Well, heres a radical idea... they could just make certain distance around the controlled continents shores as safe water, and have the rest as 'international' waters where ship PvP is fully enabled. Even almost like RL in fact, if you think about it.
But see? It's easy to solve issues. What others do you forsee in simply turning off PvP on the controlled continents? lets see if we can solve them as well."
While that may seem like an easy fix to you that may seem a completely unacceptable solution to another player that wants to play on an optional pvp server. Now if the player does not want to pvp, he can not sail his boat to the other island and explore it. So either that have to make another server where only waters within a certain radius of the pvp island are pvp waters or allow for instant teleportation between islands. Basically your solution just made your optional pvp server no longer an optional pvp server unless you only want to see 1/3 of the game world.
An other issue with creating say a ffa pvp server, a faction based pvp server, a optional pvp server, and a pve server is that the further you segregate the community what happens when server merges are needed? what if they already only have 1 of each server type, but do not have the subs to justify 4 servers anymore? who gets the shaft of losing their prefered gameplay? Isn't it easier to accept never being given something in the first place than having it taken from you after say years of playing the game? Which customer is more jaded?
Open world PVP is a gateway for griefing. that has been made very clear by every game in recent history that does it. i think to the level that archage is doing open world pvp, there will definitely be griefing. having a jail system will not stop the fact that someone has lost invested time and items from getting griefed in the first place...... To some this is not a big deal... but i will put money on it that most gamers dont like open world pvp for griefing reasons. Overall PVP is always best when it can be controlled. There are too many people in the mmo world who love making other gamers miserable.... and thats a fact!
im definitely interested in this game but after playing AOC and Darkfall, i can say that the cons of open world pvp can decrease a games population very fast.
Whats sad is how scared some people are of open PvP and whats funny is how PvP can really make a game.
Now I have played truly amazing PvP...(Shadow Bane, Ultima Online, Ashrens Call )....and crudy PvP (World of Warcraft, Aion)...and the meh its ok PvP (DAOC, DCOU).
Now of the games listed...big PvE game is WoW, DAOC, DCOU......while the others were more about PvP or PvP with some quests lol. But either way you can easly see the catter type....if you catter to the PvE types you get WoW, etc....if you catter to the PvP types you get SB, UO, etc.....and if you try to go in between you get DCOU, etc...
Personaly I see this game cattering to the PvP type with trying to draw in the PvE ones as well. More reverse of PvE game trying to draw in PvPers (which has not always worked so well ie WoW). But should you be afraid of pvp and ganking is the real question I think. The awnser is NO. The reason i say no is cause in a pvp game you most learn to get better in pvp if you are not already good at it. Gankers are good ways to force you to learn pvp. Plus when you get to lvl of them their is a great satisfaction of destroying that person as well. As 98% of gankers are horrable pvpers and they can only kill those lower then them selves.
PvP is about challenging your self agianst other players and not just against the enviroment. Any players who complain as GANKING being the only reason open PvP shouldnt be. They are probably the ones that tried a game got ganked by a higher lvl player a few times. Cried about it and rage quit. They never tried to keep lvling up, learn what to do, what not to do or go, etc... To those people I say go back play WoW, or DCOU and let us PvPers have our fun for we are many!
Also on side note games with PvP servers and those with PvE servers....the PvP servers are always packed and loaded...from subscripton games to free game models...think that says a bit about how many really like PvP.
1. There are more PvE servers, of course the players are more spread out
2. one of the more popular f2p games, Runes of magic, PvP servers are completely empty.
3. Actually can you show info indicating that PvP server are more popular than PvE?
In WoW at 7:33pm EST (2:34am PST) I'm from Australia so its hard to grasp the prime time there: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/status
There are 115 PvE server all from Medium population to high, with 8 servers on high (7 of them are Oceanic servers, one of them is US server)
There are 104 PvP server from low to high population, with 20 on low, 15 on high (6 of them Oceanic)
There are 17 RP server all from Medium to high population, with 2 servers on high (all from US)
There are 6 RP PvP server and all of them are on medium
so if you calculate ecah server is populate to a rate of 3, with low as 1, medium as 2, and high as 3
PvE = 238/345 = 70% full
PvP = 203/312 = 65% full
RP = 36/51 = 71% full
RP PVP = 12/18 = 67% full
OVERALL
PvE = 274/396 = 69% full
PvP = 215/330 = 65% full
of course this is fairly inaccurate, but this basically tells you that PvE servers are more loaded than PvP server, But of course, I'm still waiting on a game that do great in both areas, where PvE and PvP aren't needed to differentiate the players apart. It just needs a ruleset that are better designed and creates a balance between mindness killing and story driven gameplay.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
People just dont see that many "carebears" such as my self would love a sandbox game where we dont have to worry about being ganked over and over again till we lose all gold and gear. I am a PVE centric type person but i have yet to see a Sandbox type game where PVErs dont get the shaft. While many PVPers get the shaft in themepark mmo and i have no right to complain as PVPers do but, if AA had a PVE server with a flagging type system they would draw alot of people including myself.
The closest use carebears get is maybe vanguard. I dont see why these games dont offer a PVE server. Basically thing of AA as Oblivion instead of everybody killing each other on PVE servers people whould be doing various different open worled dungeons and epic quests. While people who do PVP could flag and see if they get a war going. I dont see why a sandbox game cant cater to us "carebears" and PVPers alike. While it may be a PVP centric game i wouldnt mind that cause id be busy crafting and just exploring a beautiful world without the worry that some 14 year old who stole his moms credit card kills me over and over again just because he has better gear because he plays nonstop.
AA with a PVE server would be an RPers dream, they would be allowed to create a character and essentially make a life for themselves without other players causing grief. While many PVPers will prolly just say GO PLAY WOW. I say this i dont want a themepark i want a sandbox that doesnt force me to watch over my back constantly.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
WoW is a PvE based game. The fact that there is that high of a PvP population in a PvE based game is a good indication of how many people like PvP.
How does open world PVP ruin Darkfall? That is the main focus of Darkfall open world pvp and clan warfare...
I think a lot of the people who bitch about open world pvp ruining Darkfall have probably never actually played Darkfall. I do mainly PVE on Darkfall and have only been griefed once in 3 weeks while doing some PVE. Darkfall's world is massive and there is a huge selection of npc monster spawns to farm so you can find a spot that not a ton of people travel on if you are not in to pvp.
I'm a bit torn....Open World PvP or Not?!?!?
The ONE Major con of open world PvP: Greifers...I think EVERYBODY who has EVER played a open world PvP game SOLO can attest to this. Greifing when you play as a solo player (I.E. Aren't grandfathered in with guilds/clans from other MMOs and people who do not have RL friends who play) is the worst experience ever. If you're always outnumbered 1 to X, you will always lose, 99.9% of the time. This is my major turn-off for MMO's with open PvP these days.
The ONE major con of NO open world PvP: It get BLOODY BORING, my god!!! "Oh look, I got this item, now that item, now this item, now that item! I am now a god of the digital world in which I reside and I'm so proud of the 200 hours it took me to achieve all these items!" Seriously? Spending countless hours of your RL time to obtain ditigal items, which I guarantee you will care less about within 3-4 years, MAYBE 10 years, when you quit, is FUN!?!? That sounds boring as all hell to me!!!!
People who do not want open world PvP simply want a chat room with the distraction of pressing buttons, casting pretty spells, and hoarding items - which feels rewards, I guess? This seems COMPLETELY lame.
I think the ultimate answer to "World PvP vs No World PvP" is quite simple in concept, though maybe a bit tougher to code because it considers multiple things:
New players who start out are given ONE, SINGLE chance to keep their Anti-PvP tag on as long as they wish (forever, if they choose), until they revoke it. The only way to revoke the tag is to type in a command and be prompted for assurance in their decision.
Players with "No-PvP" tags need to be easily distinguishable, even from a distance. However, a simple title could do, I guess?
When NOT in a group, solo players have the ability to turn on/off a "PvP Flag / Tag," this will give solo players the ability to play without being victims of small gank groups who simply want to get off by greifing others. There will need to be adjustments, like how often the tag can be turned on/off and so forth. (I.E. no turning the flag off if you had engaged in PvP combat within, say, the last 5 minutes, or 10 minutes) Problem #1 solved: Solo players can play in peace and in the way they choose.
When engaging in PvP combat, say a group of 5 attacks a group of 3, the group of 3 is given significant "hit point handicaps." This will keep teams relatively even, instead of seeing "ganking," you would see more fair fights that depend on the skills of the players and the skills/spells in which they choose.
These are some quick ideas I came up with in the past 20 minutes but I think it's a great start with little risk to ruining ANYBODY's gameplay, PvPer or not.
I must admit that when I played WoW, back in the day, I had a hard time choosing between PvP and Regular servers...I played with my wife and she couldn't handle PvP...Yet PvE servers would bore the crap out of me by level 40. We were torn, chose a PvP server, and getting ganked while trying to relax, level, and have fun was complete misery. It completely turned my wife off the game and we didn't play much beyond level 60.
Both open-world PvP and PvE servers have major problems. There needs to be a new, innovative way to combine the two into onw to keep people happy and keep servers fully populated IMHO!