| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (115)

Posted: Jun 3rd 2011 6:59PM Graill440 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This topic comes up alot here.....seriously. Throwing my dollar and two on the dead horse, until devs learn to use common sense and not worry about doing things the easy way then craptastic type of pvp currently around will never change. If it doesnt mould around the money model or uses to much dev time, it isnt happening.

In order to make free for all work you need something present in real life, huge consequence, something devs do not want to deal with on either end of the scale. Also folks looking to escape real life for a bit do not want to deal with the rules of real life getting in the way of their chance to kill a pixel and not worry about it.

there are ways to make this work well for all, however as i have stated many times before, they do not pay me to give them great ideas.

Never post ideas on forums or blogs, if you do, state it cannot be used, mail your idea to yourself with date, and yes you can beat the big guy.

Your gaming experience may vary online (Grin)

Posted: Jun 4th 2011 12:24PM Irem said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Graill440
Usually if I'm posting an idea on a forum or something, it's because it's something I'd like to see ingame. It's hard enough getting developers to accept suggestions for free. :P
Reply

Posted: Jun 4th 2011 12:01AM Transientmind said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There's a reason I describe EVE as Spreadsheets Online: Sociopaths in Space. Open PVP brings out the absolute worst I've ever seen in gamers, and if a game has it, I don't buy that game. No matter what redeeming features it may have. Everyone should have the right to non-consent.

Posted: Jun 4th 2011 1:02AM DarkWalker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What could make me try open world PvP:

- First and foremost, no (or very small) death penalty in PvP. If it takes more than 5 minutes to completely recover from a player-induced death, I'm out of the game.

- One between no dedicated PvP gear, automatic switching to our PvP gear when attacked, or gear making close to no difference in the outcome of the battle.

- Either some kind of karma system, with heavy penalties for initiating an attack on players of a much lower level; some kind of absolute protection for lower level players, as long as they don't actually attack the higher level opponent; or some system to make all characters roughly equivalent in power when used for PvP, so lowbies actually have a fighting chance against max level players in the best PvP gear.

- Some way to reduce the effectiveness of multiple players attacking a single target, or attackers waiting for their prey to engage a mob before attacking. Perhaps the attacked players could call out a formal duel, with the attackers being forced to choose among their group an equal number of players to battle their prey. Perhaps filling the target's life, or giving him a fairly hefty buff, when he is attacked while battling a mob.

Otherwise I will stick to playing on PvE servers, or not even trying the game at all if it does not have PvE servers.

Posted: Jun 4th 2011 10:32AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes, it it. For a few reasons:

1 - It establishes a pay-to-win mentality, in which cash shop purchases make the difference in victory or defeat. Biggest credit line from Mommy wins. Almost no FFA PvP games avoid this.

2 - It strips victims of their achievements in many games, costing them gear or xp, that they earned through actually playing the game rather than being a sociopath.

3 - Inevitably, the sociopaths get ganked by a better ganker, and whine for nerfs. The real game is then negatively affected by a constant stream of patches to try and "balance" gear, classes, and races.

4 - Games that focus on PvP inevitably suck, lacking any semblance of lore, or content worth doing. It's always "kill 5 fozzles/collect 5 widgets/mailman" type quests. There's no searching throguh a fog-enshrouded dock-side community, digging for evidence of a serial killer living nearby.

If you want PvP, games such as Call of Duty exist. There (at least in the good CoD games, like the original, and it's expansion, though the rest of them suck), it's 100% player skill on a good server. Then again, the same ones who think they're so great at PvP in FFA MMOs end up not being able to remotely compete in twitch-based games, so they need that cash shop build to succeed. They'd never make it where it actually took skill, not just hiding until a player half their level and no gear wanders by and then jumping them.

Posted: Jun 4th 2011 11:10AM Paradigm68 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
FFA pvp should be available in the game but not the entire game, and there should be consequences for abuse. After all these are rpg games, not multiplayer games with deathmatch where the whole point of the game is to fight.

I like the way WoW and EvE handle it. There are areas where you can do it, and areas where you can't. You want it, its there, if not, fine. But an mmorpg that allows constant pointless pvp'ing around a spawn point is just silly.

Posted: Jun 4th 2011 11:42AM Yukon Sam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Holding up EVE as an exemplar of FFA doesn't really work, by the way. At any given time, 75% or more of active players (by the company's own figures) are clustered in Hi-Sec, and while it's technically possible to kill another player in Hi-Sec, it's a pricey form of murder/suicide.

Most true MMOs with true FFA are pushing up daisies in the games graveyard, and nearly all FFA servers are ghost towns. It's very difficult to get the critical mass in a triple-A title to support a niche of a niche. It's not impossible, but the games who manage it tend to be micro-shops with micro-overhead.

Posted: Jun 4th 2011 4:42PM syberghost said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes. By all means, give the PvPers lots of large zones that are 100% PvP, with the ability to fight over territory. I'm even OK with PvE-side buffs being based on the outcome. But do *NOT* tell me I have no choice but to PvP whether I'm in the mood or not, because there are lots of other games out there and I'll play them instead.

Posted: Jun 4th 2011 9:04PM Weiji said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
FFA pvp is a great ruleset, there's no reason for games not to have more server type options. Guild vs Guild with alliances would be $$$

PVP server with exp loss, coin loot, item loot, or some mix or choice would be really fun.

I never understood the whole "griefing" argument. If you know what pvp servers play like and don't like to get ganked, stay on a blue server.

Posted: Jun 5th 2011 10:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When you mentioned Ultima Online, I just had to respond. If I remember correctly (and I do), UO's dev team announced that it had 350,000 plus members the week of the Age of Shadows expansion, and that item insurance and the rest of the carebear game mechanics implemented in AOS were going to raise subs to astronomical levels. The next time the devs stated membership numbers was 8 months or so later, and it was "about 150,000". A few months after that, it was just over 100,000. It seems that the players didn't just happily opt out of PvP, they opted out of playing at all.

Posted: Jun 6th 2011 1:22PM pixledriven said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Deal MAKER

Posted: Jun 6th 2011 5:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Whenever I read this argument coming along again, I hear the following phrase:

"You're screwing up my RPG With Your FPS!"
"No, You're Screwing Up My FPS With Your RPG!"

The very core of the RPG genre is CHOICE. You cannot FORCE people to play the victim over and over again, which is why those people, who realize that by not caring about PvP their only fate will be to get picked on by those who have PKing as their entire game goal, avoid FFA-PVP like the plague. There's nothing wrong with that either, and no need for both types of player to bash on each other -- just stay out of each other's games.

I also firmly believe most FFA PVPers would be much happier in a FPS like TF2 or something, instead of some mutant PvE+PvP MMORPG where both types of gameplay seem to always conflict with each other in terms of balance/content/etc.

Posted: Jun 10th 2011 7:57PM ShivanSwordsman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I genuinely don't mind full-on PvP like this, though most games couple this with both death/rez sickness, gold loss, durability loss, and/or dropping equipment you were wearing. That simply WILL NOT FLY WITH ME. Why? Because let's face it, you're going to get some little kid eventually that's playing the most PvP-centric class in the game killing you, that constantly spews memes in the chat screen like "TROLOLOLOLOL" thinking he's the funniest thing alive. I'd... rather not exist in that sort of alternate reality.

Posted: Jul 8th 2011 4:53AM Ubiquitousnewt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've played UO, EQ, Wow, CoH, Puzzle Pirates, and a half dozen other MMOGs, and am a current Eve player for some ungodly reason. These games like to tout their "realism," and it's one of the arguments for PvP that makes me rage the most. In "reality," people that steal & murder got to jail or are even executed rather than society having to continuously deal with their crimes.

Eve in particular allows way, way WAY too much griefing and outright con-games. The developers have somewhat shrewdly decided the only banable offenses are those that directly cost them money; instead of the expense of dealing with scammers and bots and griefers, they try to present them as "game featurse," and we morons fall for it. (The only ways I know of to get banned are macro-mining and ISK selling - both of which put dents in CCP's bottom line....)


...So in other words, you want me to *pay* to live in a "worse" reality than the one I live in now? ...Why not come out and call it "Somalia in space: 3rd world online" ? ...No. No thanks. The reality is PvP online invariably degenerates to cyber-bullying, and not to put too fine a point on it, but it's pathetic - one side, usually the more aggressive, invariably has some advantage that makes it a completely one-sided match, be it the element of surprise, "experience points," a class or build geared for griefing, or some other bullshit mechanic. We're not talking non-consensual checkers here, there's not challenge, and no skill; more often than not it's some asshat smacking you in the back of the head while you're fighting an NPC. It's not sporting, and it's only fun for the sociopath in question. Any game that allows or encourages it will only attract 2 types of players; sadists and masochists....and there's a limited market of each. Developers beware.

Posted: Aug 25th 2011 9:33PM Lumin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ehh. It depends on how rampant the ganking/PKing is, and the penalties for PKing or being PKed.

Also on general game mechanic issues, how balanced the classes are, and how gear/level-dependant your success in PvP is. And also whether you're able to kill people many levels below you, or only equally strong players, etc.

Featured Stories

MMO Week in Review: It is your Destiny

Posted on Jul 27th 2014 6:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW