|
Flesh Forge posted:Err what EVE's economy is more complex and has more barriers to entry compared to just about every other MMO, but again, Shadowbane and Darkfall Online both had very hostile environments for those not interested in PvP and yet still had strong economies and many players who enjoyed and took heavy part in harvesting, crafting, and trade. As long as you can be a crafter without needing to spend excessive play time and/or skill progression on crafting, then the system works fine. Flesh Forge posted:Ahahaha see, you came right out and said what needs to be said: you want victims, you don't want pvp. This is why these PLAY 2 CRUSH games always fail, because the victim part sucks and you genuinely want it to suck. This paradigm has failed dozens of times now but just maybe it will work this time I dunno!! All you need are mechanisms that prevent new players from being instagibbed as soon as they start. A few safe zones are perfectly fine. But if you're out there in the actual "world", combat should carry a lot of risk for all parties. These games don't fail just because too many people rage quit, it's because the games are lovely and ran by lovely incompetent developers. You can't create a blockbuster out of a sandbox pure PvP game, but you can maintain a healthy population and turn a profit.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
Huh, ok I'll come out and ask you: are you looking for non-consensual (lol) pvp?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:Huh, ok I'll come out and ask you: are you looking for non-consensual (lol) pvp? heh, rape is hilarious, agreed forums poster flesh forge epic lol 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
what im saying is that wasnt a funny joke if you didnt get my other post
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
It was a legitimate (lol) question
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:Huh, ok I'll come out and ask you: are you looking for non-consensual (lol) pvp? Uh, of course? I'm not personally "looking for it" specifically, that is I don't play these games just so I can kill helpless or weaker players, but it has to be possible. I myself have no interest in killing newbies or people (who are not in a clan or are in a clan I am neutral towards) just carrying on with their business in MMOs, unless I suspect or see they have something valuable. Again, that's a key component of an open world sandbox MMO. Player freedom trumps everything else. Do you think this is some novel concept or something? Many MMOs old and new have non-consensual PvP. Most MMO players aren't a fan of that, but there's still a significant percentage who are. The only exception is safe zones. I'm okay with "absolute safe zones" as opposed to EVE's system of NPC guards where you can still suicide bomb people (though I'm okay with that philosophy as well). The safe zones just have to be small and restricted to starter areas. Zarithas fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
How then do you explain that format of non-consensual pvp being universally rejected by just about everyone, everywhere it has been implemented as an optional activity?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:How then do you explain that format of non-consensual pvp being universally rejected by just about everyone, everywhere it has been implemented as an optional activity? counterpoint: shut up
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:How then do you explain that format of non-consensual pvp being universally rejected by just about everyone, everywhere it has been implemented as an optional activity? i only play dota to kill creeps. i cant wait til they remove the pvp part of it so we can all just kill creeps together. rage at me fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Eonwe posted:counterpoint: shut up For real, either you have not thought this out or you're being disingenuous. I mean ok, it's great to have hope but uh
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:How then do you explain that format of non-consensual pvp being universally rejected by just about everyone, everywhere it has been implemented as an optional activity? It's rejected by a lot of people because probably 90% of MMO players just don't like it. Games like Shadowbane and Darkfall and now Crowfall cater to the 10%. It's definitely not "just about everyone". It's completely fine if you don't like the genre; it's not something I'd ever try to force on anyone. It just means this game should be completely avoided by those people. One of the devs himself said that explicitly pretty recently. EVE is kind of a niche outlier, because it's a space simulator with a deep metagame and PvP sandbox hidden inside. Lots of people come for the simulator and the spaceships, and some come for the intrigue. To provide a counter-example to what you're suggesting: I never played UO, but to my understanding non-consensual PvP was the default for a long time, and later they opened up ways for players who didn't like PvP to seclude themselves to different worlds, and shortly after the game began to die because all the original players started to quit. You're saying that a game is doomed to fail if it does not provide sufficient options to PvP-haters, but a handful of games in the genre have lasted for quite a few years and would not be considered failures by the players. Failure is nearly always a result of terrible choices made by amateur game devs, not because the concept is fundamentally flawed. I would not at all be surprised if this game fails, but if it does it's going to be because it's a brand new game studio with little funding, a lot of hopes and dreams, and not a ton to show for it. Zarithas fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:For real, either you have not thought this out or you're being disingenuous. I mean ok, it's great to have hope but uh what? ive already said the game is almost 100% sure to be bad i haven't even made a purchase to have to justify stop being weird
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Zarithas posted:It's rejected by a lot of people because probably 90% of MMO players just don't like it. Games like Shadowbane and Darkfall and now Crowfall cater to the 10%. It's definitely not "just about everyone". It's completely fine if you don't like the genre; it's not something I'd ever try to force on anyone. It just means this game should be completely avoided by those people. One of the devs himself said that explicitly pretty recently. EVE is kind of a niche outlier, because it's a space simulator with a deep metagame and PvP sandbox hidden inside. Lots of people come for the simulator and the spaceships, and some come for the intrigue. UO died because all the pve'rs left to play games that catered to their desires. Once the pk'ers were the only ones left they gradually ate each other gradually causing people to leave and the game bled out. Non-consensual pvp with corpse looting is doomed to failure because it encourages incredible risk adverseness among the player base who actually take part in the pve and incredible attrition when people lose their bankroll and quit due to being faced with the grind to get back where they were. If you are arguing for open pvp without looting or loss for the defeated what point is there to playing a mmo when there are plenty of avenues for that style of gameplay already available in mobas and large format shooters like destiny or planetside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Zarithas posted:It's rejected by a lot of people because probably 90% of MMO players just don't like it. Games like Shadowbane and Darkfall and now Crowfall cater to the 10%. It's definitely not "just about everyone". Whatever the exact percentage, it seems really insane to me to try to build a major game title and pitch it at an already highly exploited market of customers (MMOs are a dime a dozen) and then say you really only want 10% of those, but then the profit model these days has swung towards cash shops/pay to win so maybe I dunno whatever quote:To provide a counter-example to what you're suggesting: I never played UO, but to my understanding non-consensual PvP was the default for a long time, and later they opened up ways for players who didn't like PvP to seclude themselves to different worlds, and shortly after the game began to die because all the original players started to quit. Ok yeah you haven't thought this through. UO didn't "begin to die" at that point at all, just the vast majority of server populations switched to the non-PVP side almost immediately. quote:You're saying that a game is doomed to fail if it does not provide sufficient options to PvP-haters, This is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that all games that provide a "hard core, full looting etc", mandatory pvp experience have been failures. In games that provide a "hard core", optional pvp experience, the overwhelming majority of players ignore it or avoid it when that isn't possible. I'm saying that a pvp game has a much better chance of flourishing if pvp is made fun and approachable to everyone, which means completely neutralizing the effects of gear (and really, levels too in whatever form they appear) and removes the concept of predator/victim. Ignore the blog posts and "I QUIT" forum threads and look at what the actual playerbases are doing in these games, it's super blatant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Byolante posted:UO died because all the pve'rs left to play games that catered to their desires. Once the pk'ers were the only ones left they gradually ate each other gradually causing people to leave and the game bled out. Non-consensual pvp with corpse looting is doomed to failure because it encourages incredible risk adverseness among the player base who actually take part in the pve and incredible attrition when people lose their bankroll and quit due to being faced with the grind to get back where they were. If you are arguing for open pvp without looting or loss for the defeated what point is there to playing a mmo when there are plenty of avenues for that style of gameplay already available in mobas and large format shooters like destiny or planetside. Oh hey somebody sees an obvious thing, neat! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Byolante posted:UO died because all the pve'rs left to play games that catered to their desires. Once the pk'ers were the only ones left they gradually ate each other gradually causing people to leave and the game bled out. Non-consensual pvp with corpse looting is doomed to failure because it encourages incredible risk adverseness among the player base who actually take part in the pve and incredible attrition when people lose their bankroll and quit due to being faced with the grind to get back where they were. If you are arguing for open pvp without looting or loss for the defeated what point is there to playing a mmo when there are plenty of avenues for that style of gameplay already available in mobas and large format shooters like destiny or planetside. Both games death was enough of an annoyance to add excitement to the boring and dull mundane tasks of farming, but the penalties were light enough it wasn't back braking. Being on the wrong side of a PK is legitimately fun if the game is designed right. One of my fondest memories of SB is how important the scout class was, every group needed one and it wasn't because they were good at combat. Your job was actually to scout, and if enemies show up near by your whole group has to go into fight or flight mode. The threat of PVP made farming fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:Oh hey somebody sees an obvious thing, neat! not only are you not funny you are weirdly passive aggressive where did the full loot mmo touch you, show us on this UO style character ragdoll
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Excuse me sir, it was called a paperdoll. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i30F_PFtjog eSporks fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Byolante posted:UO died because all the pve'rs left to play games that catered to their desires. Once the pk'ers were the only ones left they gradually ate each other gradually causing people to leave and the game bled out. Thanks for the clarification. I've heard a rather different story from oldschool UO players who played only for the PvP. I suspect the real truth might be somewhere in the middle. Byolante posted:Non-consensual pvp with corpse looting is doomed to failure because it encourages incredible risk adverseness among the player base who actually take part in the pve and incredible attrition when people lose their bankroll and quit due to being faced with the grind to get back where they were. A game doesn't necessarily need to require any kind of grind upon death. XP/skill point loss upon death is a dumb idea and usually is not how this system is implemented. If you lose your gear, you just put on new gear (which you might have crafted, or acquired from PvE or from another player's corpse). You lose morale and are inconvenienced, you usually don't lose much actual work you put in, unless you happened to be wearing your best gear. Byolante posted:If you are arguing for open pvp without looting or loss for the defeated what point is there to playing a mmo when there are plenty of avenues for that style of gameplay already available in mobas and large format shooters like destiny or planetside. The point isn't to have a big open world FFA death match, it's to foster a metagame of long term player competition, conflict, and conquest. Planetside and Destiny and Elite: Dangerous are a different genre of MMO. Let's just presuppose for a moment that EVE would carry along similarly as it does now, yet all high sec space is removed and most of the players who never venture out of high sec all quit at the same time. There would still be a large amount of people who play purely for the nullsec aspects, and I imagine they'd still enjoy the game quite a bit. I don't know what the ratio of PvP-to-non-PvP is there at the moment, but a new game with a population size equal to EVE's nullsec playerbase would still be a profitable and sustainable venture. Wadjamaloo posted:Its been said a lot in this thread but that only applies when you use a lovely WoW progression model that isn't designed with death and consequence in mind. UO and shadowbane did not suffer from this problem. In UO a death meant you lost gear that would take you <5mins to farm at the shittiest of poo poo spawns. In SB dieing meant you paid a tiny fee to repair your poo poo. Yeah, I had a lot of fun playing a scout in SB as well. I sucked at actual combat, but I could still be very useful to my guild. The way each class played a separate but important role in PvP made things much more interesting. Zarithas fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:Its been said a lot in this thread but that only applies when you use a lovely WoW progression model that isn't designed with death and consequence in mind. UO and shadowbane did not suffer from this problem. In UO a death meant you lost gear that would take you <5mins to farm at the shittiest of poo poo spawns. In SB dieing meant you paid a tiny fee to repair your poo poo. Shadowbane died the same way UO did though. gradually the smaller groups either got absorbed by the larger ones or got stomped, lost their land and quit. Gradually the blobs got larger until two blobs crashed into each other and only one was left. Then the blob that lost quit, the first blob split in half and smashed into each other and the losers quit. Attritional loss of player base is a real problem in pvp mmos and anything that can be seen as a loss, like a city that you failed to defend from a bane and lost, will make the players consider what it would take to get back the stuff they lost and decide if they want to continue. The same dynamic of attritional loss of playerbase happens in Diablo style games with permadeath options. People may dip the toes in the water, may even play for a long while, but when they lose their first established character they are faced with a dillema of do they go back to the salt mine to work their way back up to what they had and lost knowing there is the stark reality they will lose it all again. Ladder anxiety is a thing in SC2/LoL/DOTA/CSGO and the loss you risk in a pvp match in those games is far less than a mmo rpg. The net result is either you are trying to get pvp like WVWVW in GW2, or Hall of Heroes in GW1 or ashran/tol'barad in wow where the pvp is always on but there is no meaningful penalty to death or loss or there is a penalty and you will start seeing attritional loss of playerbase. If what you are looking for is pvp there are better avenues for finding it than a mmorpg and the popularity of dota-likes amongst wow players is a pretty key indicator of that. Especially when you look at the elephant graveyard of pvp mmos that have been released in the time since dota arrived on the scene.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
I really think there's a compromise between those two extremes, e.g. GW1 (didn't play it myself but a lot of people praise it) but yeah this game will never hit it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
GW1 had the best PvP system of any pseudo-MMO that has ever existed or will ever exist, and it will never happen ever again because players are whiny bitch babies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:I'm reminded of "Sega does what Nintendon't!" Blast Processing! Do the math!! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:GW1 had the best PvP system of any pseudo-MMO that has ever existed or will ever exist, and it will never happen ever again because players are whiny bitch babies. It had a great combat system, but for me the overall PvP system was lackluster. It was a fun game if you treated it as an arena matchmaker rather than an MMO. The big battlegrounds added a little more variety, but were still too isolated for my own tastes. Byolante posted:Shadowbane died the same way UO did though. gradually the smaller groups either got absorbed by the larger ones or got stomped, lost their land and quit. Gradually the blobs got larger until two blobs crashed into each other and only one was left. Then the blob that lost quit, the first blob split in half and smashed into each other and the losers quit. Attritional loss of player base is a real problem in pvp mmos and anything that can be seen as a loss, like a city that you failed to defend from a bane and lost, will make the players consider what it would take to get back the stuff they lost and decide if they want to continue. The same dynamic of attritional loss of playerbase happens in Diablo style games with permadeath options. People may dip the toes in the water, may even play for a long while, but when they lose their first established character they are faced with a dillema of do they go back to the salt mine to work their way back up to what they had and lost knowing there is the stark reality they will lose it all again. The gradual build up to 2 massive blobs duking it out was definitely a major problem in Shadowbane, and something similar happened in Darkfall 1 (can't speak for Unholy Wars, I only played it for like a week), but at least for Shadowbane I partially attribute it to a few things which could potentially be resolved in other games: 1. Tab targeting, just like EVE. Once a game has been out for many years and the majority of remaining players are "endgame" players, a generic tab targeting system puts most groups on fairly even footing regardless of player skill or group strategy. When 2 forces have roughly equivalent progression and gear, most battles come down to who has the bigger zerg. Class specialization is a potential remedy for this, but once you're that far into the endgame, armies tend to have similar "optimal" distributions of classes. All that combined with no collision detection made large fights pretty much play out in the same way every time. 2. Geographic separation of servers. It's hard to fight back against a massive surge of Chinese players who invade your server and outnumber the biggest alliance 5:1 (which happened on at least a few Shadowbane servers). This is exacerbated by tab targeting too, because if combat requires some form of twitch reflex, players will be much more likely to play on the server closest to them to reduce latency rather than "invading" a foreign realm. 3. Few penalties to owning very large amounts of territory, other than the risk of having multiple banes dropped on you simultaneously. In Darkfall it was not quite as bad as in Shadowbane. There's also a little bit of a chicken and egg problem: is it players quitting which eventually forces people into 1-3 superalliances, or is it the superalliances that start to increase the quitting rate, or is it both and they both exacerbate each other? In Darkfall's first year and a half, maybe 2 years, there was a pretty healthy distribution of zerg alliances to smaller clans and alliances, and in many cases the underdogs came out on top. The same also occurred in the first 1-2 years of the new NA server. There were definitely a large number of players who quit Darkfall for the reasons you stated (demoralization after repeated losses, and reluctance to go out and fight again due to sense of defeat and loss of territory, gear, and items), but for the core active players this wasn't really a huge issue. There's also no doubt one of the primary reasons for the formation of superalliances is a desire to hedge against that sense of loss and risk in general. RE: attritional loss, I agree that mechanics to minimize idle time after a loss are important, even if they reduce the realism and the "risk". That's one reason why I'm in favor of global rather than local banks, so you can gear up at any bank you see. Loss should have immediate and psychological consequences, but shouldn't set your play session back significantly once you respawn. Insta-travel or fast travel can also remediate this to an extent, but there are many pros and cons to that. The question of how to prevent major zergs ruling a server and creating a situation where players are forced to choose between joining one of the zergs or quitting the server/game is a difficult one. I think it could potentially be resolved with improved game mechanics; I don't think it's an inevitable fate for all open PvP games. In the grand scheme of things the genre is very sparse compared to all the other games made in the past few decades, plus most of the studios making these games have no clue what they're doing, so we have yet to see the genre at anywhere near its fullest potential yet. If you make a game enjoyable and reasonable enough, I think you can also reduce the quitting rate so that even if some significant of the percentage of players do quit the game within 2 years of playing due to destruction and loss, you can still retain a core group who sticks with the game for years and keeps it profitable. Zarithas fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Zarithas posted:Geographic separation of servers. It's hard to fight back against a massive surge of Chinese players who invade your server and outnumber the biggest alliance 5:1 (which happened on at least a few Shadowbane servers). This is exacerbated by tab targeting too, because if combat requires some form of twitch reflex, players will be much more likely to play on the server closest to them to reduce latency rather than "invading" a foreign realm. I don't see what's point of this. They have more friends. So you get your friends to play and dedicate time to fighting back too. I don't see why this is a problem, some guilds/corps/etc simply are larger and have more power. If you're like 5 people what do you expect to do? If you go invade EU or AUS or something because of timezone difference, you would be in power and they would not have anyone online to defend. So I don't see what the problem is here? Impotence fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Biowarfare posted:I don't see what's point of this. They have more friends. So you get your friends to play and dedicate time to fighting back too. I don't see why this is a problem, some guilds/corps/etc simply are larger and have more power. If you're like 5 people what do you expect to do? I'm talking about a specific situation that occurred in Shadowbane's later years. In games where politics and metagame are prominent, us vs. them mentality reigns supreme. If a server is 95% American and European players and they have 2,000 people, and a group of Chinese players all decide to join the server with 8,000 people, there's a decent chance that they're going to make their primary goal to stomp out the native players and have an implicit or explicit peace contract with other Chinese players until they've "won". There were no other friends for players to bring in; it was a vast outnumbering at the server level itself. This is exactly what happened in Shadowbane (though the numbers and ratio may not be completely accurate), and it killed (or at least drove out tons of oldschool players on) at least one server. I'm not at all saying that superalliances themselves are always bad for a game. Zarithas fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Some sort of underdog incentive would help, I don't really know how you would do that though. One downside super alliances did have in SB is that they required someone to bank roll them. SB was a very guild based game, when you have a small guild the community is tight knit and everyone wants to contribute to keep it running. As it gets larger you end up with more people just wanting a free ride and it becomes harder to enforce and leads to infighting that naturally fragments larger guilds (see goons in every game ever). I don't really know how SB guilds got around this, but a lot of was probably being bankrolled on the backs of duped gold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:Some sort of underdog incentive would help, I don't really know how you would do that though. That's another reason why Shadowbane is not a great case study for discussing the feasibility of and issues with open PvP games. Duping and exploits were everywhere, the game client was lovely and would crash all the time even 5+ years after the game was out of beta, and powerleveling your entire guild was trivial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
quote:This is exactly what happened in Shadowbane (though the numbers and ratio may not be completely accurate), and it killed (or at least drove out tons of oldschool players on) at least one server. To me this isn't a game mechanic failure or anything like that, it's simply that the "oldschool players" didn't have enough new players and real life friends to recruit into downloading the game, and/or did not try hard enough to grind resources out. quote:Duping and exploits were everywhere This is the major game failure part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Biowarfare posted:To me this isn't a game mechanic failure or anything like that, it's simply that the "oldschool players" didn't have enough new players and real life friends to recruit into downloading the game, and/or did not try hard enough to grind resources out. Well, regardless of the mechanics aspect, geographically separated servers are much nicer for MMOs where combat is important due to the improved latency. But you're right, the fundamental problem is that the population was just too low and the barrier to enter the game was too high, so it wasn't practical to bring new players into the game to remedy the situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Biowarfare posted:To me this isn't a game mechanic failure or anything like that, it's simply that the "oldschool players" didn't have enough new players and real life friends to recruit into downloading the game, and/or did not try hard enough to grind resources out. What is Nexon, and what is it like being their only sysadmin?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
I actually liked powerleving being trivial, it lessened the grind and made it so you could enjoy endgame quicker. It also led to cool flavor of the month builds and meta gaming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:I actually liked powerleving being trivial, it lessened the grind and made it so you could enjoy endgame quicker. It also led to cool flavor of the month builds and meta gaming. I was a fan of it too and took great advantage of it; in fact I probably would have quit way earlier if I couldn't have been powerleveled. But it should never be necessary in a game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:I actually liked powerleving being trivial, it lessened the grind and made it so you could enjoy endgame quicker. It also led to cool flavor of the month builds and meta gaming. There is nothing cool about fotm anything. Cookie cutter builds are poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
PRESIDENT GOKU posted:There is nothing cool about fotm anything. Cookie cutter builds are poo poo. It's a price you have to pay if you implement any kind of specialization which is able to be swapped out without too much difficulty. If you get the balance right, then cookie cutter builds won't have that much of an advantage. Darkfall had utterly no specialization (except an optional destroyer mode for killing mages), which brought with it a lot of advantages and disadvantages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
I remember it being a bit of rock paper scissors. Like chainsaw centaurs were the cool new thing, then everyone rolled kite druids and nuke priests to counter them. Deflars and deflocks were also the thing for a while, but a properly specced assassin destroyed them. I don't consider that cookie cutter. Unique builds being countered by other unique builds. eSporks fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
I don't really know why you would need free loot to make PvP 'have consequences'. People get loving pissed off when you kill them in WoW and there's literally no penalty for death in there, you don't even lose armor durability unlike from PvE deaths. If you kill someone and take the copper node they were going for, you can probably expect 500 whispers filled with slurs that would make Stormfront to blush. Tho people don't get as angry anymore, guess the playerbase either has learned that pvp deaths don't matter or biggest sperglords got banned/moved to pve servers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
Puistokemisti posted:I don't really know why you would need free loot to make PvP 'have consequences'. People get loving pissed off when you kill them in WoW and there's literally no penalty for death in there, you don't even lose armor durability unlike from PvE deaths. If you kill someone and take the copper node they were going for, you can probably expect 500 whispers filled with slurs that would make Stormfront to blush. It wouldn't be about making people pissed or not, but creating tension in PvP. The possibility of losing significant progress or items with monetary values attached makes your heart start racing at the prospect of anything but a sure kill, and it feels like gambling but without destroying your life. Wins are more rewarding by the safety of keeping your gear, and losses force more introspection to find out why you died and what you could have done differently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
MrBims posted:Wins are more rewarding by the safety of keeping your gear, and losses make you quit because you have no way to keep up with gear race anymore. So winners will keep getting stronger and stronger and the first group to reach the top can teabag everyone else trying to get there. Sounds like pretty solid design. It's like the best part of WoW PvP experience is the gear grind before you actually meaningfully participate but with added bonus that when you get globaled by a fully geared Rogue/Druid attacking from Stealth, they can also steal all your poo poo and make you do the whole grind again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
That only exists if you use a lovely wow style progression model. Look at dayz as an example of how the threat of loss can lead to rewarding gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 20:02
|
|