|
Wadjamaloo posted:gently caress dexers. I feel like I played on this server too, but wasn't around for that because it's pretty great haha. The main opposition was this ragtag band called the iceland alliance or some poo poo, and we just got absolutely obliterated.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
World of Artcraft
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
rage at me posted:I'm really trying to drive at the fact that just because there is pvp and full looting doesn't mean the game model is broken or that people just won't play it if they can pick and MMO with a safer ruleset. Every attempt at a pvp game since UO (with the exception of EVE) has been pretty half assed and this is the reason we see these games fail so quickly. Interestingly, EVE has a similar growth rate to the "pvp enabled" UO, only EVE didn't dick with its core model and what do you know it's still maintaining its growth. At any given moment in EVE, 99% of all accounts logged in are avoiding PVP at all costs. Obviously "a lot" of PVP happens in that game but even there, it is a small niche.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:At any given moment in EVE, 99% of all accounts logged in are avoiding PVP at all costs. Obviously "a lot" of PVP happens in that game but even there, it is a small niche.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:At any given moment in EVE, 99% of all accounts logged in are avoiding PVP at all costs. Obviously "a lot" of PVP happens in that game but even there, it is a small niche. That's kind of my point though, the successful games with pvp have other stuff to do than just being a pointless mmo murder simulator. Its more about the game having a framework that encourages & supports a wide variety of activities and playstyles, one of which happens to be pvp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Maybe that's the point you were trying to make, but when literally 99% of your online population avoids your supposedly flagship feature (hardcore PVP) like it's the loving plague, welp  Game designers do notice these things, despite appearances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:Maybe that's the point you were trying to make, but when literally 99% of your online population avoids your supposedly flagship feature (hardcore PVP) like it's the loving plague, welp I think there is also an argument being made that despite people avoiding it/not liking it, it BEING THERE makes for a better game. That is people are always aware there is danger if you go to zone X or there is some inherent danger in trading this good you haul across zones. It creates tension and more interesting gameplay even if you don't like to PvP. Hence even for games where the hardcore PvP is only 10% of the gameplay, the whole environment is improved by it being an ever-present possibility you have to work to avoid. So even though the mass population hates it, in the end they don't realize it actually creates for a better and more interesting game for them (to a point, obviously mass gankging at spawn won't help). Also the reason people mostly just jump ship nowadays in MMORPGs after reaching highest level - there is literally nothing to do. Meanwhile sandboxy pvp games tend to have emergent gameplay that has nothing to do with level caps or top gear. The hard part is to trick the masses into actually trying a sandbox/pvp game and do their PvE stuff there (ex: original UO, Eve). Rad Russian fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Definitely agree. Then tension of PVP creates experiences. In my opinion the best MMOs are experience driven rather than progression driven. Again going to point to day z as an example that this is still a viable model. Tons of day z players don't seek PvP, but they enjoy the tension it brings to their experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:Definitely agree. Then tension of PVP creates experiences. In my opinion the best MMOs are experience driven rather than progression driven. Again going to point to day z as an example that this is still a viable model. Tons of day z players don't seek PvP, but they enjoy the tension it brings to their experience. Good point, seems to be more acceptable to have this in FPS based games for some reason. As soon as anyone makes a PvP MMORPG literally no one signs up because "I don't wanna be ganked all the time it sucks". Which results in only hardcore PvP players being interested, which results in the game having nothing else interesting to do besides PvP because that's the target market now for games like that. The hardcore PvPer then gets bored and quits since there is no depth to the game besides killing, and then gets excited about "the next UO coming out" which will suck just as much. And the original PvE player who never tried it simply joins the next flavor of the month EQ clone, gets bored after max level, at repeats this cycle forever while never giving a sandbox game a chance. Just need to force everyone to be in the same game somehow!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:Maybe that's the point you were trying to make, but when literally 99% of your online population avoids your supposedly flagship feature (hardcore PVP) like it's the loving plague, welp I guess I just don't understand the mindset of open pvp/full loot automatically = bad. If your game is open pvp but heavily penalizes murders and makes equipment widely available & pretty trivial then what's the big deal for a non pvper? The threat of pvp, however minimal, still incentivizes people to group up, make friends, & form communities and when I think of what's lacking from all of the MMOs nowadays its basically all that stuff. Add in some framework for people to build their own social structures -- guilds, town governments, etc. and I think you'd have a successful pvp enabled game. UO had all this. That's why it was such a cool game. It wasn't this hardcore pvp bloodbath where non-pvpers were constantly griefed until they quit that people are making it out to be. It was just a game that instead of hard-stopping you from doing stuff just appropriately discouraged you but still give you the option. (Shadowbane was that hardcore pvp bloodbath game that didn't discourage murdering everyone repeatedly but of course that's at least part of the reason why it no longer exists...)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Using dayz as an example, the focus was not on pvp and that's why it worked. It was always intended to be player vs environment survival game, and that is what attracted large player numbers. Being a PvP game was secondary and just added to the tension of the PvP experience. This is also why none of the day z clones ever gained traction. A lot of these open PvP sandbox games go about it all wrong, I think to make one work you need: A real sandbox game. Give players tools to create their own content, not just a bunch of scripted things for them to do. Death is meaningful, but recoverable. Again in day z and UO you lost everything, but everything was easy to get. A way to discourage PKing, even if its a meaningless slap on the wrist. Both day z and UO had notoriety systems that made you think twice about killing someone. An interesting and engaging world should come first, and then PvP second. Another place that EvE succeeds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
UO's open PVP was unpopular enough for the devs to try and fail to yoke it with multiple notoriety systems, and finally kill it with Renaissance. Given the game is still operating as a layer cake of themed housing facets and neon-clad bank sitters to this day, where PVP-friendly freeshards have lifespans measured in months, it might be a good idea to find a new banner to rally behind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Notoriety was part of the reason why UO's model worked. It's not a coincidence that UO's previously consistent subscriber growth completely stalled within 6 months of Renaissance release and then went into a decline from which it never recovered. The fact that there are still community supported freeshards being developed for a 17 year old video game is not an indication that the game is bad or that a pvp model can't work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
rage at me posted:I guess I just don't understand the mindset of open pvp/full loot automatically = bad. If your game is open pvp but heavily penalizes murders and makes equipment widely available & pretty trivial then what's the big deal for a non pvper? The threat of pvp, however minimal, still incentivizes people to group up, make friends, & form communities and when I think of what's lacking from all of the MMOs nowadays its basically all that stuff. See you're trying to start this from an objective value judgement but everyone else is simply pragmatic about it. The threat of pvp to someone who would prefer to avoid it (which, in RPGs, is very nearly every person) is simply a risk to be brought as close to zero as possible. There are two basic alternatives: make pvp more appealing to that 99% who hates it in its common form, or force them to endure it anyway. Guess which technique Shadowbane and various other flopped pvp games have always tried. e - And please note: I think pvp is awesome in a general sense. It's just that RPGs are almost always the absolute worst environment for pvp, partly because if inherent balance problems due to level bracketing, but mostly because RPGs are about farming flawless combinations of gear, and the overlap between people who a) want to pvp and b1) are willing to do all the bullshit non-pvp leveling and gear farming or b2) are OK with getting mashed if they aren't, is not all that large, in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't help that people trying RPG PVP for the first time are almost always going to get an overwhelmingly negative experience (because it's usually unfair by design, and being defeated is punished) and give up on it immediately, and never touch it again. Flesh Forge fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:Good point, seems to be more acceptable to have this in FPS based games for some reason. No, pvp is totally acceptable in FPS games because the element of unfairness due to levels/gear is generally not a factor at all, and because being defeated is not punished with anything more than the social stigma of being defeated (which is plenty). RPGs have this insane idea - oh, something like PLAY 2 CRUSH idk - that you have to be kicked in the balls for not pressing ASDF quickly enough or not having gone into the fight with the Perfect +5 Axe of the Big Penis/+5 Shield of Strong Butte combo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:A lot of these open PvP sandbox games go about it all wrong, I think to make one work you need: How do the "hard core PVP fans" always get this poo poo backwards. Literally every RPG that allows pvp has done both of those things. Why does this notion persist that you have to punish and discourage pvp (PK), why not make it something EVERYBODY wants to do ALL THE loving TIME. Woohoo I just got killed, HOLY poo poo that was fun I WANNA DO IT AGAIN  You're literally suggesting punish the loser AND the winner 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
rage at me posted:The fact that there are still community supported freeshards being developed for a 17 year old video game is not an indication that the game is bad or that a pvp model can't work. Yeah, it's an indication that nerds have the thickest rose colored glasses.  I think that Shadowbane was closer to something like Planetside rather than UO, a well-designed large scale MMO deathmatch would be pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:How do the "hard core PVP fans" always get this poo poo backwards. Literally every RPG that allows pvp has done both of those things. Why does this notion persist that you have to punish and discourage pvp (PK), why not make it something EVERYBODY wants to do ALL THE loving TIME. Woohoo I just got killed, HOLY poo poo that was fun I WANNA DO IT AGAIN Remove PVP from all sandboxes or kill the PKer and delete their toon, because murder is illegal in the real world
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
If you make PvP something everyone wants to do all the time, then you end up with deathmatch mmo. The whole point of this conversation has been about how to mix pvpers into the same game as none pvpers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Yeah I'm pretty familiar with this concept of people wanting to kill people who don't want pvp at all, that's literally every "open PVP" rpg that has been done so far. They're all failures, in the big picture.quote:If you make PvP something everyone wants to do all the time, then you end up with deathmatch mmo. the secret to a successful pvp mmo is to make sure nobody wants to do it all the time, ok gotcha bro 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Follow this same line of thought with any other aspect of gaming that you're not actually interested in, and see if it sounds like a cool and good idea that will attract lots of investment capital while in development and tons of customer dollars at release: - "Our dung beetle simulator is carefully designed to be somewhat repellent, to make sure people don't want to do it all the time, because we are convinced that if we made the game actually really fun that would be bad" - "We're working on ways to trick or force naive players into being the dung and getting pushed around by the dung beetle. Yes, they probably won't like it but the dung beetle player is who we're catering to, we feel we''re going to make a lot of money off the beetle players and don't care if we immediately shed the dung dudes" etc w/e
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
What's the point of even having free loot if your gear is basically worthless? The reward for killer is gently caress all and the dead person loses nothing. If they are both there to play PvP, then it's just an additional chore to run back to house/bank and grab a new set of studded leather and GM weapon before getting back to actual gameplay, how exciting. Really, only people affected by that are players who don't have funds/supplies to get infinite gear, so pretty much new players.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Lorem ipsum posted:Even the emulator with most of the bugs fixed still can't keep I decent pop, this is great. Same goes for Age of Reckoning lol. Also Flesh Forge isn't wrong at all that MMO PvP is by and large complete shite because of inherent imbalance problems in the RPG genre. Someone needs to go make Planetside 2 with fantasy action combat. Kinda like Savage or Savage 2 but on a larger scale. Puistokemisti posted:What's the point of even having free loot if your gear is basically worthless? Free loot is kinda dumb but having destructible weapons of war like siege weapons and poo poo is a really good way to do gold sinks. Destructible gear in an open world PvP game is a pretty good thing economically but free loot is a zero sum game. Having both could be a far more viable solution. You're also using a lot of assumptions about how replacement gear would be obtained. If players respawned at their faction's supply depot and picked up a set of armor to go out to battle with it wouldn't be a chore and would allow groups of players to strategically switch gear based on the status of a battle. puberty worked me over fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Extra posted:Free loot is kinda dumb but having destructible weapons of war like siege weapons and poo poo is a really good way to do gold sinks. Destructible gear in an open world PvP game is a pretty good thing economically but free loot is a zero sum game. Having both could be a far more viable solution. If someone wants to create an account and do pvp, and ONLY PVP EVER, that really should be a healthy and straightforward goal in a nominally PVP game. I am a huge non fan of "you must do X amount of non-PVP bullshit to enable X/100 amount of PVP".
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
It would be interesting to see a long-form moba PVP MMO. Where you don't lose gear from dying but you lose killstreaks and gold (the ability to buy more/better gear.) You'd have a floor on how much you could lose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:If someone wants to create an account and do pvp, and ONLY PVP EVER, that really should be a healthy and straightforward goal in a nominally PVP game. I am a huge non fan of "you must do X amount of non-PVP bullshit to enable X/100 amount of PVP". The PvP in ESO's main huge lake thing was really really solid when there were balanced matches because there was some rock paper scissor poo poo going on and everyone having lukewarm stealth worked pretty well. The beta had level scaling so basically you had a bunch of people on relatively equal footing bashing each other's face in for a couple weekends and it was glorious. For those few glorious weekends the game was the concept of fantasy MMO PvP games I've been ranting about for like a decade now. There's absolutely no reason why there couldn't just be a fantasy MMO that's multiple PvP lakes people slapfight each other for all day long. Carbon copy Planetside 2's monetization and proceed to print money. Warhammer: Age of Reckoning let players level solely by slapfighting in either instanced battlegrounds or PvP lakes just about right off the bat. The mistake they made was not level scaling everyone up and instead crafted PvP lakes and battlegrounds for every 10 level bracket which is the dumbest possible thing you could do. There were something like I poo poo you not 8 different instanced battlegrounds for L10-20. Who the gently caress would have guessed a bunch of the less PvP lakes would be almost empty? puberty worked me over fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
yea if someone legit just made Planetside 2 but with like melee weapons and poo poo too that would own
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
These days in MMO PVP all I really want is the lack of a Pay to Win aspect, but it's happening in more and more games lately. rip Age of Wushu, it was fun until people could and did drop the equivilant of a mortgage to beat everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
in a lot of ways grind to win is no different from pay to win because generally poor people can't afford to sit around playing video games all day or pay someone to grind for them WoW had pay to win back in the vanilla days it just meant buying an account
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Octarine Dream posted:These days in MMO PVP all I really want is the lack of a Pay to Win aspect, but it's happening in more and more games lately. There are a bunch of these out for sure, but there's also a few really good RPGs that have cash shops that have no real impact on game mechanics, like Marvel Heroes and Path of Exile. I'm hoping these will show the other companies how to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Extra posted:Warhammer: Age of Reckoning Failed because Mythic figured destruction was going to be the most played side. Planning for this in the RvR, they figured Order needed better tools to fight them. Mythic made Order classes so much stronger it was loving retarded. A dwarf ironbreaker could put up a buff, when hit by a spell you swing your weapon 50% faster. Also the code was rear end 50% faster attack meant in Warhammer you got 2 attacked for every 1 attack. 75% or 90% of your damage was auto attacks making attack speed the best stat that was only on skills(only on order skills, in till black guard got patched and chopper released) and then added in the final raid. Destruction knockbacks hit targets away, order knockbacks hit targets up and away. Order could win every fight somewhat close to a ledge and just knock destruction to their dooms. So great you got Order better skills and classes for unlimited scale pvp, lets go play a 10v10 match. It was a blood bathe, as the difference in ability alone was huge. An organized destruction team could win countless games but really what game can't you win premade vs randoms forever. Warhammer lost 25% of destruction subs to quitting, 25% destructions rerolled order, destruction side once the super majority became the minority. Game bled out for years. You guys could go play Darkfall: Unholy Wars, full pvp, full loot. I think like 5k people play it, and have played it since it came out. Sounds like a real friendly game to start playing from scratch. Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
I was a Shadowbane fanboy back in the day -- wrote some tools for a fan site (Crossroads!), flew to Austin for a private preview event they held, have a hand-letter beta CD their community manager burned for me when I visited. I was ready to not bake some bread. I had lunch with one of their designers when I visited, and expressed my sympathy that while everyone else had to make sure that it was fun for players to kill orcs, they had to also make it fun for the orcs to be killed. He seemed bewildered by the idea that losing had to be fun, even though every "interesting" interaction resulted in some paying customer experiencing it. I guess they never really figured that out. That's my Shadowbane story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I had lunch with one of their designers when I visited, and expressed my sympathy that while everyone else had to make sure that it was fun for players to kill orcs, they had to also make it fun for the orcs to be killed. He seemed bewildered by the idea that losing had to be fun, even though every "interesting" interaction resulted in some paying customer experiencing it. I was about to say "it's ok, investors have" but now they'll just kickstarter that poo poo and morons will throw millions of dollars at it with no hard commitment on a return. In some ways Kickstarter is an amazing step forward but yeah I can see some tears in the future for this story :abloobloobloo:
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:I was about to say "it's ok, investors have" but now they'll just kickstarter that poo poo and morons will throw millions of dollars at it with no hard commitment on a return. In some ways Kickstarter is an amazing step forward but yeah I can see some tears in the future for this story :abloobloobloo: Shadowbane was funded on the proceeds of the two founders' sale of an enterprise something (database migration?) company in the early 2000s, so they didn't really need to convince investors before either. I guess they eventually convinced their publisher to buy the whole thing, but by that point the writing was several layers deep on the wall. In the interim, I think Coleman made a bunch on Wizard 101 or something like that, so they might be able to bootstrap themselves again...
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Shadowbane was funded on the proceeds of the two founders' sale of an enterprise something (database migration?) company in the early 2000s, so they didn't really need to convince investors before either. I guess they eventually convinced their publisher to buy the whole thing, but by that point the writing was several layers deep on the wall. only several tens of millions, wizard101 and pirate101 are massive and still hugely profitable, they're basically this generation's neopets at this point
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Shadowbane was funded on the proceeds of the two founders' sale of an enterprise something (database migration?) company in the early 2000s, so they didn't really need to convince investors before either. I guess they eventually convinced their publisher to buy the whole thing, but by that point the writing was several layers deep on the wall. Nah you watch, this big announcement is going to be a kickstarter. They can't have missed how much loving money people threw at Pillars of Eternity - not the same thing because the Black Isle dudes made super popular games by anyone's standards, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
What is this poo poo https://www.facebook.com/CrowfallGame/photos/a.914526358560682.1073741829.814300301916622/914526375227347/?type=1 "warmth conversion" stat at character creation? I see they've learned nothing about UI design in the intervening decade. (Also, familiar too-flat lighting on the art.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
why does that have a big red X to go back so this is basically a MMO designed for consoles and will also be on PC thats what im taking from this
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
Eonwe posted:why does that have a big red X to go back Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:19
|
|
