Its not enough to win. You want nothing left of your enemy but a skull nailed to a fence post so everybody understands the cost of crossing you. -Durga
i thoroughly believe that using the basis UO laid down, you could make an awesome consequence system. especially since we've had 9-10 years to contemplate it.
No, actually, the idea is fundamentally flawed. Let's assume we have towns with goods and services that players want - even if they're outlaws - that are inaccessible to outlaws.
Problem: players circumvent that by using alternate characters to ferry goods
Solution: 1 character per server (which is detrimental to the game in other ways)
Problem: players circumvent that by using a second account
Solution: ban multiple accounts from the same location/IP (which is detrimental to the game in other ways)
Problem: players circumvent that by using somebody ELSE'S account: a willing guildmate, a friend, etc.
Solution: giving things to red players will turn you red (which is detrimental to the game in other ways)
Problem: players circumvent that by just dropping stuff in some secluded location, instead of trading directly
Solution: red players aren't even fucking allowed to pick up items at all
Problem: your game sucks
Solution: have a consequence system that wasn't conceived in a vacuum: you can't impose your own reality on games, there are some immutable qualities of games and gamers that can never, ever be avoided, no matter how much you wish it were so.
i thoroughly believe that using the basis UO laid down, you could make an awesome consequence system. especially since we've had 9-10 years to contemplate it.
No, actually, the idea is fundamentally flawed. Let's assume we have towns with goods and services that players want - even if they're outlaws - that are inaccessible to outlaws.
Problem: players circumvent that by using alternate characters to ferry goods
Solution: 1 character per server (which is detrimental to the game in other ways)
Problem: players circumvent that by using a second account
Solution: ban multiple accounts from the same location/IP (which is detrimental to the game in other ways)
Problem: players circumvent that by using somebody ELSE'S account: a willing guildmate, a friend, etc.
Solution: giving things to red players will turn you red (which is detrimental to the game in other ways)
Problem: players circumvent that by just dropping stuff in some secluded location, instead of trading directly
Solution: red players aren't even fucking allowed to pick up items at all
Problem: your game sucks
Solution: have a consequence system that wasn't conceived in a vacuum: you can't impose your own reality on games, there are some immutable qualities of games and gamers that can never, ever be avoided, no matter how much you wish it were so.
all your points can be refuted with one simple explanation
you suck.
no, but seriously, obviously every system is going to have a way around it, if people are motivated enough. that's how the world is in, in EVERYTHING.
i don't have all the answers, i'm just saying that the idea is good, but even in shitty games like WoW people abuse the system by doing goofy things, like the dude that ran three mages using a macro, but it was perfectly legit because he paid for all three accounts.
Xenocide Geek on
i wanted love, i needed love
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
The fact that WoW has loopholes just works against your own point further, since loopholes like that would be far more dangerous in a freeform environment.
You know the better answer then "you suck" is why do people want a game where they can expect to make assumptions in PvP zones that people will not attack, external to anything else? I mean, EVE 0.0 rule 1: neutrals are Kill-On-Sight.
i don't have all the answers, i'm just saying that the idea is good, but even in shitty games like WoW people abuse the system by doing goofy things, like the dude that ran three mages using a macro, but it was perfectly legit because he paid for all three accounts.
There is a video of a dude that used a similar set up, but with 5 Warlocks instead.
Imagine the devestation with 5 Shadowbolts from 5 different Gnomes hitting the target at virtually the same time.
Also; I think that it could be done, I mean the hardcore pvp that you are so interested in. You just need to prove to a developer that they could make a decent profit from it.
Proving that there are enough people interested in a game like that will be the tricky part.
You know the better answer then "you suck" is why do people want a game where they can expect to make assumptions in PvP zones that people will not attack, external to anything else? I mean, EVE 0.0 rule 1: neutrals are Kill-On-Sight.
Because developers then get these fantastic ideas such as, "Let's make the PvP zones ALSO the only worthwhile PvE zones!" without stopping to think that maybe people don't WANT to be forced into PvP for the entirety of the time they play the game.
You know the better answer then "you suck" is why do people want a game where they can expect to make assumptions in PvP zones that people will not attack, external to anything else? I mean, EVE 0.0 rule 1: neutrals are Kill-On-Sight.
Because developers then get these fantastic ideas such as, "Let's make the PvP zones ALSO the only worthwhile PvE zones!" without stopping to think that maybe people don't WANT to be forced into PvP for the entirety of the time they play the game.
Why is that a bad idea? PvP == higher goods turnover == increased earning need. You can't run an economy where one side incur all the risk and the other side incur none.
That seems to be the rub, this so called "hardcore pvp" would never work in an MMO like WoW due to the time invested in gear etc..
I do like the ideas mentioned by the more eliquent posters, the idea of Assasins / Contracts etc...almost like an MMO version of Daggerfall, I would play that.
I find it interesting the more vocal "rawr we r wolves k" have fucked off this thread now the more rational questions came up, like how would they deal with a realistic system for fucking them over for greifing "when the game pushes back" although I am sure the answer would be "fine as long as we can xploit it"
Seems to hold up to the laws of Internet 101: There are dicks in the world, the internet gives them an outlet for their anger.
You know the better answer then "you suck" is why do people want a game where they can expect to make assumptions in PvP zones that people will not attack, external to anything else? I mean, EVE 0.0 rule 1: neutrals are Kill-On-Sight.
Because developers then get these fantastic ideas such as, "Let's make the PvP zones ALSO the only worthwhile PvE zones!" without stopping to think that maybe people don't WANT to be forced into PvP for the entirety of the time they play the game.
Why is that a bad idea? PvP == higher goods turnover == increased earning need. You can't run an economy where one side incur all the risk and the other side incur none.
Two problems:
1) Goods do not leave the system through PvP, they just go to the winner of the fight.
2) Games routinely decide that you have no viable options to non-PvP areas. Take, say, EVE, where - when I tried it - the rewards in 0.0 are a hundred times greater than the rewards in high-security space. That's not "higher risk, higher reward," that's, "risk or you don't get to REALLY play the game."
You know the better answer then "you suck" is why do people want a game where they can expect to make assumptions in PvP zones that people will not attack, external to anything else? I mean, EVE 0.0 rule 1: neutrals are Kill-On-Sight.
Because developers then get these fantastic ideas such as, "Let's make the PvP zones ALSO the only worthwhile PvE zones!" without stopping to think that maybe people don't WANT to be forced into PvP for the entirety of the time they play the game.
Why is that a bad idea? PvP == higher goods turnover == increased earning need. You can't run an economy where one side incur all the risk and the other side incur none.
Two problems:
1) Goods do not leave the system through PvP, they just go to the winner of the fight.
2) Games routinely decide that you have no viable options to non-PvP areas. Take, say, EVE, where - when I tried it - the rewards in 0.0 are a hundred times greater than the rewards in high-security space. That's not "higher risk, higher reward," that's, "risk or you don't get to REALLY play the game."
That's because you're supposed to band together into large armed camps and kill people for that space to hold it. If you know what you're doing, the risks in 0.0 are negligible which is great - the system rewards those who manage their risks.
Also, goods easily leave a system through PvP - at least in EVE. Certainly not in a fantasy MMO, but there's no reason you can't have things like villages and castles which can be burned down, or potions used up etc.
You know the better answer then "you suck" is why do people want a game where they can expect to make assumptions in PvP zones that people will not attack, external to anything else? I mean, EVE 0.0 rule 1: neutrals are Kill-On-Sight.
Because developers then get these fantastic ideas such as, "Let's make the PvP zones ALSO the only worthwhile PvE zones!" without stopping to think that maybe people don't WANT to be forced into PvP for the entirety of the time they play the game.
Why is that a bad idea? PvP == higher goods turnover == increased earning need. You can't run an economy where one side incur all the risk and the other side incur none.
Two problems:
1) Goods do not leave the system through PvP, they just go to the winner of the fight.
2) Games routinely decide that you have no viable options to non-PvP areas. Take, say, EVE, where - when I tried it - the rewards in 0.0 are a hundred times greater than the rewards in high-security space. That's not "higher risk, higher reward," that's, "risk or you don't get to REALLY play the game."
That's because you're supposed to band together into large armed camps and kill people for that space to hold it. If you know what you're doing, the risks in 0.0 are negligible which is great - the system rewards those who manage their risks.
Also, goods easily leave a system through PvP - at least in EVE. Certainly not in a fantasy MMO, but there's no reason you can't have things like villages and castles which can be burned down, or potions used up etc.
Which is what makes EvE exceptional. Territory matters. In all other griefer PvP MMO's that have tried it have failed. Anyone wanna care to guess why it works in EvE and not in other attempts?
Yeah, that whole " Eve rule of 0.0..." example is crap because in eve territory matters. The reason you kill neutrals isn't because they are neutral, it's because they might be scoping you out for an attack.. carrying a cyno gen... anything. It's not a moral thing.
Only parallel I can think og is that if a pack of people decided they owned Yew? Or Stormhold.. and attempted to prevent anyone getting in. Which would be ...something.
Bingo though, you hit on what is missing about trying to make a PvP MMO which many also talked about - the game has to be designed with features that support it - i.e. it needs to reward armies, organization, logistics planning etc.
You can cater to the "griefer" audience by making a genuine reason to just kill "neutrals" or some equivalent - at the very least it means you've had to clearly define why it happens, how it's countered etc. You've built the game to account for the desire just to wreck people's shit, rather then adding PvP and being surprised when shit get's wrecked.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Bingo though, you hit on what is missing about trying to make a PvP MMO which many also talked about - the game has to be designed with features that support it - i.e. it needs to reward armies, organization, logistics planning etc.
You can cater to the "griefer" audience by making a genuine reason to just kill "neutrals" or some equivalent - at the very least it means you've had to clearly define why it happens, how it's countered etc. You've built the game to account for the desire just to wreck people's shit, rather then adding PvP and being surprised when shit get's wrecked.
Which leads to the major issue that hampers EvE. What happens when two massive armies collide?
Bingo though, you hit on what is missing about trying to make a PvP MMO which many also talked about - the game has to be designed with features that support it - i.e. it needs to reward armies, organization, logistics planning etc.
You can cater to the "griefer" audience by making a genuine reason to just kill "neutrals" or some equivalent - at the very least it means you've had to clearly define why it happens, how it's countered etc. You've built the game to account for the desire just to wreck people's shit, rather then adding PvP and being surprised when shit get's wrecked.
Which leads to the major issue that hampers EvE. What happens when two massive armies collide?
Which is why you move to the RTS MMO concept - commanding large armies, having battlefield superweapons etc. intrinsically means that multi-point attacks work better and any type of cap on numbers doesn't feel so bad because you're not excluding or limiting skills/character XP levels because an RTS is of course dictated more by the strategy.
This is why I think an RTS MMO would be excellent. The only balance factor would be resources, but a fool and his money would soon be parted anyways and an intelligent new player would be at a severe advantage.
God that would be rad.
Closest thing I have found to that is a browser based game called Astro Empires. Its awesome.
Bingo though, you hit on what is missing about trying to make a PvP MMO which many also talked about - the game has to be designed with features that support it - i.e. it needs to reward armies, organization, logistics planning etc.
You can cater to the "griefer" audience by making a genuine reason to just kill "neutrals" or some equivalent - at the very least it means you've had to clearly define why it happens, how it's countered etc. You've built the game to account for the desire just to wreck people's shit, rather then adding PvP and being surprised when shit get's wrecked.
Which leads to the major issue that hampers EvE. What happens when two massive armies collide?
Which is why you move to the RTS MMO concept - commanding large armies, having battlefield superweapons etc. intrinsically means that multi-point attacks work better and any type of cap on numbers doesn't feel so bad because you're not excluding or limiting skills/character XP levels because an RTS is of course dictated more by the strategy.
Which does two things:
1. You don't really advance gear, because the sheer micromanagement would be awful. Which destroys the whole point of Griefer PvP. So the thread starter whines that you still aren't meeting his gameplay style.
2. You advance gear and end up with micromanaging that makes the number crunching on the EJ forums look awful. Or you simply don't have much variety. At which point you just have a really, really big mutliplayer Starcraft map. At which point the thread starter whines again cause he doesn't want to play Starcraft with loot.
But you still don't solve the techincal issues and in some way makes it worse. Instead of 1 or 2 objects per player (averaging out drones) you have the same number of players with 5 or 10 objects. Multiplying the amount of information transmitted significantly. CCP's netcode could be better I'm told...but that's still a massive amount of info.
But lets go back to the nation building aspect of EvE, the reason it's successful. Right now the Goons and their allies are a Proto-nation. And right now by all reports they are kicking BoB's ass. So what happens when the war ends?
1. Peace breaks out, at least for the Goons. War is over, ships are turned to plowshares. And EvE dies in two months. But this is as likely as peace in the middle east breaking out.
2. The Devs manipulate things to keep the war going forever. Pretty unlikely. They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar once, and the Goons made effective propaganda out of it.
3. The Goons beat BoB. And an incident happens on the borders. War breaks out again. Repeat until we get to 4.
4. The Goons take over everything not Empire space. Pax Goon. If it can be kept stable....EvE dies. Or the best case for CCP, the whole alliance shatters and war begins again. But the leadership of the Goons seems to have read a few history books. I wouldn't bet against the Empire of the Goons.
Goons beat BoB. Goons proceed clockwise around 0.0, RA proceed counter-clockwise and where they meet a great battle is fought, the outcome of which gives the winner control of the powerful Sa-Matra battlestation.
The point is, war in an MMO is endless just because it is. If you want to start talking about why PvP then ask why PvE, why play an MMO at all etc./
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Goons beat BoB. Goons proceed clockwise around 0.0, RA proceed counter-clockwise and where they meet a great battle is fought, the outcome of which gives the winner control of the powerful Sa-Matra battlestation.
The point is, war in an MMO is endless just because it is. If you want to start talking about why PvP then ask why PvE, why play an MMO at all etc./
My point is that in the end only one group will be left standing. And what then? EvE without war is what? An economics game? Okay great. But will that sustain an MMO in terms of subscribers? And in the end it still leaves the thread starter without an MMO.
Goons beat BoB. Goons proceed clockwise around 0.0, RA proceed counter-clockwise and where they meet a great battle is fought, the outcome of which gives the winner control of the powerful Sa-Matra battlestation.
The point is, war in an MMO is endless just because it is. If you want to start talking about why PvP then ask why PvE, why play an MMO at all etc./
My point is that in the end only one group will be left standing. And what then? EvE without war is what? An economics game? Okay great. But will that sustain an MMO in terms of subscribers? And in the end it still leaves the thread starter without an MMO.
People were saying only BoB would be left standing about a year ago, and look how that turned out. Starting from the assumption that a game stagnates is kind of poor - without power blocs you can't have great wars. Without great wars you can't really have great, or at least memorable, gameplay.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Goons beat BoB. Goons proceed clockwise around 0.0, RA proceed counter-clockwise and where they meet a great battle is fought, the outcome of which gives the winner control of the powerful Sa-Matra battlestation.
The point is, war in an MMO is endless just because it is. If you want to start talking about why PvP then ask why PvE, why play an MMO at all etc./
My point is that in the end only one group will be left standing. And what then? EvE without war is what? An economics game? Okay great. But will that sustain an MMO in terms of subscribers? And in the end it still leaves the thread starter without an MMO.
People were saying only BoB would be left standing about a year ago, and look how that turned out. Starting from the assumption that a game stagnates is kind of poor - without power blocs you can't have great wars. Without great wars you can't really have great, or at least memorable, gameplay.
And the Goons showed them alot of ways in which modern war works. So unless someone masters asymmetrical warfare that leaves the question of who stands up to the Goons?
Goons beat BoB. Goons proceed clockwise around 0.0, RA proceed counter-clockwise and where they meet a great battle is fought, the outcome of which gives the winner control of the powerful Sa-Matra battlestation.
The point is, war in an MMO is endless just because it is. If you want to start talking about why PvP then ask why PvE, why play an MMO at all etc./
My point is that in the end only one group will be left standing. And what then? EvE without war is what? An economics game? Okay great. But will that sustain an MMO in terms of subscribers? And in the end it still leaves the thread starter without an MMO.
People were saying only BoB would be left standing about a year ago, and look how that turned out. Starting from the assumption that a game stagnates is kind of poor - without power blocs you can't have great wars. Without great wars you can't really have great, or at least memorable, gameplay.
And the Goons showed them alot of ways in which modern war works. So unless someone masters asymmetrical warfare that leaves the question of who stands up to the Goons?
are you serious? the only thing keeping the goons going right now is BoB. goons have 5000 people and can barely even get 50 people on ops because they're so spread out across 1/4 of conquerable space right now. if bob leaves, or quits, or whatever, goonswarm is just going to run around aimlessly doing not much at all. I'd love to fight guys like Tri, but they're simply too far away unless goons go 'ok everyone pack up , we're evaccing and moving to delve'
1. no levels
2. gear wasn't really worth anything, save for the occasional vanq hally
3. there was a strong pk/anti-pk community.
you probably aren't going to find something like that again because of the way games are built now a days. UO was a cornerstone for MMOs, but with all the competition out there today people are going to continue to build what is working now.
I played UO from release through Siege (version 1 and 2) until Shadowbane came out, and I don't think any game is going to go back to that.
In MMOs, generally gankers don't WANT a fair fight. They want to level up to McAwesome wearing McFuckingkiddingme gear and beat the snot out of the average joes, take advantage of imbalanced class match-ups, etc.
Given that (and I would go ahead and say it is a given) what do you do? Nerd rage doesn't support itself (see Shadowbane), and if you have a game where progression is meaningful, then the average people aren't going to loose their shit to the guy who hasn't graduated yet/has no job/ etc with too much time on his hands just because of the time investment.
So you need a true skill based system.
Here's the rub- In an MMO you need progression to keep people playing.
Progression breeds out skill in PvP encounters unless you cap it.
If you cap progression that is where you will start loosing subs.
If you cap, you're going to loose the majority of PvP guys who only want to feel superior by leveling up, etc.
Majorly setting back progression due to Epeen masters will cost subs. So, you have to make the progression something that can't be taken away. So, the PKs are just getting vendor garbage or whatever.
--
I understand that people want to PvP, and that's cool. There are lots of games for that. But I start to question why someone wants to PvP exclusively in an MMO RPG (progression based). If it's just to get to be McAwesome Unstoppable, that's not going to get enough subs to make the game worthwhile or worth playing.
If you take out progression you better make this one motherfucking fun-ass game to play because you will need a MAJOR motivator to get those subs to keep rolling in.
Goons beat BoB. Goons proceed clockwise around 0.0, RA proceed counter-clockwise and where they meet a great battle is fought, the outcome of which gives the winner control of the powerful Sa-Matra battlestation.
The point is, war in an MMO is endless just because it is. If you want to start talking about why PvP then ask why PvE, why play an MMO at all etc./
My point is that in the end only one group will be left standing. And what then? EvE without war is what? An economics game? Okay great. But will that sustain an MMO in terms of subscribers? And in the end it still leaves the thread starter without an MMO.
New guilds come up and replace the old one, old members form new guild, big guilds move onto a different MMO.
Open PvP on the mainland. If you're killed, everything that you don't have equipped is left on your corpse. Player built and controlled towns can be sieged, and taken over or destroyed.
Admittedly, the game can be buggy. It will crash at times, and suffers from a regular hourly lag (that lasts about 30 seconds). But despite that, it's a fun game, and has one of the best character build systems I've seen in an MMO.
Also, you can max a character in just a few days once you've learned the mechanics. And the only items that spawn on rare monsters spawn every 3 hours, and some of those in multiple places.
When i think of "real" pvp i think of the following:
A decent reward for killing someone that scales with their level or rank.
Examples:
DAOC Realm points (always good to get realm points and the higher the rank of a person the more they were worth.
AC loot
A punishment for death, but not anything horrific.
Examples:
AC- Besides the fact you could be looted AC would give you a 5% reduction in all skills. At a higher level 5% isn't too bad, but this would stack up to 40%. It was removed by simply getting experience to pay it off. It never took long to clear it, but it was long enough to prevent someone from just running right back to you after you killed them.
DAOC- res sickness basically you’re near useless for 3 min or so. Once again stopping you from rushing from the grave.
Tactical Goals. Something like X precious resource spawns here; Y guild has built a camp around it to harvest it, Z guild wants that shit and attacks. Basically I want a larger scale goal for my PVP, more then just realm ranks or bragging rights.
Examples:
DAOC- Relics/keeps, but something less repetitive then this system (not that I didn't enjoy the game)
AC- Favorite Hunting spots/dungeons that you wanted for yourself/guild
And finally something skill based. The best example I can give for this was AC, I personally sucked at the PvP. But I did enjoy the challenge, and I liked that when I saw a bolt of acid coming at me I could fucking move out of its way.
Witchdr on
"Look, all I know is that this cord was plugged into my house and your house was glowing like the freakin' sun. So, I put two and two together there and decided that you're pissing me off." -Carl Brutananadilewski
In regards to the advocates of his former empire: “I was going to have them all executed… the Royal Advocate talked me out of it.” -Shadowthrone (Emperor Kellanved)
UO was successful (at least as a nostalgic favorite) because it didn't have much competition and it was a known intellectual property. Thus, you had PvE and PvP types thrown in together, and the PvP types had tons of prey. When real competitors did emerge (Trammel, Everquest) the casual player left for environments that suited their play style and gave them the experiences that they were looking for from a persistent world.
Eve Online is successful for the same reasons. If you are looking for a space themed MMO or even just one with a somewhat realistic economy, Eve is your only option. If you look on the Eve forums, there continues to be tension between players who are looking to gank helpless noobs and the people who are just looking to produce/mine/trade peacefully. If there was any real competition in the MMO sci-fi market, Eve would lose 1/3 of its player base.
As to what would make a great PvP mmo?
I think Eve got some things right:
1)One shard, one rule set for the entire community.
2)Diminishing returns on better gear/higher level skills.
3)A realistic player run economy, requiring the flow of resources between regions.
4)Classless skill training/anyone can train anything.
5)Time based leveling/grinding for money.
Where Eve went wrong:
1)As other posters have stated, you can't have consequences with alts. Limit 1 character to the IP address.
2)End game content should be available within six months of character creation. Don't add alpha classes that take years of skilling because you are going to divide your player base into new players resentful of the alpha classes and the alpha classes themselves who are going to feel an enormous sense of entitlement.
3)Provide disincentives to the growth of large guilds.
1)As other posters have stated, you can't have consequences with alts. Limit 1 character to the IP address.
What if people who share an IP Address both want to play a game? Lan Centers? School IPs?
They aren't hardcore enough to play. They would have to gang up on children and loot their lunch money in order to make enough money to fix that.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
1)As other posters have stated, you can't have consequences with alts. Limit 1 character to the IP address.
What if people who share an IP Address both want to play a game? Lan Centers? School IPs?
I don't see that being any more of a limiting factor than needing broadband/decent video card/computer to begin with.
Realistically of course, no company would ever do such a thing, they make too much money off of secondary accounts, and too many players want the competitive advantage of being self-sufficient.
1)As other posters have stated, you can't have consequences with alts. Limit 1 character to the IP address.
What if people who share an IP Address both want to play a game? Lan Centers? School IPs?
I don't see that being any more of a limiting factor than needing broadband/decent video card/computer to begin with.
Realistically of course, no company would ever do such a thing, they make too much money off of secondary accounts, and too many players want the competitive advantage of being self-sufficient.
That's a terrible argument. Since it's not even secondary accounts, it's more people in one house/school/lan center playing. I have a feeling more people share IPs than people who have multiple accounts.
Also, having a good internet connction may be expected, but no one expects you to pay an extra fee per month to have multiple people play your game.
Also, if this hypothetical MMO attempted to go worldwide, it'd crash and burn in Korea (A huuuuuge piece of gaming income) since a good deal of gaming occurs at LAN Centers (Dramatically more compared to the US).
1)As other posters have stated, you can't have consequences with alts. Limit 1 character to the IP address.
What if people who share an IP Address both want to play a game? Lan Centers? School IPs?
I don't see that being any more of a limiting factor than needing broadband/decent video card/computer to begin with.
Realistically of course, no company would ever do such a thing, they make too much money off of secondary accounts, and too many players want the competitive advantage of being self-sufficient.
That's a terrible argument. Since it's not even secondary accounts, it's more people in one house/school/lan center playing. I have a feeling more people share IPs than people who have multiple accounts.
Also, having a good internet connction may be expected, but no one expects you to pay an extra fee per month to have multiple people play your game.
Also, if this hypothetical MMO attempted to go worldwide, it'd crash and burn in Korea (A huuuuuge piece of gaming income) since a good deal of gaming occurs at LAN Centers (Dramatically more compared to the US).
I never said it would be economically feasible for them to do so. I was merely conceptualizing one of MY ideals for a PvP MMO: one in which the player's actions and reputation have real consequences.
I don't feel that this can happen as long as alts are allowed, and I don't see away to ban alts other than to limit by IP.
banning by IP wouldn't work anyway, people just call their ISPs up and inform them they are under attack or .. whatever and need a new IP.. BAM done. or conversely, someone gets killed/banned/whatever and suddenly their brother who has nothing to do with that cant play anymore.
Posts
But it'll have less public recognition than Dwarf Fortress.
Or those Elf Bowling games.
No, actually, the idea is fundamentally flawed. Let's assume we have towns with goods and services that players want - even if they're outlaws - that are inaccessible to outlaws.
Problem: players circumvent that by using alternate characters to ferry goods
Solution: 1 character per server (which is detrimental to the game in other ways)
Problem: players circumvent that by using a second account
Solution: ban multiple accounts from the same location/IP (which is detrimental to the game in other ways)
Problem: players circumvent that by using somebody ELSE'S account: a willing guildmate, a friend, etc.
Solution: giving things to red players will turn you red (which is detrimental to the game in other ways)
Problem: players circumvent that by just dropping stuff in some secluded location, instead of trading directly
Solution: red players aren't even fucking allowed to pick up items at all
Problem: your game sucks
Solution: have a consequence system that wasn't conceived in a vacuum: you can't impose your own reality on games, there are some immutable qualities of games and gamers that can never, ever be avoided, no matter how much you wish it were so.
all your points can be refuted with one simple explanation
you suck.
no, but seriously, obviously every system is going to have a way around it, if people are motivated enough. that's how the world is in, in EVERYTHING.
i don't have all the answers, i'm just saying that the idea is good, but even in shitty games like WoW people abuse the system by doing goofy things, like the dude that ran three mages using a macro, but it was perfectly legit because he paid for all three accounts.
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
There is a video of a dude that used a similar set up, but with 5 Warlocks instead.
Imagine the devestation with 5 Shadowbolts from 5 different Gnomes hitting the target at virtually the same time.
Also; I think that it could be done, I mean the hardcore pvp that you are so interested in. You just need to prove to a developer that they could make a decent profit from it.
Proving that there are enough people interested in a game like that will be the tricky part.
Because developers then get these fantastic ideas such as, "Let's make the PvP zones ALSO the only worthwhile PvE zones!" without stopping to think that maybe people don't WANT to be forced into PvP for the entirety of the time they play the game.
I do like the ideas mentioned by the more eliquent posters, the idea of Assasins / Contracts etc...almost like an MMO version of Daggerfall, I would play that.
I find it interesting the more vocal "rawr we r wolves k" have fucked off this thread now the more rational questions came up, like how would they deal with a realistic system for fucking them over for greifing "when the game pushes back" although I am sure the answer would be "fine as long as we can xploit it"
Seems to hold up to the laws of Internet 101: There are dicks in the world, the internet gives them an outlet for their anger.
Two problems:
1) Goods do not leave the system through PvP, they just go to the winner of the fight.
2) Games routinely decide that you have no viable options to non-PvP areas. Take, say, EVE, where - when I tried it - the rewards in 0.0 are a hundred times greater than the rewards in high-security space. That's not "higher risk, higher reward," that's, "risk or you don't get to REALLY play the game."
Also, goods easily leave a system through PvP - at least in EVE. Certainly not in a fantasy MMO, but there's no reason you can't have things like villages and castles which can be burned down, or potions used up etc.
Which is what makes EvE exceptional. Territory matters. In all other griefer PvP MMO's that have tried it have failed. Anyone wanna care to guess why it works in EvE and not in other attempts?
Only parallel I can think og is that if a pack of people decided they owned Yew? Or Stormhold.. and attempted to prevent anyone getting in. Which would be ...something.
You can cater to the "griefer" audience by making a genuine reason to just kill "neutrals" or some equivalent - at the very least it means you've had to clearly define why it happens, how it's countered etc. You've built the game to account for the desire just to wreck people's shit, rather then adding PvP and being surprised when shit get's wrecked.
Which leads to the major issue that hampers EvE. What happens when two massive armies collide?
Closest thing I have found to that is a browser based game called Astro Empires. Its awesome.
Which does two things:
1. You don't really advance gear, because the sheer micromanagement would be awful. Which destroys the whole point of Griefer PvP. So the thread starter whines that you still aren't meeting his gameplay style.
2. You advance gear and end up with micromanaging that makes the number crunching on the EJ forums look awful. Or you simply don't have much variety. At which point you just have a really, really big mutliplayer Starcraft map. At which point the thread starter whines again cause he doesn't want to play Starcraft with loot.
But you still don't solve the techincal issues and in some way makes it worse. Instead of 1 or 2 objects per player (averaging out drones) you have the same number of players with 5 or 10 objects. Multiplying the amount of information transmitted significantly. CCP's netcode could be better I'm told...but that's still a massive amount of info.
But lets go back to the nation building aspect of EvE, the reason it's successful. Right now the Goons and their allies are a Proto-nation. And right now by all reports they are kicking BoB's ass. So what happens when the war ends?
1. Peace breaks out, at least for the Goons. War is over, ships are turned to plowshares. And EvE dies in two months. But this is as likely as peace in the middle east breaking out.
2. The Devs manipulate things to keep the war going forever. Pretty unlikely. They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar once, and the Goons made effective propaganda out of it.
3. The Goons beat BoB. And an incident happens on the borders. War breaks out again. Repeat until we get to 4.
4. The Goons take over everything not Empire space. Pax Goon. If it can be kept stable....EvE dies. Or the best case for CCP, the whole alliance shatters and war begins again. But the leadership of the Goons seems to have read a few history books. I wouldn't bet against the Empire of the Goons.
The point is, war in an MMO is endless just because it is. If you want to start talking about why PvP then ask why PvE, why play an MMO at all etc./
My point is that in the end only one group will be left standing. And what then? EvE without war is what? An economics game? Okay great. But will that sustain an MMO in terms of subscribers? And in the end it still leaves the thread starter without an MMO.
And the Goons showed them alot of ways in which modern war works. So unless someone masters asymmetrical warfare that leaves the question of who stands up to the Goons?
are you serious? the only thing keeping the goons going right now is BoB. goons have 5000 people and can barely even get 50 people on ops because they're so spread out across 1/4 of conquerable space right now. if bob leaves, or quits, or whatever, goonswarm is just going to run around aimlessly doing not much at all. I'd love to fight guys like Tri, but they're simply too far away unless goons go 'ok everyone pack up , we're evaccing and moving to delve'
1. no levels
2. gear wasn't really worth anything, save for the occasional vanq hally
3. there was a strong pk/anti-pk community.
you probably aren't going to find something like that again because of the way games are built now a days. UO was a cornerstone for MMOs, but with all the competition out there today people are going to continue to build what is working now.
I played UO from release through Siege (version 1 and 2) until Shadowbane came out, and I don't think any game is going to go back to that.
In MMOs, generally gankers don't WANT a fair fight. They want to level up to McAwesome wearing McFuckingkiddingme gear and beat the snot out of the average joes, take advantage of imbalanced class match-ups, etc.
Given that (and I would go ahead and say it is a given) what do you do? Nerd rage doesn't support itself (see Shadowbane), and if you have a game where progression is meaningful, then the average people aren't going to loose their shit to the guy who hasn't graduated yet/has no job/ etc with too much time on his hands just because of the time investment.
So you need a true skill based system.
Here's the rub- In an MMO you need progression to keep people playing.
Progression breeds out skill in PvP encounters unless you cap it.
If you cap progression that is where you will start loosing subs.
If you cap, you're going to loose the majority of PvP guys who only want to feel superior by leveling up, etc.
Majorly setting back progression due to Epeen masters will cost subs. So, you have to make the progression something that can't be taken away. So, the PKs are just getting vendor garbage or whatever.
--
I understand that people want to PvP, and that's cool. There are lots of games for that. But I start to question why someone wants to PvP exclusively in an MMO RPG (progression based). If it's just to get to be McAwesome Unstoppable, that's not going to get enough subs to make the game worthwhile or worth playing.
If you take out progression you better make this one motherfucking fun-ass game to play because you will need a MAJOR motivator to get those subs to keep rolling in.
New guilds come up and replace the old one, old members form new guild, big guilds move onto a different MMO.
So Shadowbane.
Open PvP on the mainland. If you're killed, everything that you don't have equipped is left on your corpse. Player built and controlled towns can be sieged, and taken over or destroyed.
Admittedly, the game can be buggy. It will crash at times, and suffers from a regular hourly lag (that lasts about 30 seconds). But despite that, it's a fun game, and has one of the best character build systems I've seen in an MMO.
Also, you can max a character in just a few days once you've learned the mechanics. And the only items that spawn on rare monsters spawn every 3 hours, and some of those in multiple places.
A decent reward for killing someone that scales with their level or rank.
Examples:
DAOC Realm points (always good to get realm points and the higher the rank of a person the more they were worth.
AC loot
A punishment for death, but not anything horrific.
Examples:
AC- Besides the fact you could be looted AC would give you a 5% reduction in all skills. At a higher level 5% isn't too bad, but this would stack up to 40%. It was removed by simply getting experience to pay it off. It never took long to clear it, but it was long enough to prevent someone from just running right back to you after you killed them.
DAOC- res sickness basically you’re near useless for 3 min or so. Once again stopping you from rushing from the grave.
Tactical Goals. Something like X precious resource spawns here; Y guild has built a camp around it to harvest it, Z guild wants that shit and attacks. Basically I want a larger scale goal for my PVP, more then just realm ranks or bragging rights.
Examples:
DAOC- Relics/keeps, but something less repetitive then this system (not that I didn't enjoy the game)
AC- Favorite Hunting spots/dungeons that you wanted for yourself/guild
And finally something skill based. The best example I can give for this was AC, I personally sucked at the PvP. But I did enjoy the challenge, and I liked that when I saw a bolt of acid coming at me I could fucking move out of its way.
In regards to the advocates of his former empire: “I was going to have them all executed… the Royal Advocate talked me out of it.” -Shadowthrone (Emperor Kellanved)
Handles: LoL-Emerging, BF4/Hardline-Whiskeyjack227, Steam-Fragglerock, HOTS/Blizzard-Whiskeyjack#1333, Life-Jason
Those fights were always pretty fun.
Eve Online is successful for the same reasons. If you are looking for a space themed MMO or even just one with a somewhat realistic economy, Eve is your only option. If you look on the Eve forums, there continues to be tension between players who are looking to gank helpless noobs and the people who are just looking to produce/mine/trade peacefully. If there was any real competition in the MMO sci-fi market, Eve would lose 1/3 of its player base.
As to what would make a great PvP mmo?
I think Eve got some things right:
1)One shard, one rule set for the entire community.
2)Diminishing returns on better gear/higher level skills.
3)A realistic player run economy, requiring the flow of resources between regions.
4)Classless skill training/anyone can train anything.
5)Time based leveling/grinding for money.
Where Eve went wrong:
1)As other posters have stated, you can't have consequences with alts. Limit 1 character to the IP address.
2)End game content should be available within six months of character creation. Don't add alpha classes that take years of skilling because you are going to divide your player base into new players resentful of the alpha classes and the alpha classes themselves who are going to feel an enormous sense of entitlement.
3)Provide disincentives to the growth of large guilds.
What if people who share an IP Address both want to play a game? Lan Centers? School IPs?
They aren't hardcore enough to play. They would have to gang up on children and loot their lunch money in order to make enough money to fix that.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
I don't see that being any more of a limiting factor than needing broadband/decent video card/computer to begin with.
Realistically of course, no company would ever do such a thing, they make too much money off of secondary accounts, and too many players want the competitive advantage of being self-sufficient.
That's a terrible argument. Since it's not even secondary accounts, it's more people in one house/school/lan center playing. I have a feeling more people share IPs than people who have multiple accounts.
Also, having a good internet connction may be expected, but no one expects you to pay an extra fee per month to have multiple people play your game.
Also, if this hypothetical MMO attempted to go worldwide, it'd crash and burn in Korea (A huuuuuge piece of gaming income) since a good deal of gaming occurs at LAN Centers (Dramatically more compared to the US).
I never said it would be economically feasible for them to do so. I was merely conceptualizing one of MY ideals for a PvP MMO: one in which the player's actions and reputation have real consequences.
I don't feel that this can happen as long as alts are allowed, and I don't see away to ban alts other than to limit by IP.