for their New World MMO. At least in the relatively unrestricted format they were using. Per an article in Massively Overpowered:
"Essentially, the blog lays out the problems the team confronted during the closed alpha of 2018 and 2019 – namely, that enough people are gankity ganking gankers when given half a chance that it made the relatively open-loot, free-for-all PvP setting a huge turn-off for many testers and devs."
As the article mentions it boggles the mind that they wouldn't have known before the first code was written that this would happen.
Something for the VR folks to keep in mind when they get around to choosing among pvp rulesets - a topic occasionally discussed on these forums. Fairly unrestricted free-for-all pvp has its fans but you need to choose early on whether you want to appeal to them (in which case don't be surprised by frequent ganking) or whether you do not. If you do not you need to start with rather significant limitations, whether these relate to a flagging system, a prohibition on attacking non-challenging enemies, or fairly harsh penalties for attacks of whatever type the developers wish to discourage.
Pvp is not my area of greatest experience and others here can comment more knowledgably but I thought this was of interest since pvp rulesets do get a thread here now and then and I *do* agree Pantheon should have at least one pvp server.
So isn't Amazon where John Smedley ended up? I think what is most surprising about this is that it's not exactly his first MMO. He knows what the players can be like.
I'm not a huge PVP fan either. I definitely wouldn't play on a server which was unfettered FFA in any game.
Human nature hasn't changed since 1997. It's been known since M59 that the majority of customers won't pay, indefinitely, to only be unwilling victims, in persistent worlds.
Not sure why they would think it would, but, hope springs eternal, maybe? :)
Quick-n-Easy solution is just have different server rule sets. If anything, all the PUBG/MOBA/ARPG's and so called "Action" MMO's have made ganking more likely, not less.
For sure, a strange reaction, dorotea.
23 Years and PvP is still the go to in Mmorpgs, its like if it aint got PvP main focus we dont make it rule. Mmorpgs shouldn be as meaningless as Pubg is.
When do we get some real Coop Mmorpgs.
The reason i played EQ for 7 Years was because of the PVE and >AlternateAdvancement< the reason i left UltimaOnline because of PvP.
While PvP surely is a young player magnet i wonder why they dont see its a massive turnoff for long lasting fun in Mmorpgs.
I been pretty good at Pvp in the few times i played it but you cant win it all, not always at least its just not satisfiyng in the long run.
While i dont mind Duels / Arena Fights i hate being forced into it because i need loot from it, and thats what made EQ so good.
Realm PvP seems to be the most interesting to me but there will always be problems with balancing skills / loot / rewards / how to fight / and so on. So it rarely seems to work out.
After all i just dont see a way to make a long lasting >Balanced< PvP Mmorpg since the Balance drains the fun from Mmorpgs.
PvP'ing in a MMORPG is always going to be something that will be more of a side feature, at best.
Yes, It's fun to beat someone in a duel from time to time but allowing everyone to PvP 24/7 without restrictions in a mmorpg is a recipe for disaster. After all the genre is more about the experience the player has with the world and community, not about how many PK's you got. Everytime I've played a open pvp mmorpg there was always some level of restrictions on them but even then, i still never trusted the other players around me. Infact it forced me into this mindset of purposely avoiding other players so i can get things done as most players would just KoS you unless they too were accomplishing a task from a quest at hand in the area.
I am primarily looking at Pantheon for its PVE and community aspects. That being said I also enjoy PVP as long as it requires teamwork, is objective-based, skill-based and the level range is competitive. As such the full appeal of world PVP has never made sense to me. It rarely if ever has an objective tied to it, usually turns out to be a huge gank fest, and it can honestly be one of the most negative gaming experiences for any low level being camped.
As a PvPer (or while PvPing), I would much rather experience instanced battlegrounds that have their own objectives and their level range controlled. I'm not trying to advocate for instanced PvP in Pantheon because I know that instances aren't something the community wants or that the Devs are designing around. However, that still doesn't change my opinion that instanced battlegrounds are still the best way to facilitate a good PVP experience/environment.
There are also some other things that I find concerning about the griefing potential of open-world PVP, especially in Pantheon. I am curious to see how the death penalty will affect players who are killed by other players in various stages of combat. For example, will a player in combat with a mob lose the same amount of experience if killed by another player as a player who is killed out of combat by another player? I am curious to see how this is going to affect mob competition. However, I'm mainly curious and concerned to see what type of community environment this is going to end up fostering on PVP servers.
dorotea said:
for their New World MMO. At least in the relatively unrestricted format they were using. Per an article in Massively Overpowered:
"Essentially, the blog lays out the problems the team confronted during the closed alpha of 2018 and 2019 – namely, that enough people are gankity ganking gankers when given half a chance that it made the relatively open-loot, free-for-all PvP setting a huge turn-off for many testers and devs."
As the article mentions it boggles the mind that they wouldn't have known before the first code was written that this would happen.
Something for the VR folks to keep in mind when they get around to choosing among pvp rulesets - a topic occasionally discussed on these forums. Fairly unrestricted free-for-all pvp has its fans but you need to choose early on whether you want to appeal to them (in which case don't be surprised by frequent ganking) or whether you do not. If you do not you need to start with rather significant limitations, whether these relate to a flagging system, a prohibition on attacking non-challenging enemies, or fairly harsh penalties for attacks of whatever type the developers wish to discourage.
Pvp is not my area of greatest experience and others here can comment more knowledgably but I thought this was of interest since pvp rulesets do get a thread here now and then and I *do* agree Pantheon should have at least one pvp server.
Lol. Sounds to me like an Amazon (and Smedley if it's true) problem, not a pvp problem. Dig up some research and you will find that he was not very well liked back in the day.. I heard that over and over and over again back then. As for Amazon, my opinion of Amazon is /puke. The only good Amazon is the REAL Amazon imo.
Nothing surprising.
who makes a free for all pvp system lol
pvpers are savages hahahhahahahahha we're going to exploit anything if it gives us an edge
that's why it's never a fair fight not to be confused with a good fight
basic rules:
deincentivize killing players at a much lower gear and/or level via karma/criminal system
pvp is only a player to player affair, meaning pvpers can't flag up and kill quest givers, shopkeeps, etc.
3 tier system: meaning undergeared low level, casual endgame, the hardcore ranked
it's like they didn't know how pvpers are rofl
i'll reiterate this again: pvp is the way, pve is the prize, progression is the goal
hahah god this is great
such a beautiful disaster
here check this out even pvers can probably get something from this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jam6-eqAg
skip to the 6 min mark
PvPers and the attempts to "balance" a game so they're aren't constantly bitching to everything and anything that will listen is what ruins games.
Who cares if you miss out on 5k players (yes, they are outlandishly vocal) who say they won't try your game because it's not PvP. Those 5k players will eventually ruin the game and are a huge turn off for 50k playes who otherwise probably would have loved your game.
zewtastic said:I was in the early alpha, did not like New World one bit. Uninstalled after a day.
I like the IDEA of the game (not nearly as much as Pantheon though haha). For the cost I'll definitey give it a try and see if it keeps my attention for a bit. You willing to say what you didn't like about it? I've seen a bunch of videos on it, was it something I haven't already seen in a video that you didn't like?
dorotea said:
for their New World MMO. At least in the relatively unrestricted format they were using. Per an article in Massively Overpowered:
"Essentially, the blog lays out the problems the team confronted during the closed alpha of 2018 and 2019 – namely, that enough people are gankity ganking gankers when given half a chance that it made the relatively open-loot, free-for-all PvP setting a huge turn-off for many testers and devs."
Really....im shock who would of thought that was gonna happen.
I guess they never heard of Ganking and griefing. Let me guess someone trying to do a quest but he/she gets killed trying to run or sneak to their quest location.
They're dev are noob not knowing this. To solve that problem just make a PvP server.
Very interesting blog post I really enjoyed reading, thanks for posting it. This part spoke to me and reinforced my opinion that having more than one server type has an effect. I do not expect Pantheon to switch gears and ditch there PVP only server. I do think it will take away development time from the PVE server. As a strictly PVE player I am saddened by this. I feel there is far more PVP games out there then PVE and would have loved this to be PVE only.
We are unlikely to provide PVP-only servers as it would divide our development resources and community, We could investigate this again at a later date but it’s not something we are going to support at launch. We believe that the changes and improvements we’ve made to the game since the Closed Alpha are far more compelling for the majority of players.
Thanks for the heads up @dorotea - I would have missed it had you not posted :)
I'm actually happy to hear about this change in direction from Amazon, as there are aspects of what they're doing in New World that I thought might be really interesting. But the PvP focus was a big potential blocker so it's nice to see them pulling back from that.
As for Pantheon, I think the best option is probably simply having some servers be PvP-enabled, and others not. Allow players to choose the level of risk they subject themselves to, without having to pass through a PvP gate in order to go to certain places in the game. Since Pantheon's focus is on cooperative open-world PvE to begin with, the PvP servers will develop interesting guild v. guild dynamics and hopefully participants will enjoy that. On the PvE servers, people will do what they do.
This is something that definately speaks to me, i love PVE and meeting people and being able to look in a direction and explore. Not look in a direction and wonder..... are there people over there? will they stab me ?
That being said i do understand why games keep using PvP it's some of the easiest end game content that basically doesn't need to be added to (balancing things not mentioned). Where as PvE has kinda a hard cap when you think about it. Eventually you'll hit level cap, eventually you'll have all the gear, eventually you'll have seen everything. So kinda like a death clock of a game.
Say what people will about new World of Warcraft, (i'm not a huge fan at what it is now) but i did really enjoy the theroy behind their Mythic dungeons. Not the way the played, zerging everything and Aoeing it down, that was just bad game design IMO, not for me. However the aspect that you can have a dungeon or place you actually enjoyed being it (maybe the monsters maybe the ambience of the world in that area) and you'd be able to go back there and tell the game to ramp up the difficulty, thus getting better gear. Giving seasoned players a challenge is a hard thing to do once you've been in the end game for more then a month or so IMO. So i did appreciate that a game brought in a way to scale dungeons up to epic dungeoners standards.
Did anyone else play that version or hear about it? what would you think if like Mistmore castle was able to be made harder so if you had friends or (clan/guild/party) that were "overgeared" for the zone, you could still make it a challange and not just a grinding snooze feast.
-Hijaks
There is nothing wrong with an open PVP server as long as there are other servers with different rule sets. The key to prevent people from becoming upset is to make sure all the different types of PVP servers are available at the same time. If they try one and don't like it, they can try a different one. Also, don't change the pvp rules later. That will cause a **** show.
I find it unbelievable they had to actually test that. What do you know? The vast majority don't enjoy griefing, trolling and bullying? Being murdered and robbed with no power to retaliate isn't fun? No way! Amazing.
Sorry if this turns into another PvP-bashing thread, but the New World debacle is a prime example of why I want PvP kept away from Pantheon, ideally and why I was so happy when devs first said Pantheon was to be PvE focused. So much time and effort wasted.
Even in PvP rulesets with 'fairness' built in, for example, level ranges to encounters, what do you get? Players that keep their characters 1 XP point under the top of level ranges, twink them out and smash anyone just entering that level range. Some rulesets work better than others, but we all know what PvP MMORPGs are about.
If you are one of those that actually wants a fair, fun and challenging fight, you are a very rare bird indeed.
And even if PvPers would actually want that, to organise a fair challenge for any particular encounter in an open world is near impossible anyway.
Having said that, I'm quite happy for Pantheon to set up some PvP servers, even FFA. If it keeps those 'types' away from me, I'm all for it ;^)
When I want some PvP I go play an FPS (and even with those, the team-based, cooperative, objectives-based ones are best).
I'd also add that this isn't just an issue of "PvPers" and non PvPers. I consider myself a "PvPer" by my standards, but I think some confuse PvPer with "Griefer". Griefers come in all flavors of player, so with that siad you can still expect to see griefers in Pantheon. THIS is why Blizzard games are as strong as they are - they understand human nature. As much as I hate to say it, WoW was one of the best PvP games when you consider how hard it was to grief compared to how easy it was to avoid griefers while simultaneously being able to enjoy either PvE or PvP at your leisure. The spirit form corpse run helped with this (in being able to scout around the immediate area of your body while invincible/invisible) as well as the very unpopular instancing preventing PvE griefing.
Amazon (much like Pantheon's vision) assumed that their community would be able to "police their own" and prevent or at least greatly deter "gankity ganking gankers" a.k.a. griefing, but much like Pantheon Devs in regard to relying on a self policing community, this is very dangerous and could lead to an exodus of players... I know the devs expect exploits, but they have no way to predict what players will get into when it comes to griefing and relying on players to use "virtual" public shaming is absolutely not going to do anything but give a griefer a secondary goal to achieve (a badge for causing grief). If this is really the road PRotF will take, I foresee guilds of griefers in a couple of years because being in the griefer guild would ensure you aren't the one being griefed and can therefore enjoy the game. You can actually already see this in the guild recruitment channel - one of the larger guilds has a motto to cheat non-guild members and bend rules to make all other guilds not want to compete with them for content.
Full loot all/all PvP games have too low of a population to expect players to police themselves regardless of spoken rules that aren't actually mechanics of the game itself and end up being a population the size of a single guild being able to actually play on an entire server until that population one day asks themselves why the server population is now too low to accomplish difficult content without an enormous amount of coordination/communication outside of the game (unless that is the original goal of the guild from the begining...)
Syrif said:dorotea said:
for their New World MMO. At least in the relatively unrestricted format they were using. Per an article in Massively Overpowered:
"Essentially, the blog lays out the problems the team confronted during the closed alpha of 2018 and 2019 – namely, that enough people are gankity ganking gankers when given half a chance that it made the relatively open-loot, free-for-all PvP setting a huge turn-off for many testers and devs."
As the article mentions it boggles the mind that they wouldn't have known before the first code was written that this would happen.
Something for the VR folks to keep in mind when they get around to choosing among pvp rulesets - a topic occasionally discussed on these forums. Fairly unrestricted free-for-all pvp has its fans but you need to choose early on whether you want to appeal to them (in which case don't be surprised by frequent ganking) or whether you do not. If you do not you need to start with rather significant limitations, whether these relate to a flagging system, a prohibition on attacking non-challenging enemies, or fairly harsh penalties for attacks of whatever type the developers wish to discourage.
Pvp is not my area of greatest experience and others here can comment more knowledgably but I thought this was of interest since pvp rulesets do get a thread here now and then and I *do* agree Pantheon should have at least one pvp server.
Lol. Sounds to me like an Amazon (and Smedley if it's true) problem, not a pvp problem. Dig up some research and you will find that he was not very well liked back in the day.. I heard that over and over and over again back then. As for Amazon, my opinion of Amazon is /puke. The only good Amazon is the REAL Amazon imo.
Nothing surprising.
From what I've read about the history of EQ's development.
EverQuest would never have been made if it wasn't for John Smedley originally contacted Brad and Steve regarding WarWizard 2 and the idea Smedley had for a much more ambitious game.
And then running interference and doing his best to keep EverQuest a secret for 2 years. Sony Interactive Studios of America became 989 Studios and then shifted focus towards developing PlayStation 2 games in anticipation of the console's launch.
When the EQ project was found out the funding stopped and they had to go find a business partner to keep it going, that turned out to be SOE, the other Sony publisher, and the EQ team formed Verant.
Darch said:*sigh* If they really want to allow some form of PvP to occur then they can play on your faction standings being a major part of it and you need to be "Hated" by X faction in order to pvp openly with Ogres and you need to be hated by Y faction to PvP openly with Skar, and so on. This would make the "evil" races the default races for those that wish to PvP against "good" races, like Humans and Elves. Plus since we already know the "evil races" are KoS in the "good races" captials unless they go through the effort to not being so. It can be speculated that this might work but then comes the issue with players will not be able to be "hated'' by their own races as a result, since they'll need to remain above a certain margin so they can still PvP like normal without issue. Then comes the issue with "neutral" races like gnomes and how will they play apart of it? Will they also be hated by the "evil" races or will they remain neutral? and if they do remain neutral then wouldn't they have to go outta their way to PvP with said race? It would be interesting but there would be issues with a system like that, i mean they can just try and generalize all the races into 2 factions like that game you spoke of but then it'll just feel like it's another attempt at playing up PvP aspect too much.I'd also add that this isn't just an issue of "PvPers" and non PvPers. I consider myself a "PvPer" by my standards, but I think some confuse PvPer with "Griefer". Griefers come in all flavors of player, so with that siad you can still expect to see griefers in Pantheon.
So, yeah the only way I can see PvP working without issue in this game is by either Duels or Arenas. The faction open style of PvP just doesn't seem like it'll work for it as there are way to many issues in a system like that, including the faction based open PvP.
There is an inherent problem with PvP in a MMORPG. It is the longevity. The type of players who enjoy this type of play generally do not stick around too long. They always feel the need to go for that new jolt of excitement that comes from playing the latest PvP game. PvP servers usually start out very nicely. I have enjoyed them. But it isn't a play-style that I would stick with for more than a few months at best. Check the PvP servers on almost any MMORPG - it's the same story. The number of servers gets smaller and smaller until there is only one left. And eventually, even that one goes away. Then a year or two later a new one pops up and it goes NUTS! For a few months. Then it starts to shrink away. What is the hottest PvP game out right now? Anyone know? Check back in 6 months. It won't be top-dog anymore. Many years ago the DevTeam for EQ came up with a novel though: I think it was called the Best of the Best Tournament. This brought out some GREAT PvPers. it was a limited time event. I can't tell you how many boughts I went to - just to watch. And I think that might be the way to go. Let's remove the longevity on the PvP servers. Make a PvP server a limited time event. At the end of service (EoS), the server gets wiped and gets set up for the next PvP server with a different rule-set. So, say Session 1 is full on PvP - no rules with a period of 3 months. Winners get account rewards (fluff gear, fluff mounts, 3 mos. of play time, etc and/or what have you). At the EoS, Winners list announced, players awarded, server(s) wiped, and new ruleset announced. Start of Service (SoS) shows the new rules are PvP, factions, limited deaths (100). Then repeat with the EoS, set-up for new service, etc. There are so many different combos you could use for a ruleset. Maybe we could create a vote system for rulesets or even let the winner of the last Server pick the ruleset for the next ruleset. But the point is that by removing the longevity issue, we might be able to keep folks interested in PvP. If you didn't like this ruleset - wait 3 months and see if the next ruleset works. Also, remember the term of 3 months is just an example - make it 6 mos., make it a year, maybe have a single permanent PvP server. There are a LOT of options out there.
My purpose for posting was an attempt to get more PvP fans to be honest about the effect it has on PvE even when the servers are separate. I completely get that Pantheon is filling a void out there for many of us and we want it to match our desires as best it can. I understand why people want PvP and why others want PvE. But by having both they will affect each other. I am not sure if you have ever argued differently you might not have but others have. PvP only has things to gain from PvE but PvE only has things to lose from PvP. Because of this I am not surprised PvP fans think having a PvP only server will fix the problem.
On a side note I can’t be sure of your intent in using carebears and whether it was intended to be an insult or not. Speaking for myself it is an insult.
Here's my thoughts.
If you have full open free for all pvp it is going to be exploited and used to grief people. I've really enjoyed PvP MMO's that were designed around PvP, DAoC and WAR, but PvE games that added PvP have always been lack luster to me. WAR had an excellent system where each ability had a different effect in PvP than PvE so you could balance everything separately. When you start to nerf or buff abilities that are used in PvE because of how they are being used in PvP is when the game loses balance.
I have no intent of playing on a PvP server because again, unless the game is designed around PvP, I don't find them enjoyable. I don't have any issue with a PvP server with separate rules, but I think when you create a character besides a PvP warning there should be a notice that "Abilities will only be balanced around PvE not PvP."
I guess, they looked into WoW Classic what happened to some PvP servers and then they reverted their decisions. :) The horde literaly *won* some servers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtVgwR5LFtA
Greetings
@Starblight
Im not trying to take the piss, I'm just fed up with these threads where people continually demonize PvP players as well as do the usual gatekeeping of "go play something else" all while VR has already said they'll have PvP servers.
Either way that's a fair concern you have but you don't have to worry, it says in the FAQ that they will be separate:
16.1 Many games struggle to create unique classes because of the balancing issues that PvP creates. How do you prevent PvP from affecting PvE?
The issue with balance and PvP vs PvE is not one that is that difficult to solve but it does require planning: you just use different formulas and data - you don't cross your streams. That way, if we need to make Paladins in PvE more powerful, we can do that without disrupting PvP balance. And vice versa.