Tom Clancy's The Division

[Bzalthek]

Meth.  Not even once.

[Slayerik]

Cocaine's a helluva drug.

[Kageru]

More variety is good, people like different things.

But if you are launching or planning funding for a game it becomes a question of numbers, Does open-PvP bring the numbers or reduce them. It's not an accident that Eve, an aggressively PvP game, has concord space. Same reason this game will have clearly defined PvP zones.

It would be really interesting to see Day-Z's activity numbers, but PvP makes sense in that game because there's not really much else to do.

[Surlyboi]

Slay, you and I and the rat of our merry little gang had a shitload of fun.

But. And this is a big but... You know how much it sucked when we ran afoul of the script kiddies. That is now and has always been my problem with open PvP. People are fucking retarded and will resort to any and all lengths to win even if it's just a game.

Fuck those guys.

[Sky]

Private Servers with strong admin powahs is where it's at for online gaming.

It took me years to remember I hated random online fps after having such an amazing experience playing with a hardcore clan competitively on private servers (bf1942). Like, if you're a designated pilot....your plane is there for you to actually utilize instead of having to hide from snipers while tards on your side keep grabbing it to smash into a tree, etc.

[Senses]

Maybe someday they will design a game AI that can fight just like a real person, that would pretty much solve every pvp problem ever.

[HaemishM]

Maybe someday they will design a game AI that can fight just like a real person, that would pretty much solve every pvp problem ever.

Except the wolves would call it "n00b" PVP because they can't hear the QQing of the dearly departed sheep.

[disKret]

Maybe someday they will design a game AI that can fight just like a real person, that would pretty much solve every pvp problem ever.

Except the wolves would call it "n00b" PVP because they can't hear the QQing of the dearly departed sheep.

Throw some random dialog generator with "haxor!", "you noob ill pwn you next time" and You are good to go.

[UnSub]

Does open-PvP bring the numbers or reduce them.

Open PVP brings all the e-peen to the yard, but then a lot of players leave when they find out that they aren't the virtual John Holmes they thought they were.

[Nebu]

Open PvP brings far more griefers/cheats than good players.  I imagine that's the primary reason why we don't see more of it.  Good pvp accounts for a small minority of the mouth-breathing asshatery that is observed the moment open pvp is brought to the table.

[Surlyboi]

Does open-PvP bring the numbers or reduce them.

Open PVP brings all the e-peen to the yard, but then a lot of players leave when they find out that they aren't the virtual John Holmes they thought they were.

Or like Nebu said, they cheat.

[Scold]

Does open-PvP bring the numbers or reduce them.

Open PVP brings all the e-peen to the yard, but then a lot of players leave when they find out that they aren't the virtual John Holmes they thought they were.

The same people keep repeating this. wolves sheep etc etc. Yet to see any proof or evidence of it.

[Kageru]

UO, Salem, Day-Z, most of the korean MMO's... you are not looking very hard.

[Mrbloodworth]

Hay look, this conversation again.

[Nebu]

Hay look, this conversation again.

If you expect much beyond a rehash of the same MMO discussions we've had for 7 years, you're sadly mistaken.

[tazelbain]

Does open-PvP bring the numbers or reduce them.

Open PVP brings all the e-peen to the yard, but then a lot of players leave when they find out that they aren't the virtual John Holmes they thought they were.

The same people keep repeating this. wolves sheep etc etc. Yet to see any proof or evidence of it.

LOL, hows that sand investigation going?

Hay look, this conversation again.

MMO haven't changed, why would you expect the the MMO conversation to change?

[Nebu]

I have to admit that I giggled a little when Bloodworth complained about repetition. 

Sorry MrB. 

[Sky]

The same people keep repeating this. wolves sheep etc etc. Yet to see any proof or evidence of it.

Trammel.

But you keep on keepin' on.

[Slayerik]

You know better than to say that word, Sky.

Shame on you.

[Malakili]

I think people are pretty right about the wolves and sheep bit.  The problem is that the games DO attract the people who want to feel badass but don't have the ability to be so in games that don't let them prey on the less defenseless.  Planetside 2 and World War 2 Online don't have sheep, for example.  But once a game introduces classes or activities which can be described as "PvE" these players necessarily are less apt at PvP because their in game progression is going towards other activities.  Wolves like to prey on these people.

You can get around this on the level of a group, but it is very harsh on the level of the individual and particularly a casual individual.  When I was playing EVE in a mainly industrial focused corporation we had an entire defense division of the corporation that kept our trading routes clear, scouted for potential pirates, all the things you'd expect.  On the level of group play, this is a really interesting dynamic and adds a lot to the game.  On the level of an individual who wants to start playing the game as a miner or crafter, they are going to get popped by pirates 10 times a day with no recourse.

Edit: I almost forgot to make my actual point - I'm wondering if some game can manage to replicate the competitive nature of a game like Counter Strike or even Call of Duty with the open world stuff of a game like EVE, etc.  I feel like it would have to have minimal if any PvP power curve, and have progression focused on the PvE side of the game.

[Scold]

The same people keep repeating this. wolves sheep etc etc. Yet to see any proof or evidence of it.

Trammel.

But you keep on keepin' on.

Trammel was well prior to anything resembling the modern MMO selection (and the modern MMO playerbase) existing, where people have a full range of games to choose from and aren't shoehorned into games that don't suit their playstyle. Had fuck all to do with wolves and sheep, had everything to do with people who wandered into UO despite the fact that their true preference was for a PvE MMO that hadn't yet been offered. It's about as relevant to this argument as the unladen airspeed of a swallow.

[Surlyboi]

Awwwwww...

Aren't puppies cute?

[Lantyssa]

Stop pissing on the carpet you lousy mongrel!

[Kageru]

Edit: I almost forgot to make my actual point - I'm wondering if some game can manage to replicate the competitive nature of a game like Counter Strike or even Call of Duty with the open world stuff of a game like EVE, etc.  I feel like it would have to have minimal if any PvP power curve, and have progression focused on the PvE side of the game.

It's not just PvE attracting a wider audience with a more middling PvP level, though that is a factor. It's also that PvE games tend to want to have interesting skills, power progression and people already engaged in PvE content when they get ambushed. Really every attempt to have shared mechanics in PvE and PvP have tended to fail. So you either have crap PvE (most of the Asian games) or have PvP as a separate environment (WoW, GW2).

Eve is probably PvP that works because it has player structures that give meaningful factions, alliances and repercussions. The problem is the time investment required from the players to make such a system work is pretty intense. An Eve fleet battle can go on for a long time and is often going to be pretty boring even before you consider the logistics of empire building.

[Malakili]

My point is more that if PvP is not progression oriented, then Wolves have less of an inherent advantage (because they are specing for PvP).  One of the things that makes things like Counter Strike or CoD balanced is that there isn't progression (or at least in CoD minimal).  Imagine if the guy farming his ore/metal, whatever, could whip out his gun and be equal to the guy hunting him, or at least very nearly so.  So, the progression would mainly in your chosen PvE path (crafting, farming, mining, smithing, whatever. These things could (hopefully) be tied to things like base building, housing, etc. And your combat capabilities would be have little to no progression, with some craftable stuff giving you slightly better/different weapons or armor. 

[Kageru]

That's pretty much what GW2 does. You start off with a rusty sword and a cotton shirt in PvE but when you click the PvP button you are suddenly level capped and in competitive gear. With WvW being a middle ground. And of course people in WvW or a PvP match know that both sides are there looking for a fight.

It's almost unarguably the way to go, but it's also incompatible with open world PvP where the two domains over-lap and the attacker has a lot of ability to skew things in their favour before the fight starts.

[Malakili]

It's almost unarguably the way to go, but it's also incompatible with open world PvP where the two domains over-lap and the attacker has a lot of ability to skew things in their favour before the fight starts.

Well, I don't mind if an attacker skews things in their favor before the fight starts.  I'd be much more concerned about my ability to fight back.  If he sneaks up on me, well, fair enough.  If he starts shooting at me and he has level 100 shooting me in the face skill while I have level 5 shooting in the face skill because my points have gone into mining ore really efficiently, less cool.

As long as your combat power is relatively equal, you could easily imagine a group going out and doing some resource collection, and being able to pull out their guns and fight back fairly if some gankers show up. 

[Kageru]

I was more thinking of watching them do a PvE encounter and then attacking when they are low health and have aggro. Not to mention the specs and builds are likely to be different, and forcing people to mine in groups sort of gets rid of the point of a lot of PvE content.

[Megrim]

You are both right in a way. The biggest issues at the core of a lot of these complaints (I think), is the continuing attempt to blend pvp and pve. There isn't any particularly sensible reason for it that I can see - unless we are talking about world building exercises ala EvE - but we continue to see attempt after attempt after attempt. What is even worse, is that most of the time this is coming out of a DIKU or a DIKU-lite, and this layers on another level of absurdity: trying to shoehorn player versus player combat into what had originally been a co-operation focused game paradigm.

[MediumHigh]

It's almost unarguably the way to go, but it's also incompatible with open world PvP where the two domains over-lap and the attacker has a lot of ability to skew things in their favour before the fight starts.

Well, I don't mind if an attacker skews things in their favor before the fight starts.  I'd be much more concerned about my ability to fight back.  If he sneaks up on me, well, fair enough.  If he starts shooting at me and he has level 100 shooting me in the face skill while I have level 5 shooting in the face skill because my points have gone into mining ore really efficiently, less cool.

As long as your combat power is relatively equal, you could easily imagine a group going out and doing some resource collection, and being able to pull out their guns and fight back fairly if some gankers show up. 

If you can't kill someone relatively quickly 1v1, than you make it a 4v1, or a 10v1. Any merger between pvp and pve has to work for solo play as well as group play. Even makng progression equipment based isn't much of an answer, there may not be a big difference between tier 1 and 2 but what about tier 1 and 3 or tier 1 and 5?

[Falconeer]

One thing that has been proposed many times when designing open PvP MMOs has been to have a chance to have big punishments inflicted on those who break the law. A few games have been attempitng this road, first that come to mind are Wizardry Online and Archeage (not sure how it works in the latter), EDIT: Age of Wulin/Wushu. Point is, lots of people like the concept of a world that has uneven chances at PvP, not only given from the ability to start a fight whenever you want (meaning the defender is unaware, afk, in a PvE fight), but even due to the disparity in power or numbers. Lots of people like to have a world where unfairness can be part of the equation, as long as that unfairness is organic to a dynamic world where there can be consequences for such unfair actions and activities.

I think EVE is a good example of that, to a degree, but I am thinking more of games that have a big risk and reward system in place when it comes to open PvP. Meaning, by killing other, lower level, unsuspecting players, you can take their stuff and completely ruin their playing experience. But you can also go to jail and have your character locked for several hours.

In short, I think considering that open world PvP with sheep and wolves is a kind of environment that many seem to like, it wouldn't be a bad idea to code some systems in so that you CAN absolutely be the asshole and try to make your way through crime and stealing, but every time you do so there's a chance you get busted and get your character completely locked, and your account debuffed, for ten hours or so.

The problem with many open PvP games so far is that there's really no consequence whatsoever in being a douche, especially when being killed means nothing to you, but means a lot to those you are hunting down. I think it would add a lot in some sandboxy PvP games if people still had the option to be mean wolves, but had to face harsh consequences for that from time to time (and if you go to jail, your victim gets his/her stuff back, courtesy of the local police).

[Kageru]

Has there ever been an anti-PK mechanism that hasn't been outwitted by the players or mostly meaningless in practice? Honest question. The last one I remember reading was Salem and that was ghastly in practice.

Point is, lots of people like the concept of a world that has uneven chances at PvP, not only given from the ability to start a fight whenever you want (meaning the defender is unaware, afk, in a PvE fight), but even due to the disparity in power or numbers.

What percentage of the player base hold this position is an interesting question. But I'm pretty sure most people who argue it have visions of themselves firmly on the "wolf" side of the equation. There may be some who like the idea of being mostly on the receiving end of PvP inequality, for the challenge and excitement, but I doubt it's that many.

[Falconeer]

I am sure you are right that there are more wolves cheering for the wolf vs. sheep style of gameplay, but I am one example of "honourable" (   ) sheep who love the thrill of a dangerous world, and the chance to overcome the odds (while still succcumbing at it most of the times). I like my open PvP games to be on the "survival" side of things, and I like to be the underdog while still having chances, through game mechanics and careful play and organization, to overcome.

I also like the idea of risk vs. reward and what bothers me (even though they are still my favourites) about open PvP games is that too many of them are just about ganking for the lulz (but with no reward), or ganking for profit/loot (but with no risk). I'd say EVE comes the closest (but not there yet) and there's room to develop on those premises. Jail time and account-wide timed debuffs to offenders with a higher or lower random chance to be "busted" based on the security level of the zone you committed the felony are just some that I'd like to see explored. That way you would have to pick your targets and decide to invest in a specific gank because you know the reward is gonna be big (victim has plenty of loot to take/reputation to leech), while still knowing there's a chance the plan will go wrong because of external factors ("bad luck", as Mr. White says in Reservoir Dogs, that's the life of the criminal) and that will really hamper you.

EDIT: mostly spelling.

[Phred]

The problem with many open PvP games so far is that there's really no consequence whatsoever in being a douche, especially when being killed means nothing to you, but means a lot to those you are hunting down. I think it would add a lot in some sandboxy PvP games if people still had the option to be mean wolves, but had to face harsh consequences for that from time to time (and if you go to jail, your victim gets his/her stuff back, courtesy of the local police).

If you ever come up with a way to do this that isn't defeated by logging out and playing an alt, let me know.

[Nebu]

If you ever come up with a way to do this that isn't defeated by logging out and playing an alt, let me know.

I did a few years back and posted it on these forums. 

1) Allow one account per IP. 
2) All characters on that account have the same surname. 

It's not perfect from a business standpoint, but it would minimize the alt account griefers.