worddog wrote: » BlackBrony wrote: » guild dominates castl worddog wrote: » Beyolf wrote: » worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly? If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server. The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map. Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances. Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched. lies. game wont be same. How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want.
BlackBrony wrote: » guild dominates castl worddog wrote: » Beyolf wrote: » worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly? If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server. The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map. Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances. Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched. lies. game wont be same. How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng
worddog wrote: » Beyolf wrote: » worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly? If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server. The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map. Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances. Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched.
Beyolf wrote: » worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly? If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server. The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map. Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc
worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly? If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server. The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map.
BlackBrony wrote: » worddog wrote: » BlackBrony wrote: » guild dominates castl worddog wrote: » Beyolf wrote: » worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly? If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server. The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map. Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances. Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched. lies. game wont be same. How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want. no, i can harass individual players until they leave guild
worddog wrote: » Ironhope wrote: » worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly? it's very unlikely griefing will be a serious issue Yeah gamers are a really friendly community that all love and respect each other. Surely we won't see the giga nuclear griefers of doom turn the game into metagaming trash. Surely making changes to a system from 2003 will be able to combat one of the sweatiest and most degenerate types of playstyles that has thrived in every system attempting to prevent it. Surely.
Ironhope wrote: » worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly? it's very unlikely griefing will be a serious issue
worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly?
Veeshan wrote: » worddog wrote: » BlackBrony wrote: » guild dominates castl worddog wrote: » Beyolf wrote: » worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly? If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server. The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map. Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances. Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched. lies. game wont be same. How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want. not always your gorilla warfare large guilds hit them in spots kil some members and disapear before they can react, do that enough u get people quitting the guild cause they feel like there not being helped, a guild of about 10 people derailed a huge guild in Archage just by constantly hitting there trade pack runs and disapearing withing 2 minutes of first hit while there entire guild portaled in (Which also wont be able to be done in AoC due to lack of fast travel options) In darkfall mega alliancesa formed and they always got toppled by all the small guys allying up and hitting them constantly till mega zerg fell appart and then the counter zerg disbanded since it wasnt a threat anymore. pve players have the ability to do that too since they outnumber pvp population if they were to ever unite they could probaly push any pvp out of there neck of the woods but they never do just complain about it instead. PvE players seem to lack diplomancy skills where pvper will do diplomacy with other guilds but i guess thats cause there use to the more solo/guild only kinda things so they never had to talk to other guilds for assistance and all that.
worddog wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » worddog wrote: » BlackBrony wrote: » guild dominates castl worddog wrote: » Beyolf wrote: » worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly? If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server. The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map. Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances. Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched. lies. game wont be same. How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want. not always your gorilla warfare large guilds hit them in spots kil some members and disapear before they can react, do that enough u get people quitting the guild cause they feel like there not being helped, a guild of about 10 people derailed a huge guild in Archage just by constantly hitting there trade pack runs and disapearing withing 2 minutes of first hit while there entire guild portaled in (Which also wont be able to be done in AoC due to lack of fast travel options) In darkfall mega alliancesa formed and they always got toppled by all the small guys allying up and hitting them constantly till mega zerg fell appart and then the counter zerg disbanded since it wasnt a threat anymore. pve players have the ability to do that too since they outnumber pvp population if they were to ever unite they could probaly push any pvp out of there neck of the woods but they never do just complain about it instead. PvE players seem to lack diplomancy skills where pvper will do diplomacy with other guilds but i guess thats cause there use to the more solo/guild only kinda things so they never had to talk to other guilds for assistance and all that. If you can make most of the players leave their guild, that guild isn't strong. The guilds I'm talking about wouldn't even accept a player that can't handle their own. There will be guilds where every single player is a hardcore, fully geared, sweaty PvPer.
BlackBrony wrote: » worddog wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » worddog wrote: » BlackBrony wrote: » guild dominates castl worddog wrote: » Beyolf wrote: » worddog wrote: » How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly? If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server. The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map. Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances. Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched. lies. game wont be same. How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want. not always your gorilla warfare large guilds hit them in spots kil some members and disapear before they can react, do that enough u get people quitting the guild cause they feel like there not being helped, a guild of about 10 people derailed a huge guild in Archage just by constantly hitting there trade pack runs and disapearing withing 2 minutes of first hit while there entire guild portaled in (Which also wont be able to be done in AoC due to lack of fast travel options) In darkfall mega alliancesa formed and they always got toppled by all the small guys allying up and hitting them constantly till mega zerg fell appart and then the counter zerg disbanded since it wasnt a threat anymore. pve players have the ability to do that too since they outnumber pvp population if they were to ever unite they could probaly push any pvp out of there neck of the woods but they never do just complain about it instead. PvE players seem to lack diplomancy skills where pvper will do diplomacy with other guilds but i guess thats cause there use to the more solo/guild only kinda things so they never had to talk to other guilds for assistance and all that. If you can make most of the players leave their guild, that guild isn't strong. The guilds I'm talking about wouldn't even accept a player that can't handle their own. There will be guilds where every single player is a hardcore, fully geared, sweaty PvPer. look at you. raging for pve for something u dont know will work or not. Imagine ur a player of that guild. u would be qqing non stop and rage quit bcs ppl dontr help you, i won, ur guild is now 1 less member. multiply. the problem is ur guild, not players, leaving guild makes ur life easier, so u leave it. guild is weaker, server domination changes
netrimos wrote: » I don't think I like the idea of PVP servers in econ/political MMOs, but I don't really care either way. I'll play on PVP regardless of what they end up offering. If they do end up having alternate ruleset servers, I'd rather see them take a less binary approach and instead just empower mayors to decide what goes on in their nodes. I'd rather them leave it up to the individual node mayors to disable/enable world pvp or corruption, but even then I don't think it should be binary. Just greatly discouraged at a high resource cost (or encouraged at a sizeable resource buff) I'm all for nodes being able to govern their way into a lawless state (or high tax over governed turd) though. At least this way It'd lead to interesting economic and political situations. What makes this genre of games fun is the drama, and drama is always juicier when you force people with conflicting goals to play in the same space by tricking them into thinking they can make a difference if they come into power.
worddog wrote: » netrimos wrote: » I don't think I like the idea of PVP servers in econ/political MMOs, but I don't really care either way. I'll play on PVP regardless of what they end up offering. If they do end up having alternate ruleset servers, I'd rather see them take a less binary approach and instead just empower mayors to decide what goes on in their nodes. I'd rather them leave it up to the individual node mayors to disable/enable world pvp or corruption, but even then I don't think it should be binary. Just greatly discouraged at a high resource cost (or encouraged at a sizeable resource buff) I'm all for nodes being able to govern their way into a lawless state (or high tax over governed turd) though. At least this way It'd lead to interesting economic and political situations. What makes this genre of games fun is the drama, and drama is always juicier when you force people with conflicting goals to play in the same space by tricking them into thinking they can make a difference if they come into power. Drama is fun until it isn't. Guilds just mass murdering small groups of players so they can't play the game, is not very interesting.
Veeshan wrote: » there actually alot of respect in the pvp community and between pvp guild unless you rage when u die then they get a kick out of it and then they just farm you for entertainment if you say gg or gf and leave it at that its generaly pretty good in most pvp centric games i play MMO wise.
netrimos wrote: » worddog wrote: » netrimos wrote: » I don't think I like the idea of PVP servers in econ/political MMOs, but I don't really care either way. I'll play on PVP regardless of what they end up offering. If they do end up having alternate ruleset servers, I'd rather see them take a less binary approach and instead just empower mayors to decide what goes on in their nodes. I'd rather them leave it up to the individual node mayors to disable/enable world pvp or corruption, but even then I don't think it should be binary. Just greatly discouraged at a high resource cost (or encouraged at a sizeable resource buff) I'm all for nodes being able to govern their way into a lawless state (or high tax over governed turd) though. At least this way It'd lead to interesting economic and political situations. What makes this genre of games fun is the drama, and drama is always juicier when you force people with conflicting goals to play in the same space by tricking them into thinking they can make a difference if they come into power. Drama is fun until it isn't. Guilds just mass murdering small groups of players so they can't play the game, is not very interesting. Most fun things are fun until it isn't. If you were to get a PVE server how would you do it? World pvp-off at start servers and letting players govern their way into enabling world pvp per node satisfies the conditions of your initial post. That way people can pick and choose where to farm depending on their risk appetite. Nodes with content that is negatively impacted by no pvp can enable it. I'd rather see that instead of an always off system.
worddog wrote: » Yeah gamers are a really friendly community that all love and respect each other. Surely we won't see the giga nuclear griefers of doom turn the game into metagaming trash. Surely making changes to a system from 2003 will be able to combat one of the sweatiest and most degenerate types of playstyles that has thrived in every system attempting to prevent it. Surely.
Caww wrote: » If the PvX version of the IP only has little to modest success then re-utilizing the existing assets and content into a PvE version would start to make more sense.
Caww wrote: » "you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear" If the PvX flops then there is still something to recoup and move forward with.
Mag7spy wrote: » Caww wrote: » "you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear" If the PvX flops then there is still something to recoup and move forward with. So you are making a point based on the game flopping?
Caww wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Caww wrote: » "you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear" If the PvX flops then there is still something to recoup and move forward with. So you are making a point based on the game flopping? Yes, if the level of financial success does not provide enough support then moving to the PvE model as a second game IP still using the existing assets and contents is a viable option. I'm not predicting a flop, just stating that all of their hard work is not lost and a PvE model will draw subs.
