Amazon's "New World" MMO will no longer have Player Killing due to toxicity. PvP will still be an important part of game.

Lord Arcadio

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,128
Last month, we premiered our “Aeternum Awaits” cinematic trailer at the Game Awards, announced our May 2020 launch date, and opened up Pre-orders. This was an exciting moment for us and kicked off our road to launch. The trailer led to a lot of new eyes on our game and also opened up questions about how New World has evolved in recent months.

To bring everyone up to speed, back in October of 2018, we began a Closed Alpha that ended in June of 2019. Our goal was to collect player feedback and gameplay data on a variety of features. Throughout the Alpha, we captured direct and anecdotal feedback from chat, our official forums, post-gameplay surveys, and play testing. We collected a ton of invaluable information that informed our planning as we went dark and continued development.

We used this feedback to find common pain points in the game. It was clear that there were concerns in the community about the impact of PvP (Player versus Player) on the overall gameplay experience. While PvP did change over the course of Alpha, generally, it was full loot and open world with only Outposts acting as sanctuaries. Everyone was vulnerable to attack, at any time, from other players in the rest of the world. In order to attack, players would flag Criminal Intent. If you died as a Criminal you would experience full gear and inventory loss. If you died to a Criminal you would lose all of your inventory but keep your equipped gear with durability damage taken.

One of the problems we observed with this system was that some high level players were killing low level players, A LOT. Sometimes exclusively. This often led to solo or group griefing scenarios that created a toxic environment for many players. To be clear, this behavior was not shown by all PvP players, but enough to cause significant issues.

We set out to build a compelling world full of danger and opportunity that begs to be explored. The intended design was never to allow a small group of players to bully other players. Based on what we saw, we realized that we needed to make fundamental changes and not just incremental fixes, (which we tried several times during the Closed Alpha).

There has been speculation that we have moved away from PvP, this isn’t the case at all. PvP is important to us and we are committed to ensuring it plays a significant role in our game. To be specific, by PvP we mean, fair fights that are organized, skill based, and opted into by all participants. Not PKing (Player Killing), which is a predatory behavior that relies on exploiting another player’s lack of experience, progress, readiness, or willingness. So for those folks who desire that harsh PVP environment, New World may not be your favorite game, however, we do hope you enjoy the PVP we will offer. 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.

In the current design, players in New World experience PvP by opting into Faction conflicts and Wars for territory ownership. Opting into these PvP experiences will be extremely rewarding, often granting you exclusive in-game bonuses and rewards for your efforts.

During Alpha, it was made clear that PvP War was one of the most popular features in New World. We’ve taken that to heart and doubled down on it, incorporating a lot of the feedback, requests, and blue sky wishes of our testers into the latest version. At a high level, War will be 50 versus 50 PvP battles by appointment. Companies will declare War on territories they wish to take over, draft a roster of 50 combatants, and agree on timing for the battle. The War will take place on a protected battlefield, keeping anyone who isn’t confirmed to participate, out. This helps ensure a fair fight, without distraction. During the battle there are two sides, attackers and defenders. Defenders will protect their claim flag which sits in the center of their Fort. The Fort is equipped with storage, crafting stations, and upgradeable wall defenses. The Attackers will earn points during battle to upgrade and build siege weapons and towers. The War ends if the Attackers are able to break through the gates and claim the flag, or if time expires. During the course of the battle both sides can earn points to spend on upgrades and gear.

Players who have homes in a territory at war will not lose any of their possessions based on the outcome of the battle. If you choose to sit out a war, you won’t be penalized for your nonparticipation but you also won’t be rewarded should your side win the war. Players on the winning side of the war will reap rewards for their efforts. We are excited to reveal more about Forts and siege warfare in future Developer Diaries and articles.

We have also invested deeply in PvE, creating many new features that pit players against challenging enemies, place them in perilous situations, and introduce new enemy types. This includes Corrupted Breaches, world events where the ground opens up and erupts with corrupted energy and enemies. Additionally, territory owners will need to protect their Forts and withstand an onslaught as waves of enemies attempt to bash theirs gates down and wipe out their Company. We believe all players will enjoy the directed content and PvE we’ve added. We will do a deep dive into all of New World’s core features between now and April, including more on PvE and PvP.

We appreciate your continued support and interest in New World. Hopefully this answers some questions. We will continue to have an open dialog with you about everything New World has to offer as we approach Closed Beta in April. Keep an eye on our social channels for the latest information on New World. See you in Aeternum!
Reddit is a lot of fun to read right now lol.

Anyway, I think this is a good decision. Many MMO vets romanticize the idea of open world pvp, but the reality is it isn't fun for the victims. In a fair PvP match, you can still have fun even if you lose. But getting repeatedly ganked by someone who you can't defend against will just make you quit the game. Open world pvp is a huge turnoff for new players and casual players. Big budget MMOs like New World need to have a large audience to survive. The game looks great. It would be unfortunate if tons of people don't play it because the devs catered to people who just want to be assholes.
 
OP
OP
Lord Arcadio

Lord Arcadio

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,128
From the new article:
"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. "
 

Niosai

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,251
I mean, I'm sure there's more creative solutions. Make players who were just killed PVP-proof for awhile. Like the GTA5 passive mode, but on a timer. Give them the ability to go out of passive earlier if they want.
 

Castamere

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,122
I mean, yeah. Players don't want a fair match they want to win. This is also why skill based matchmaking is becoming the norm. Long term players want to kill new players, but new players wont stay unless their first hour is engaging. Getting killed by a max level out of tutorial sucks badly.
 

Menome

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,676
Well, duh.

Clearly someone on the design team either wasn't around for or didn't play the pre-WoW generations of MMOs where this was common. You were either the griefer or the griefed and "honourable" PvP was really a niche in the social system.
 

KojiKnight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,091
I mean, I'm sure there's more creative solutions. Make players who were just killed PVP-proof for awhile. Like the GTA5 passive mode, but on a timer. Give them the ability to go out of passive earlier if they want.
Even simpler, make PVP on PVP servers be opt-in till end game, and only opt-in for non PvP servers.
 

Ojli

Member
Oct 28, 2017
798
Great! PK is a factor why I often don't want to start an online game. PVP is still there (and will hopefully be fun)
 

Cirrus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
510
There goes their market.

I don't really see much appeal in the game outside appealing to PK'ers, and by disabling PKing those players will probably stay on Atlas/Ark/Rust.

Still I guess we haven't actually seen much of the actual gameplay yet so maybe they have some other unique features to attract players.
 

shuno

Member
Oct 28, 2017
524
Well... I remember when this was being announced as a "New World"-themed sandbox MMO. At this point it looks more like a theme-park thing and this news seem to further confirm this. And the last trailer was terrible. After the initial announcement I thought this was more grounded in realism and then they showed this awful scenario in the latest trailer. I wish them good luck, but I really don't care anymore about this.
 

Acidote

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,980
That's because WoW doesn't really have a traditional server structure anymore. Everything is sharded. However, there are still separate pve and pvp shards for the open world. its probably one of the better changes in BfA.
I liked it better before. Aside from the ganking you had the chance of a fair fight every now and then. No it's just raids of premades killing poor lonely souls because no matter how many times Blizzard say shards are balanced in population, they're clearly not.
 

HStallion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
33,408
Wasn't a big appeal of this game originally the idea of how open and free form it was? I thought the whole idea was that it was a big sandbox but this sounds like they want to make it into something more akin to WoW. Feels like a game that has some serious vision issues.
 

Kegels

Member
Jan 24, 2019
3,039
Wasn't a big appeal of this game originally the idea of how open and free form it was? I thought the whole idea was that it was a big sandbox but this sounds like they want to make it into something more akin to WoW. Feels like a game that has some serious vision issues.
yeah you can see people angrily quoting the devs in the comments on their dev blog about pvp


“The spine of the game is player versus player combat. You’ll probably be murdered in New World. So, yes, players will be able to freely kill other players, but we have a number of systems like Sanctuary and Criminal Justice, which add interesting consequence and drama to that experience. I came to realize that the constant press of danger was fundamental to the thrill of the game—making New World a peaceful world would deprive players of the stakes and drama of trying to forge a new life in an uncaring and supernatural wilderness.” - Patrick Gilmore (Studio Director
 

Sky87

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,405
Wouldn't even have bothered checking out the game if griefing was a possibility. Same reason i lost interest in Black Desert instantly.

Now i'm actually interested. Surprised they even thought this was a good idea in the first place though.
 

Death Penalty

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
2,029
Doesn't the PvP flagging system completely alleviate this? Flag yourself if you're into it, stay unflagged if not.
 

thisismadness

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,375
I liked it better before. Aside from the ganking you had the chance of a fair fight every now and then. No it's just raids of premades killing poor lonely souls because no matter how many times Blizzard say shards are balanced in population, they're clearly not.
I haven't played BfA since launch, so I don't know what its devolved into. But during that time I had a blast with it, easily the most fun I've had with open world pvp in a long time.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,987
I mean, yeah. Players don't want a fair match they want to win. This is also why skill based matchmaking is becoming the norm. Long term players want to kill new players, but new players wont stay unless their first hour is engaging. Getting killed by a max level out of tutorial sucks badly.
I disagree with this, in MMO style games, to the point I actually will say I actively enjoy that happening, not only because it gives you a real sense of progression in terms of seeing where you'll be eventually and what you'll be able to do, butt it adds a danger to gameworlds that gives some real excitement to adventuring.

It can be frustrating on occasion, but then so can any pvp.

For FPS I don't mind it as much. I don't want to play to dominate lower skilled players, I want to be put against people as good or better so I improve or have close matches that feel hard won/lost. I think SBMM is good, but open world pvp is something I've wanted to experience again for a while now.
 

texhnolyze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,604
Indonesia
Sounds good to me. I hate forced pvp with a passion.

Let me explore and enjoy all the content your game has to offer without having to resort to a big guild for my protection.
 
Oct 26, 2017
11,449
Assuming the "fellow players" always have the same skill level and wants to fight you

If they are saying "toxicity" is probably not the case
Roll on a PvE server. It doesn't matter their skill level. You play on PvP for the dynamic that another will kill you. It's on Amazon to make sure it's fair so you don't get imbalances like WoW's classic servers.
 

Roland

Member
Oct 28, 2017
75
Lineage 2 c1-c4 for me had the best implementation of PvP and PK systems. Too grindy PvE side of the game, but otherwise nailed it. Was a very engrossing experience.
 

Skyfireblaze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,455
Honest question, wouldn't this problem be solved by only allowing open PVP between players who have the same level? Or basically make it open world PVP but only between players that are max-level.
 

Cirrus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
510
Honest question, wouldn't this problem be solved by only allowing open PVP between players who have the same level? Or basically make it open world PVP but only between players that are max-level.
There are various solutions to this problem that other games have used, such as level restricting the PvP, setting safe starting zones and dangerous low security zones, or setting harsher penalties for murder.
 

KKRT

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,140
People happy about this should just stick to Theme Park MMOs.
New World was supposed to be sandbox game, now its not.
Goddammit i looked forward to this game ;/
 

Skyfireblaze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,455
There are various solutions to this problem that other games have used, such as level restricting the PvP, setting safe starting zones and dangerous low security zones, or setting harsher penalties for murder.
Yeah, outright not having it doesn't seem like a good solution either, this way you alienate one of two sides instead of finding a compromise.
 

VaporSnake

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,647
People happy about this should just stick to Theme Park MMOs.
New World was supposed to be sandbox game, now its not.
Goddammit i looked forward to this game ;/
Yeah pretty much every interesting and memorable MMO experience I ever had was due to pvp or just the possibility of pvp. I don't even see the point of the MM part of MMO if such a thing isn't possible, it's what makes it inherently unique I think, that such events can happen.

I'll never forget playing WoW and being completely new and being caught off guard by a large scale horde invasion of stormwind, just totally emergent player controlled moments that no scripted quest or event can really compete with, can it suck to be on the receiving end? Sure, but the removal of these kinds of things completely, for me anyway, negate what I'm there for, which are experiences I can't get in a normal game. If I wanted a completely safe and predictable experience, I'd play literally anything else.
 

snowhite

You fuckers are beautiful.
Member
Aug 7, 2018
594
Honest question, wouldn't this problem be solved by only allowing open PVP between players who have the same level? Or basically make it open world PVP but only between players that are max-level.
Another solution would be scaling attack damage depending on the gap between player levels. So if your attacker is many levels above you, your attacks do a lot more damage to them and their attacks do a lot less. You could balance it out to create more or less even fights. Ofcourse, player experience with the mechanics matters as well, but that could also be accounted for.

The advantage would be that if a bunch of max level players started attacking a newbie, they would do miniscule damage, making griefing difficult.

Of course, I'm just spitballing here. Who knows what problems this mechanic might bring up.
 

StrayDog

Avenger
Jul 14, 2018
878
And main selling point of this game to me is gone. Oh well... time to wait for the next MMO.
 

Sky87

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,405
Yeah pretty much every interesting and memorable MMO experience I ever had was due to pvp or just the possibility of pvp. I don't even see the point of the MM part of MMO if such a thing isn't possible, it's what makes it inherently unique I think, that such events can happen.

I'll never forget playing WoW and being completely new and being caught off guard by a large scale horde invasion of stormwind, just totally emergent player controlled moments that no scripted quest or event can really compete with, can it suck to be on the receiving end? Sure, but the removal of these kinds of things completely, for me anyway, negate what I'm there for, which are experiences I can't get in a normal game. If I wanted a completely safe and predictable experience, I'd play literally anything else.
The difference is that in wow you didn't lose your inventory and gear when ganked. This sounded like it was going to be basically Escape from Tarkov the MMO.
 

Elandyll

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,667
Lmao.

Who could *possibly* have seen this kind of toxic behavior coming in a free for all pvp environment?

It's not like the solution was elegantly put out back in ... 2001 (Dark Age of Camelot).
 

Edge

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,792
Celle, Germany
From the new article:
"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. "

Sooooo.... The whole MMO has to have only one server then right? Because with that logic they would divide the community too.
 

texhnolyze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,604
Indonesia
If you're into open world pvp, there are already multiple (newish) games on the market right now.

Albion Online, Legends of Aria, and the recently relaunched ArcheAge Unchained.
 

Sky87

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,405
Full loot PVP is not a new concept in MMOs, it started with Ultima Online.
I think the toxicity and mindset of players have changed drastically since then. You can see that in other games where people do everything to make streamers miserable (streamsniping) for example.

I have no faith that the system they were going for would be fun for solo players either.