You need to make a PvP game where the shitty players like myself still have fun. Nothing worse than constantly being attached by veteran players who have tons of time in the game over-powering everyone.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Amazon's "New World" MMO will no longer have Player Killing due to toxicity. PvP will still be an important part of game.
- Thread starter Lord Arcadio
- Start date
Uh. Okay they have a lot to prove with this game for me, then. PK is part of what makes this interesting to me.
No way, people were still plenty toxic back then. There's just more people overall playing now, so that percentage represents a higher number of players.
Rust has become the worst beast. The original Rust was fun for everyone involved. You could cause a lot of mayhem whether you were new or had a 2 week run. Idk why they fucking ruined that.
Has it though? Ultima Online was full of anecdotes about experienced players tormenting newbies by, e.g., building bookcases around their characters so that they would be permanently stuck.
I don't agree with labeling experienced characters slaughtering weaker characters "toxicity." How could anyone possibly not see that coming? How do these devs think war works? Did they really expect everyone to line up nicely and only engage in a fight if you have a perfectly sporting 50% change of dying? Did they really expect players to imbibe the milk of human kindness and organically recreate the perfectly curated, predictable, safe battleground experience? Come on.
Eve Online manages to make open PvP work in null sec by having faith that players who really want to engage in that kind of MMO will use organic resources like player factions and alliances to solve the problem of wanton slaughter. If they don't want to make that kind of MMO, then I guess that's that, but don't bullshit us about "toxicity." It's just disappointing that after all these years Eve Online remains the only MMO where everything isn't locked down all to hell and "combat as sport" rather than "combat as war" is rigidly enforced. I guess Eve Online will forever remain the only genuinely interesting MMO.
I still remember starting Lineage 2 and being ganked by high-level-players all the time, and losing my equipment... was so not fun! I like the idea of open-world-pvp tho, but can't remember a mmorpg where this was well executed.
That's also a pretty interesting idea. In general I feel the attacker(s) should always be in a disadvantage.
I mean, I don't think PvP absolutely has to involve you killing the other player(s). PvP only really has to mean that you're competing with the other player(s), right? Maybe the people who are so against this idea need to realize that there are other ways to compete with people that don't involve killing their characters.
The pvp people want involves killing other players. No need to be so condescending.
carebears win again smh
i'm not sure i ever had any faith in amazon's game dev tbh so it's not surprising they'd walk their shit back until they crossed a line into why even bother anymore territory
they were never going to commit to a niche game like open world sandbox pvp
of course in doing so they've lost the thing that made them stand out, so now it doesn't even matter
i'm not sure i ever had any faith in amazon's game dev tbh so it's not surprising they'd walk their shit back until they crossed a line into why even bother anymore territory
they were never going to commit to a niche game like open world sandbox pvp
of course in doing so they've lost the thing that made them stand out, so now it doesn't even matter
They can point to whatever focus tests they want to.
It's dead on arrival.
The funny thing here is that Care Bears were, if anything, OP at PvP.
One hit from a Care Bear Stare and you were ganked.
Pictured: Your worst nightmare
And there are plenty of games that offer that. There's room for a game that does PvP differently.
What about implementing some kind of incentivized Sherpa system to help new players get on their feet?
why don't they just separate the servers then
I always find it interesting that devs don't like to give options on this front. Us PvE players know how to get the most out of a game that has the option to flag PvP or not. There is a reason why PvE servers still strive in tons of mmorpgs. Because the community and heads of those servers know how to keep people interested. If people get bored of it, they can just transfer off.....not hard
I always find it interesting that devs don't like to give options on this front. Us PvE players know how to get the most out of a game that has the option to flag PvP or not. There is a reason why PvE servers still strive in tons of mmorpgs. Because the community and heads of those servers know how to keep people interested. If people get bored of it, they can just transfer off.....not hard
Wow has an option to enable/disable pvp in all servers. You can change it on the fly. Having pvp enabled gives you certain boosts (like more xp).
Or just do it like wow.
I'd take this too, only changeable in the very main cities. If i feel like PvP'ing i can do structured normally....or take the risk and get a bonus in the field. It doesn't provide anyone with a disadvantage come end game.....but it gives enough for people who want to get rep faster a reason to do it.
I like Runescape, Albion or EVE approaches.
You have large portions of the game without PVP (or where PVP is practically impossible), but the most dangerous/rewarding areas are PVP zones. Being on the constant lookout for enemies is tiring, and having no players enemies is boring.
You have large portions of the game without PVP (or where PVP is practically impossible), but the most dangerous/rewarding areas are PVP zones. Being on the constant lookout for enemies is tiring, and having no players enemies is boring.
There really aren't any decent, full pvp, non-survival, massively multiplayer games out there. Things like Rust, Age of Conan, and Atlas (lol) have limited server numbers and don't provide an equivalent gameplay experience to other, older pvp-centric games. The other MMORPGs on the market don't have the option for non-instanced pvp (ESO, GW2, FFXIV) or the option to flag pvp is kinda crappy (WoW). But there's no real reason that open pvp and other forms of player competition can't exist side-by-side, it's just that there's an inherent gameplay style that arises when open, player killing-focused pvp is a thing.
However, I don't think that someone that's ganked should drop their inventory. Especially because it's supposedly an action-based combat system, so player skill can outstrip player gear to an extent. A good, high level player could equip crap gear, flag as Criminal, and then go grief low level players/the players that aren't very good and cause them to drop their inventory. That sucks.
But! If you do want to keep full loot pvp, you make it punishing to be a criminal. You drop full gear, full loot, and maybe you can't go back into most towns and safe areas for a certain amount of time. The timer doesn't tic down when you're logged off. There are a ton of creative mechanics that a game designer could certainly come up and implement that would allow for open pvp to be less toxic.
I think you are just not looking... At all. Maybe you are part of the problem? Wishing for the PVP-focused MMO, and then NOT playing anything that comes out.
There is Black Desert (PVP all but towns) or Albion (PVP in all but towns/low level areas). Pretty sure the list is much longer.
Black Desert doesn't really count. That game is the emobidiment of pay-to-win if you even want to get strong enough to participate in pvp. You need pets to make money at anything resembling a decent rate and the only way to reliably get pets is from the cash shop--and they're $10 lol. Albion is pretty awful and has been struggling for a bit, as is Legends of Aria. It's telling when a fan-run server is more popular than the official ones.
So, correction I guess: There aren't any good open pvp MMOs other than Old School Runescape I guess?
That quote is pretty much what I came to say. I didn't get far in the alpha, but from the little I played the whole point of the game seemed to be its pvp and without it I'm not sure for whom this game is for. And as someone who didn't get far, there were ways to get around the ganking already in the game like random spawn points after death, sanctuaries, and inventory banks in said sanctuaries.
Last edited:
You aren't playing the game because it asks $10 for the pet? Just buy the pet. WoW asks $15 every month, Runescape asks for $10. However, I am aware of cash-shop in BDO. If have you played the game for long, you might have a better understanding.
Don't know how you can have fun in Runescape PVP (old or new). It is super crap for clans, Wilderness is a waste of time, and it is a boring clicker combat with no builds or strategies. You equip the best gear you are willing to lose, and off you go. And because nobody risks anything valuable, PVP is just bashing heads for nothing in value even if you Pk others.
Albion has Very Positive recent reviews on Steam. Internet says that Albion has 41.5k daily players. It is grindy compared to others, but nowhere near as Runescape, and the entire game is built with clans/objectives/PVP as the only way to play the game past low level areas. If that game is struggling, it is because there isn't big audience for the PVP-focused MMO. People really prefer far buggier and less developed survival online experiences compared to fantasy PVP MMORPGs.
Not really. There were 2 pvp modes in the game during alpha, the open world stuff that's getting removed and the outpost sieges which I'm guessing are still there. Basically theres outpost all over the map and guilds are able to purchase them with enough gold. Other guilds are able to challenge your ownership of said plot by scheduling a siege which starts a timer for a pvp match in the map for the plot. The timer is in days and there's a cooldown attached so everyone is able to prep and recover from sieges before the next one.
Last edited:
Ultima Online mostly solved this already. Do an aggressive version of a system that puts bounties on player killers, so you have a lot of people hunting down murderers.
MMO developers are still terrified of allowing for freeform drama between players in 2020? What, do we need another WoW clone? I thought the entirety of the 2010s already showed us that there's nowhere to go with that formula that doesn't result in your players going back to the real thing.
It's so strange that the Souls games put this system in a game primarily played solo, and were very popular, but actual MMOs shy away from it.
MMO developers are still terrified of allowing for freeform drama between players in 2020? What, do we need another WoW clone? I thought the entirety of the 2010s already showed us that there's nowhere to go with that formula that doesn't result in your players going back to the real thing.
It's so strange that the Souls games put this system in a game primarily played solo, and were very popular, but actual MMOs shy away from it.
That is what happens when you come too hard before shit is set in stone, and gamers will never let you forget your words
Just have PVE and PVP servers, I really don't understand why it's some huge division of resources. Open world PVP is by far the best iteration of PVP to me, it's what uniquely separates MMOs from any other game. Yes, I get that getting ganked and camped is really unfun but another thing that incentivizes is playing with other people, which is also a unique thing about MMOs and I would say in an MMO the entire overarching design should always have in mind how you get other people to group up and play together.
Always seemed strange to me Amazon was making such a hardcore game that would drive the majority of people away in droves. I had my fun in rust but full loot open PvP is brutal and get's tiresome unless you have a ganksquad. So this is honestly probably a smarter move to appeal to a bigger demographic. However nothing I've seen of this games PVE offering seems compelling enough to attract people long term. We'll see how it shapes up.
Just took this game off my list of one to look out for. PvP was the core of this game, taking it out is a death sentence for its success.
Kinda waiting for Amazon to stop developing games tbh. New World and that awful esport game makes me wonder if they will ever be able to output anything good. They would still have Lumberyard. They could just develop that and leave the games to the studios that know how to make them.
Every open world pvp game I've ever seen has had people ganking the piss out of new players for shits and giggles. It's a toxic environment by default.
This problem was pretty much fucking solved with Ultima Online.
Exactly.
We have people in this thread blaming "carebears" instead of the toxic players. The toxicity is unfortunately widespread.
Wow. How to kill any hype your game had in a single paragraph.
Good luck selling people on another theme park MMO in 2020.
Don't care without full pvp personally. My days playing EVE online and another full loot pvp mmo that i wont name were some of the best times I had gaming. Defending and attacking warpholes in eve. Infiltrating other groups for info, server wide wars, alliances, managing our politics. Controlling markets, hiring mercs to push people and groups out that you don't like on the low. There's nothing better than a game where your items matter and the loss is real, especially when there's a constant sense of danger or that feeling when you overcome the odds. I remember having a server war against my group in this other full loot mmo I played and that feeling when we would kite and beat double to triple our numbers due to skill was such a rush. Sad that we don't see more games like these personally. I get little enjoyment from fetch quests, farming trash mobs and PvE grinding in most other games.
What is this game now? Generic quests, people fighting mobs in random locations + PVP minigames/instances?
