Are they on some kind of tight budget or something? My very first MMO was Asheron's Call, and that had both PvE and PvP servers, and this was back in 1999. PvE is fine for some games, but I'd like to see open world PvP more.
-
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
Are they on some kind of tight budget or something? My very first MMO was Asheron's Call, and that had both PvE and PvP servers, and this was back in 1999. PvE is fine for some games, but I'd like to see open world PvP more.
Mhmm, this is a really weird dynamic to see play out.
Personally, getting repeatedly ganked like that would be fucking terrible and it seems that they saw that it was actively deterring new players from sticking with the game. I absolutely think this would enable a lot of toxicity as "developer supported", and we absolutely need less of that in gaming. This whining about "carebears" shit sucks.
...but on the other hand, I can see the appeal of having pking. Even if it's just because it's been kinda romanticized elsewhere, that danger can be exciting and I get why that would give this appeal over MMOs. I'm entirely unfamiliar with this "theme park" vs "sandbox" stuff, but I can see why there's a want for this... even if that seems like a niche. So it does really feel like this could have been handled better, or at least with less finality? Could easily just start with no inventory dropping, or safe zones, or a toggle, and so on. That would be easier to then gradually adjust based on feedback/observations and how you saw player numbers increase or decrease, and that kind of tuning would probably be less off-putting for everyone involved. It does feel less toxic if it's something you're able to work your way up to, rather than immediately being overpowered without any chance to escape, so there's a middle ground that could have been reached.
Or maybe people were just being so persistently shitty that it'd have been too much regardless. Who knows.
Personally, getting repeatedly ganked like that would be fucking terrible and it seems that they saw that it was actively deterring new players from sticking with the game. I absolutely think this would enable a lot of toxicity as "developer supported", and we absolutely need less of that in gaming. This whining about "carebears" shit sucks.
...but on the other hand, I can see the appeal of having pking. Even if it's just because it's been kinda romanticized elsewhere, that danger can be exciting and I get why that would give this appeal over MMOs. I'm entirely unfamiliar with this "theme park" vs "sandbox" stuff, but I can see why there's a want for this... even if that seems like a niche. So it does really feel like this could have been handled better, or at least with less finality? Could easily just start with no inventory dropping, or safe zones, or a toggle, and so on. That would be easier to then gradually adjust based on feedback/observations and how you saw player numbers increase or decrease, and that kind of tuning would probably be less off-putting for everyone involved. It does feel less toxic if it's something you're able to work your way up to, rather than immediately being overpowered without any chance to escape, so there's a middle ground that could have been reached.
Or maybe people were just being so persistently shitty that it'd have been too much regardless. Who knows.
It almost killed Ultima Online as well. UO was saved by Trammel making PvP optional.
PvP focused MMOs have almost died out. It was foolish of Amazon to even try to make one.
An easy solution is to have PVP be an on or off option you can tick in the menu.
I recall a story I heard a while back about an MMO that had open world pvp. Eventually, they made pve only servers, and so many people transfered to those that the people on the pvp servers complained that there wasn't anyone to ~~gank~~ engage in challenging battles against people of equal skill with.
This post on the subreddit echos my thoughts on open world pvp.
They emphasis the difference between a pvp game, and a pk game, and New World was becoming a PK game.
This post on the subreddit echos my thoughts on open world pvp.
They emphasis the difference between a pvp game, and a pk game, and New World was becoming a PK game.
People whining about wanting to harass lower level players out of the game is some nonsense, but I don't understand how this would be hard to solve. Damage scaling. Don't drop inventory if the levels aren't within a certain range. Have an "unable to be PvP'd" timer which scales based on the level gap of the last death. A crime and consequence system which actually lives up to its name. What did they try?
Mordred was SO fun, and having the dynamic of open-world PvP made the server feel tense in a really good way. The communities that arose on that server were something else lol. It allowed for different play styles, too. So many gankers rocked Minstrels, so I made a Champion and just wandered, baiting them. Good fun.
It's unfortunate that New World is abandoning the possibilities that this kind of gameplay opens up.
People would shit their pants trying to play Asherons Call Darktide with this attitude.
It's not toxicity, it's a play style. When this would happen in AC, there were guilds of "good" players who would go to war with the pkers and protect the lower levels. That is how organic, Freeform MMO gameplay should work, players working together to help or hinder each other. If you don't like it, don't play on a pvp server.
It's not toxicity, it's a play style. When this would happen in AC, there were guilds of "good" players who would go to war with the pkers and protect the lower levels. That is how organic, Freeform MMO gameplay should work, players working together to help or hinder each other. If you don't like it, don't play on a pvp server.
Exactly! The same happened on the DAoC PvP server, and it was amazing. The sense of agency that comes with being part of a community of protectors amidst gaggles of gankers is refreshing. It was the first time I ever felt that I was, as a player, truly helping to shape the game as it was being played.
Yup. In old-school WoW you were either getting ganked constantly or you weren't on a PvP server.
It doesn't really solve the problem to be honest because the PvP servers tend to be pretty toxic cesspools, while the PvE servers tend to be much more passive and co-operative.
Essentially I think the PvP and PvE servers attract quite specific types of players, and by separating them out you get more extremes. It tends to make the PvP only servers a bad environment for someone who just wanted a balanced experience of the game.
It's also the case that when you build faction PvP into the game, there are elements beyond combat that factor into your success, such as when you choose to hunt, where you attack, etc. But on PvP specific servers (where there are non-PvP alternatives) because everyone is ready for PvP all of the time, it feels like you loose that strategic element.
I used to play an MMO called Dofus that featured open PvP which I feel worked pretty well. Essentially anyone could be attacked by anyone, but if they were not aligned to a faction then NPC guards would appear to protect them. So, like a flag system but one where you could also push the rules if you were willing to suffer consequences. Unlike flags though, being part of a faction meant that PvP was always on for you, not something you could flag on and off, so that meant a lot of players were encouraged into that system. You could abandon your alignment whenever you pleased but that would mean losing your alignment standing, so most players did not want to.
Basically, you can create open PvP while encouraging PvP between players that want to fight, and punishing players that attack those that don't want to. It doesn't always have to be a complete separation of PvP and PvE server, and I think sometimes that separation goes against the design intent.
This is what I'm saying though, by creating those PvE only servers you have all of the social, co-operative players in a separate space and that creates a different dynamic for the whole game. PvP servers end up being gank city, whereas if PvE servers did not exist, those players on the PvE server would often be the type to form alignments and co-operate to protect each other.
There's definitely a middle ground between strictly PvP or PvE servers which I think can be more interesting.
And even if you did get all your shit looted from you and running around naked like a chicken with its head cut off....that is where the vassal/patron system came in and your patron would help supply you and in return a % of your gained experience would go to your patron. There were plenty of times I lost some really good gear, but was replaced be even BETTER gear by people in my guild who wanted to help.
a game that focused on pve is my kind of game. I'm not competitive in the slightest so pvp hasnt done it for me like ever.
Why not just have PVP server and non-PVP server, like WOW did? Wasn't this problem solved 20 years ago?
Personally i like world PVP and I accept the risk of being griefed -- risk and tension is part of what makes world pvp fun -- so I would gladly play on the PVP server, but I also am fine if other people play on PVE. If the game is PVE servers only that's a big turn off
This is simply not true though. I played PVP only servers in World of Warcraft between 2004 and 2010 and it was always fine. We had lots of great people and it worked itself out. Sometimes you got killed when questing, and that's *fine*. To people who like PVP, the risk of that happening is what makes it fun.
I don't know what you're saying or what your reasoning is that PVP servers shouldn't be allowed to exist.
Personally i like world PVP and I accept the risk of being griefed -- risk and tension is part of what makes world pvp fun -- so I would gladly play on the PVP server, but I also am fine if other people play on PVE. If the game is PVE servers only that's a big turn off
This is simply not true though. I played PVP only servers in World of Warcraft between 2004 and 2010 and it was always fine. We had lots of great people and it worked itself out. Sometimes you got killed when questing, and that's *fine*. To people who like PVP, the risk of that happening is what makes it fun.
I don't know what you're saying or what your reasoning is that PVP servers shouldn't be allowed to exist.
Last edited:
last 'mainstream' open world game that tried to toe a safe line with "pvp -- AT YOUR OWN RISK" was fallout 76 and it was neutered to the point of pointlessness. you can argue it was a disaster of a game but even without the game's troubles the point still stands
i can respect why any developer would want to shelve that aspect altogether. if you want to argue otherwise fine but don't complain when XxXGokuKilla420 drops a bunch of F and N bombs on you with no consequence
i can respect why any developer would want to shelve that aspect altogether. if you want to argue otherwise fine but don't complain when XxXGokuKilla420 drops a bunch of F and N bombs on you with no consequence
I feel like removing open PvP detracts from the whole theme of the game. New world. Frontier conflict. People operating on the fringes of tenuous laws. The kind of emergent gameplay that can come from that cannot be simulated by theme park-style behaviour direction via restricting PvP to specific areas. Removing open PvP detracts from the basic theme of the game, imo.
Don't get me wrong... I like PvE-based gameplay as well. Hell, I play ESO and I play PvE in that game far more than I do PvP, but that's because it's so segmented. When PvP-enabled gameplay is walled off from PvE, those systems are directing how the game is supposed to be played. When they are combined, you see player behaviors actually shaping what the game becomes, and it can be awesome. The trick is finding ways to not specifically reward high-level gankers for griefing lower-level folks, but there are lots of ways to do that.
Don't get me wrong... I like PvE-based gameplay as well. Hell, I play ESO and I play PvE in that game far more than I do PvP, but that's because it's so segmented. When PvP-enabled gameplay is walled off from PvE, those systems are directing how the game is supposed to be played. When they are combined, you see player behaviors actually shaping what the game becomes, and it can be awesome. The trick is finding ways to not specifically reward high-level gankers for griefing lower-level folks, but there are lots of ways to do that.
I guess they could always create an area like an arena where PVP is enabled is they want to implement it later, hell, if the toxicity is the problem, they could make the player killing just be enable when the players that want to fight sent an agreed to a duel request, that way they can just be killed by the player that they are going to duel and no one else.
Which is why you have in game moderators to take care of that type of behavior.
They can and will likely do this in a PVP game with no consequence as they take over your exp grind spot with all of their cash shop skins and perfectly rolled pay to win upgrade system gear.
Edit: Oops I meant PVP, but it's the true for both. With PVE they can take all of the enemies, or they can go after you in PVP and kill you over and over, both with superior pay 2 win gear. Griefing is much easier and driect with PVP.
Last edited:
I think we've seen from successful MMOs that PvP being firmly separated from PvE is better for the long term success of MMOs in this day in age.
If a studio, filled to the brim with EQ and UO nostalgics, wants to create a game where PKing is the norm they should expect it to be a low subscription affair. I'd be right there, wishing it a success, but I wouldn't have much faith in it sticking around.
If a studio, filled to the brim with EQ and UO nostalgics, wants to create a game where PKing is the norm they should expect it to be a low subscription affair. I'd be right there, wishing it a success, but I wouldn't have much faith in it sticking around.
sure enough but pvp you're increasing 'community management' by fourfold. i dunno what kind of man power they're working with here but i'll go out on a limb and say this studio isn't up to dealing with every instance if that's where the game goes
It was successful game for many years. There are tons of theme park MMOs, that still are playable and supported and many that died out.
It was good that we finally had something different for once. Albion Online for example is good game, i liked it, but it was too grindy too me and it was slightly lacking on launch, but it is still being played. I think that there is still market for full loot pvp MMOs.
As someone who had high expectations for this game I'm extremely disappointed. There was talk of a coalition forming between my friends which would've been the standard for most people lol. But because people like to jump into an MMO environment SOLO and then complain about getting murked, this fun feature is now deemed """"toxic"""" based on the dealings of a handful of alpha players.
Never played Eve, but the alpha of NW sounds somewhat like it. IIRC there was a criminal system for player killing outside of sieges, sanctuary outpost that didn't allow any pvp or criminals, outlaw outposts with pvp and criminals welcomed, anything goes in the wilderness between outpost, and the guild vs guild fort sieges all in one shared map. The new version though seems to do away with all the pvp done outside of the siege stuff, possibly moves them into instances instead of the open world, and also decreases the penalty of your side losing.
I'm personally for this change but I wish they had PVP servers to at least attempt to satisfy both parties.
Very far, game comes out in May
Very far, game comes out in May
OP
OP
Closed beta will be in April. People who pre-order can play.
Releases May.
4 - 5 years in development, it was announced a little over 3 years ago.
Considering it was build around PVP it seems more like a temporary band-aid to me. People feedback from the Alpha and Beta probably mentioned this a lot and to have bigger install base at launch there won't be much of it. Then they will put it back with strict rules and monetized options later on.
Seems like they did nothing to mitigate that, and it went as well as you can expect.
• Segment areas into level-gated zones
• Segment areas into safe/low/high risk zones, or similar tiers where high-level players would be wasting time in low-medium level areas
• Lasting drawbacks for attacking players: karma, bounties or increased death penalty
Who wants to fight other players before learning the game. PVP should be something players grow into as opposed to being forced to participate in. The late-game resources and activities should be in the PVP zones.
It is Amazon Studios, so far they have only shipped failure racing game or cancelled other projects. Despite the budget and manpower, I have no confidence in their ability to deliver anything worth players: whether it is Moba, survival, sandbox or themepark MMO.
Last edited:
having a playerbase who derive enjoyment from ganking ipso facto means you have a toxic player base. You can introduce competitive pvp later in a limited way.
But doing so at launch, esp in a way to attract gankers, will ruin the community. It is like starting an unmoderated forum. At first, there will be a nice mix, but it wont take long before normal/nice people leave.
But doing so at launch, esp in a way to attract gankers, will ruin the community. It is like starting an unmoderated forum. At first, there will be a nice mix, but it wont take long before normal/nice people leave.
PvP is handled so badly in so many mmos I don't blame them for cutting it tbh. Even in MMOs that have had it for years they still can't balance it and it becomes such a clusterfuck that the balancing bleeds over into every other aspect of the game. PvP is always something I idealise in my head but then when I experience whatever iteration they have made, it always disappoints.
Toxicity of player killing almost meant the main character, Haseo, would have never come back to the game. He was a newbie to the game and was tricked by two veteran players who then killed him at the end of a dungeon and took all his loot and reward for completing it. He eventually became a player killer killer because of stuff like this while in his hunt for Tri-Edge.
Mordred was the red headed stepchild cesspool of DAOC, and in the golden days was by far one of the smallest servers, where people would be getting serial griefed unless they were in a PK gang.
I would know, my wife and I tried to level characters there and were getting followed and harrassed by groups every time we left sanctuary cities. I think we both quit this miserable experience before we hit 30, going back to and enjoying regular RvR servers.
Amazon has the right idea here, you don't make a big budget mmo by catering to a niche hardcore experience which was in idea even more extreme than Eve Online (which has Hisec).
How well they will execute remains to be seen, but I am not surprised at all by the results of their tests, as it was also my experience.
Last edited:
It's barely started. They have this plus a Lord of the Rings MMO in the works (not to be confused with the existing one) and undoubtedly other stuff as well.
Yeah, Ultima Online was successful for many years ....after they dumped forced PvP.
Former developer saying PvP was driving away over 70% of new players in the early days of Ultima Online and that EA almost shut down UO because of it.
There is no market for full loot PvP MMOs, not anymore. Theres barely a market for forced PvP MMOs currently. The problem is that when want their PvP "fix" they no longer turn to MMOs for it. Its either Battle Royale games or MOBAs or something else that offers immediate satisfaction and doesnt have you grind out hundreds of hours of tedium to get to the fun part.