How to alienate your PVP community
- Thread starter Gladiator
- Start date
what i meant was role play pvp established in the earlier posts as the punishments and rep made them quit not roleplaying but the game is described as a full loot pvp mmo is what it saysAm I the only one who read this and had to relook at the MO2 page?
MMORPG.
RPG...
Role Play Game
And they left because of RP PvP in a MMORPG game that has PvP and full loot?
I think the problem is mostly because pvp is not done and MO2 needs to define zones for different rulesets very much like eve or albion. Right now I still think pking as a playstyle is way to easy and small scale pvp or alliance pvp is not possible.
Mortal really needs zones that punishes pking more severely and who pks there should be red while adding zones where you know a fight is with less and also zones without consequences at all.
This one zone type fits all will not really work if you ask me.
Mortal really needs zones that punishes pking more severely and who pks there should be red while adding zones where you know a fight is with less and also zones without consequences at all.
This one zone type fits all will not really work if you ask me.
I don't understand why they think it's a good idea to make people run for miles after dying. It only punishes solos and small clans that don't have spiritists or a clan stronghold to spawn in and it makes the game feel like a chore.
What in the world are you talking about. Classic wow sold 1.4 million copies in the first two years and at its peak had 118m people playing. I can't say for sure because I can't find any population statistics from the time period 2004 but just based on it being best selling game first 2 years in a row I highly doubt pop was ever lower than hundreds of thousands. Wow is massively multiplayer by every standard lol
The term MMO is used for lots of games throughout the decades. Some of the earliest MMORPGs had server caps of 1000 players. Others had caps of 500 players or less. Some have had caps as high as 10,000 players or more. Some people consider games like League of Legends or Star Citizen a MMORPG because they allow multiple players to interact with each other, despite not having a server population of higher than 50.
Sure. There's a huge difference in the feeling you get when playing an MMO that caps servers at 2500 but millions of people are playing. You have a sense of being in a larger community whilst still living within a smaller subset of that community.
There's a big difference between that and playing an MMO that proclaimed one server with 100k cap yet in reality bogs down with Ques at 2k... as long as there are server issues, it doesn't matter how good the game might become because there will always be that hard cap limit for the future growth of the game.
Idk, maybe it's just me but I get an entirely different internal feeling between those two different scenarios of which I've personally experienced both.
Fair enough I'll give you this one. Suppose the definition of MMO is up for dispute and I don't get any thrill out of debating it like an English teacher might.
Same token if you did leave a witness in the medieval-ish times you would have had a hunting party come after you, several times larger than the few people who are with you. There are countless documented cases of this throughout the centuries. Hell even when there were no witnesses there were cases of thousands of people looking for a small group of people or an individual.
Here is major event that illustrates this.
In 1066 September a small Norse (viking) force landed in the central England region on the east coast. They swiftly defeated the forces in the area in a matter of days. King Harold in the south of England several hundred kilometers away, before mass communication, heard about this defeat in the north. He then rallied his army and marched there in a matter of days. On the 25th of September of the same year, a mere 5 days after the Norse defeated the English army in the area King Harold defeated the Norse. He then heard of a Frankish invasion in the south of England, he turned his army and swiftly marched south. Where he in turn was defeated by William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings.
I shortened and left out a LOT of details but as you can see even without mass communication or even fast travel in the year 1066 a single man was able to rally a force of 15k men and march them several hundred kilometers at a rate of 40km a day and defeat a force of 10-11k Norsemen. I wonder if those Norsemen screamed zerg when King Harolds force took the field and the Norse only had 8k men ready to fight at the Battle of Stamford Bridge?
History is littered with examples like this. From antiquity dating back to the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians to more modern times like Somalia in 1994 or even in Vietnam in 1965.
All of this is fine and dandy, but in a sandbox game, this sort of situation should be created by the players, and ammended by the players.
A group of player bandits kill you?
Rally up a bunch of blue players and go take your revenge.
Thats how it should be. Id love to be followed around by a group of bounty hunters xd
And here we are, people
We know MO Is a zergfest, allways been. And it shouldn't, development should definitely aim to benefit small guilds and solo players instead of giving zergs tools.
Not saying zergs are precisely bad but saying the game is ment to be an imperial dreams zerg focused game is stretching.
Zergs are one of the things that killed MO1, and you could do analogies about it all day long but it's wouldn't change the fact that there were no tools for small groups or solo players that zergs didn't had already and it's a mistake to accept the reality that the game is zerg centered.
Grouping up have clear advantages, we know this and its time to benefit other playstyles now.
You can't ever justify zergs in MO by quoting historic moments of humanity. This Is a balance issue not a history simulator.
This Is not reality, analogies with reality don't work, this Is a game of fantasy and taking historic moments as references to justify shit tier game design Is not the way to go. You could keep doing it but it would only have anecdotal value.
And that is what happens, then those same bandits cry they got zerged by the blue mob that came out after those bandits.
Using real life as your default baseline in debates regarding the way things should be in a video game is topcringe my man.
This is a game, not a real life simulator. What happens/ed in real life doesn't matter here, the ONLY thing that matters is what is fun for players or not.
This is a game where you can cast magic spells, tame wild animals in seconds, carry around 90kg worth of weight like it's nothing, destroy physical matter with the click of a button, and resurrect after you die. Your debate style is barely a scratch above someone who argues solely in logical fallacies.
Because you probably didnt read what sparked me using real life as a debate point. The person I was responding to stated
"Sadly the main reason open pvp games just dont work how they should, is cuz coms exist. IRL if you find some guy out in the woods, medieval ish times, nobody is going to get called. Which makes it so games like MO can only be for the people who want to zerg, and the pve people who dont care. "-Jatix
If you notice he said IRL if you find some guy out in the woods.... IRL means In Real Life. This is why I brought up real life examples of people who did exactly that.
A statement has never been more wrong. Of course, real life is the standard basis for everything that happens here in the game.
We are willing to accept certain additions (e.g. magic) because they enrich the gaming experience.
There are countless mechanisms in the game that are based on the RL, almost all of your special skills/specializations for each weapon type have been introduced into the game from the RL. And that's exactly how you judge whether the game feels good (realistic). So the comparison with the RL is absolutely fine.
I'm curious how you would react if SV announces tomorrow that the Imperial scientists in Tindrem have invented automatic rifles and grenade launchers. Then you and a lot of other people would probably say SV is going completely nuts now, because somehow it doesn't fit into your imagination.
I could then adopt your argument and say, "Hey, this is a fantasy game and not a real simulation, it's great fun destroying enemy fortresses with grenade launchers".
However, should SV announce that Imperial scientists have invented trebuchets, which can be used in sieges to destroy fortresses, then I'm sure the com's outcry would be far less than at the introduction of grenade launchers.
And why? Because many people have an idea of a real medieval world in their heads and then check many things in the game to see if they make sense.