PvP - instanced or wild ? - Page 5

fivetigers · 4th September 2008, 02:31

If we wanted instanced PvP, we could play Guildwars. Zoned PvP maybe (like an army retreats into their castle, and your team follows them in), but not instanced.

Defiant One · 9th September 2008, 23:16

I believe only "instanced" PvP will be participating in arena. And you wont be able to "grind" it for all your gametime, for not having a system like in WoW or GW, and having realistic arenas instead!

Kyoji · 13th September 2008, 03:43

instanced PvP is super-fail. Open (world) PvP, sandbox PvP is pure win.

dawnofdeath · 13th September 2008, 09:50

Yeah AoC is way zoned as well and it takes away the fun and the feeling of an open world

Hm tbh I wouldn't really mind if it were like WoW, long time ago since i played but there were quite few instances there right? Think it was only when entering a dungeon and switching continent.

Yojimbo · 17th September 2008, 19:23

For the love of mike, NO INSTANCES! All the various neat little mini games and training wants can happen real time in the same world. If lineage 2 could do it with the U2 engine, then there's no reason why Mortal can't do it with the U3 engine. If we need site specific pvp rules so be it (can't fight in town, no rep hit for kills in arena, etc) but, NO INSTANCES! Beyond breaking immersion it's just lazy game making IMO. Take a long hard look at some of the solutions L2 (lineage 2) came up with in order to create more skirmishes and such (E.G. fortress's, arenas, limited hunting zones)

FYI L2 is far from the holy grail of games. But, it did do ALLOT of the leg work on how to focus large scale and small scale pvp in an open world. Please, please, please, devs check out their rule sets.

Archaaz · 18th September 2008, 00:52

I'll go ahead and weigh in, though my opinion differs little from the majority here (thank goodness). No instances, of any sort. I hope for one, big seamless world. Also, no zones and no starter areas. These features do not belong in a sandbox game. As matter of fact, these elements are quite contrary to the goal of a true sandbox game.

On the subject of starter/newbie zones (since they were mentioned earlier in the thread), they do far more damage than merely offering a con system for griefers, particularly the types which have arisen in games such as WoW and the once great game that is UO. They break immersion and dispel much of the initial excitement by coddling new players. This is true whether they are merely safe zones or clumsy tutorials or both.

I recall the thrill of first entering UO, that wild uncertainty that came from being launched headlong into the game world with little or no clue as to what to do or how to do it. Everything was new and so trial and error was the name of the game- for everything from movement, to discovering how to talk to other PC’s, to learning the ins and outs of combat. It was chaos. If you were outside the city (any city) gates you were fair game, and you did not learn this any other way than a harsh little lesson in reality. Of course, that was back when the concept of MMOs was rather new. Certainly a now widespread familiarity with MMOs will have bred a certain innate understanding, but newbie zones are just bad juju.

M-Demon · 18th September 2008, 01:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaaz

I recall the thrill of first entering UO, that wild uncertainty that came from being launched headlong into the game world with little or no clue as to what to do or how to do it. Everything was new and so trial and error was the name of the game- for everything from movement, to discovering how to talk to other PC’s, to learning the ins and outs of combat to. It was chaos. If you were outside the city (any city) gates you were fair game, and you did not learn this any other way than a harsh little lesson in reality. Of course, that was back when the concept of MMOs was rather new. Certainly a now widespread familiarity with MMOs will have bred a certain innate understanding, but newbie zones are just bad juju.

Heh. The fun old days. Going out into the Yew animal pens and getting into slaughter fests. Getting owned near the Brit Stables by the first PK I ever met.

But yeah, I also agree the complete lack of newbie zones makes your overall immersion in the game far more enjoyable ... as well as a unique experience. But no game will be as chaotic or new as UO was. Like you said, UO was first of it's kind ... and at that time the internet wasn't the beast it now is. The spread of info wasn't out there like it is now nor were the amount of users. The internet kicked ass back in those days. Now its a giant advertisement. Wealth of info? Sure. But a greater wealth of shit.

You create a game now .... 10 days later you have 100's of tutorials, number crunching, guides, and all that jazz that never existed back in 1997. It's part of why I hate MMO's now. They were far better when you had to learn everything in game.

...and yeah, forums were around back then but it just wasn't the same as it is today. Anyways. NO instaces. NO newbie zones. Start in cities just like you did in UO. You never move past them and you always use them ... so why not?

Byggin · 23rd September 2008, 02:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by M-Demon

You create a game now .... 10 days later you have 100's of tutorials, number crunching, guides, and all that jazz that never existed back in 1997. It's part of why I hate MMO's now. They were far better when you had to learn everything in game.

I agree, the devs should hide all the information even your characters stats. Without some degree of unpredictability the game becomes stagnant quickly. In DAOC now they have character planning programs, you can figure out everything, Hitpoints, block rate, evade rate, everything. So basically you can make two different characters look at all the stats side by side and figure out who will win.

Arxon Havenloft · 23rd September 2008, 07:32

The best way for them to fix things such as that is the make them ever changing. Look at the guide websites out there. There is a way around these things.. Name multiple quests the same, so they cannot be instantly searched for. If Items aren't that great to begin with then no one will keep record of what can drop what. Make crafting branch off in so many different ways that it will take a long time before any one player can have a working guide for it. Things like that could help, of course nothing will ever completely prevent it. Of course this is one area where PD would probably also benefit the game.

Unomat · 23rd September 2008, 08:00

Say it ain't so Arxon, are you slowly changing your view regarding the virtues of PD?

/offtopic

Arxon Havenloft · 23rd September 2008, 08:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unomat

Say it ain't so Arxon, are you slowly changing your view regarding the virtues of PD?

/offtopic

Keep dreaming

I'm merely making a statement. Not to turn this into a PD thread but I know the pros and cons of such a system and I'm on the other side of the fence :/

Unomat · 23rd September 2008, 13:22

Nope, wouldn't want that to happen to this thread :P

In response to M-Demon / Arxon:
Allowing players to research new skills would prevent relatively complete guides and databases mapping out the whole game, imho. I understand mechanics need to be predictable in order to allow players the illusion of being in control of what happens, that doesn't mean they need to be (almost) static though.

Tool · 23rd September 2008, 20:14

Absolutely no battleground-esque PvP!

Honorzeal · 26th September 2008, 17:09

I vote both =D

-Wild Pvp for skill of surviving
-Instanced Arena fighting for glory, Honor, and cash >

calleford · 2nd October 2008, 16:44

Wild PvP all the way, it's alot more fun and has no limits when it comes to players, everyone can join and fight!

Saviour · 2nd October 2008, 19:42

Indeed I don't see 1 good reason why we should have instanced pvp FFA all the way, though I do agree Arenas or similar could be put ingame for practising and such.

Kratos · 6th October 2008, 05:40

Wild pvp is probably what everybody wants.. but instanced pvp has its advantages.. there could be limitations .. Adding/modifying content would not be too troublesome..

Nevertheless i vote for wild because whats a MMO without adventure?.. Finding secret areas in a open massive world is what people would want.

Neek · 6th October 2008, 19:54

Instanced pvp offers little and has been done over and over again. The same terrain, the same conditions to win, and the same people sitting at the entrance to leech points.

World PvP is necessary, encouraged, and should not be compromised for instanced. If the devs want a great way to destroy player participation, interaction, and satisfaction, by all means, include instanced PvP.

velimirius · 18th October 2008, 21:09

Wild baby wild

Caballien · 18th October 2008, 23:18

Well said, Neek.

PvP shouldn't be put into a little box, it's much more fun when hot spots develop out in the world.

Rauge · 19th October 2008, 00:18

Both let you kill other players.. what is better than that?

tarsus · 22nd October 2008, 08:57

If you want tournaments and arenas and such to practice skills or hold competitions with prizes then organize one yourself, by scheduling the event and stationing guards to make sure it goes smoothly. Half the fun of doing anything is the possibility that it will be raided by a rival guild and you should be prepared for anything. Hell, you could even use tournaments to settle disputes between guilds or something but don't force some sort of instance mechanics into the game because you want some sort of 100% safe from interruption event.

darkghost · 22nd October 2008, 12:06

pvp should not have ristriction

it should be wild and u should be able to pvp anywhere even if its in a town ore a safe zone

Mathael · 22nd October 2008, 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkghost

pvp should not have ristriction

it should be wild and u should be able to pvp anywhere even if its in a town ore a safe zone

They have stated that about 80% of the game will not be safe and that it will be up to players and guards to enforce protection. As for instanced or wild, I would prefer PVPing outdoors more than an instance as there are less restrictions involved.

darkghost · 22nd October 2008, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathael

They have stated that about 80% of the game will not be safe and that it will be up to players and guards to enforce protection. As for instanced or wild, I would prefer PVPing outdoors more than an instance as there are less restrictions involved.

that sounds good but im just saying that u should be able to go nuts on some one even in a town ore safe zone it feels bether that way

Traceur · 1st November 2008, 06:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathael

They have stated that about 80% of the game will not be safe and that it will be up to players and guards to enforce protection. As for instanced or wild, I would prefer PVPing outdoors more than an instance as there are less restrictions involved.

i think what they meant by the other 20% is guarded areas - not that you can't PvP...

Laihei · 2nd November 2008, 05:23

The major problem with instanced PvP that I noticed in almost EVERY game with it, is that people do the instanced way more than they do the world.

WAR is a perfect example. The new halloween patch gave a little momentum, but before that, there was really no reason to do it. I honestly think that if you throw everyone into the world to fight and get rid of the instances, it will be a much more brutal/fun game. You could be leveling one day and all of a sudden you run into a huge battle of players w

View Poll Results: What do you prefer? Battle Ground or Wild PvP ?
Instanced PvP (like battle ground).	7	1.83%
Wild PvP (everywhere in the world).	317	82.77%
Both.	59	15.40%
Voters: 383. You may not vote on this poll

4th September 2008, 02:31	#161 (permalink)
fivetigers Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 15 Rep Power: 1	If we wanted instanced PvP, we could play Guildwars. Zoned PvP maybe (like an army retreats into their castle, and your team follows them in), but not instanced. __________________ Asheron's Call was the greatest game ever.

13th September 2008, 03:43	#163 (permalink)
Kyoji Newbie Join Date: Sep 2008 Age: 24 Posts: 16 Rep Power: 0	instanced PvP is super-fail. Open (world) PvP, sandbox PvP is pure win. __________________ {(XoO)} Xen of Onslaught

18th September 2008, 00:52	#166 (permalink)
Archaaz Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 395 Rep Power: 1	I'll go ahead and weigh in, though my opinion differs little from the majority here (thank goodness). No instances, of any sort. I hope for one, big seamless world. Also, no zones and no starter areas. These features do not belong in a sandbox game. As matter of fact, these elements are quite contrary to the goal of a true sandbox game. On the subject of starter/newbie zones (since they were mentioned earlier in the thread), they do far more damage than merely offering a con system for griefers, particularly the types which have arisen in games such as WoW and the once great game that is UO. They break immersion and dispel much of the initial excitement by coddling new players. This is true whether they are merely safe zones or clumsy tutorials or both. I recall the thrill of first entering UO, that wild uncertainty that came from being launched headlong into the game world with little or no clue as to what to do or how to do it. Everything was new and so trial and error was the name of the game- for everything from movement, to discovering how to talk to other PC’s, to learning the ins and outs of combat. It was chaos. If you were outside the city (any city) gates you were fair game, and you did not learn this any other way than a harsh little lesson in reality. Of course, that was back when the concept of MMOs was rather new. Certainly a now widespread familiarity with MMOs will have bred a certain innate understanding, but newbie zones are just bad juju. __________________ "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~Voltaire (Explorer 80%, Socializer 60%, Killer 40%, Achiever 20%) Last edited by Archaaz : 18th September 2008 at 02:13.

23rd September 2008, 20:14	#173 (permalink)
Tool Newbie Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 20 Rep Power: 1	Absolutely no battleground-esque PvP! __________________

9th September 2008, 23:16	#162 (permalink)
Defiant One Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Lithuania Age: 18 Posts: 223 Rep Power: 1	I believe only "instanced" PvP will be participating in arena. And you wont be able to "grind" it for all your gametime, for not having a system like in WoW or GW, and having realistic arenas instead!

13th September 2008, 09:50	#164 (permalink)
dawnofdeath Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Sweden Age: 21 Posts: 452 Rep Power: 0	Yeah AoC is way zoned as well and it takes away the fun and the feeling of an open world Hm tbh I wouldn't really mind if it were like WoW, long time ago since i played but there were quite few instances there right? Think it was only when entering a dungeon and switching continent.

17th September 2008, 19:23	#165 (permalink)
Yojimbo Newbie Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 7 Rep Power: 0	For the love of mike, NO INSTANCES! All the various neat little mini games and training wants can happen real time in the same world. If lineage 2 could do it with the U2 engine, then there's no reason why Mortal can't do it with the U3 engine. If we need site specific pvp rules so be it (can't fight in town, no rep hit for kills in arena, etc) but, NO INSTANCES! Beyond breaking immersion it's just lazy game making IMO. Take a long hard look at some of the solutions L2 (lineage 2) came up with in order to create more skirmishes and such (E.G. fortress's, arenas, limited hunting zones) FYI L2 is far from the holy grail of games. But, it did do ALLOT of the leg work on how to focus large scale and small scale pvp in an open world. Please, please, please, devs check out their rule sets.

26th September 2008, 17:09	#174 (permalink)
Honorzeal Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: NY, USA Age: 16 Posts: 102 Rep Power: 1	I vote both =D -Wild Pvp for skill of surviving -Instanced Arena fighting for glory, Honor, and cash > __________________ ~Honorzeal [Only the Strong Survive] <80% Explorer:> I cannot let the unknown stay unknown... It must be discovered! <60% Killer:> I enjoy a good duel/raid and I love the thrill of battle <40% Socializer:> Nothing beats a good time at a tavern with a group of friends <27% Achiever:> Huzzah! I climbed the mountain. Now, onward to buisness

2nd October 2008, 16:44	#175 (permalink)
calleford Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Skövde, Sweden \o/ Posts: 91 Rep Power: 0	Wild PvP all the way, it's alot more fun and has no limits when it comes to players, everyone can join and fight! __________________ http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/8...kguylolep0.jpg

2nd October 2008, 19:42	#176 (permalink)
Saviour Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 126 Rep Power: 1	Indeed I don't see 1 good reason why we should have instanced pvp FFA all the way, though I do agree Arenas or similar could be put ingame for practising and such. __________________ Killer: 73% Achiever: 67% Socializer: 33% Explorer: 27%

6th October 2008, 05:40	#177 (permalink)
Kratos Newbie Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 24 Rep Power: 1	Wild pvp is probably what everybody wants.. but instanced pvp has its advantages.. there could be limitations .. Adding/modifying content would not be too troublesome.. Nevertheless i vote for wild because whats a MMO without adventure?.. Finding secret areas in a open massive world is what people would want.

6th October 2008, 19:54	#178 (permalink)
Neek Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: ATX Age: 28 Posts: 409 Rep Power: 1	Instanced pvp offers little and has been done over and over again. The same terrain, the same conditions to win, and the same people sitting at the entrance to leech points. World PvP is necessary, encouraged, and should not be compromised for instanced. If the devs want a great way to destroy player participation, interaction, and satisfaction, by all means, include instanced PvP. __________________ Ghosts of War

18th October 2008, 21:09	#179 (permalink)
velimirius Newbie Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Montenegro Age: 19 Posts: 17 Rep Power: 1	Wild baby wild

18th October 2008, 23:18	#180 (permalink)
Caballien Newbie Join Date: May 2008 Location: Winder, GA Age: 19 Posts: 9 Rep Power: 0	Well said, Neek. PvP shouldn't be put into a little box, it's much more fun when hot spots develop out in the world.

19th October 2008, 00:18	#181 (permalink)
Rauge Newbie Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Kentucky Posts: 6 Rep Power: 0	Both let you kill other players.. what is better than that? __________________ As long as there is good on this planet, there will be evil. And as long as there is evil, there shall be good.

22nd October 2008, 08:57	#182 (permalink)
tarsus Newbie Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 5 Rep Power: 0	If you want tournaments and arenas and such to practice skills or hold competitions with prizes then organize one yourself, by scheduling the event and stationing guards to make sure it goes smoothly. Half the fun of doing anything is the possibility that it will be raided by a rival guild and you should be prepared for anything. Hell, you could even use tournaments to settle disputes between guilds or something but don't force some sort of instance mechanics into the game because you want some sort of 100% safe from interruption event.

22nd October 2008, 12:06	#183 (permalink)
darkghost Newbie Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: sweden Age: 18 Posts: 18 Rep Power: 1	pvp should not have ristriction it should be wild and u should be able to pvp anywhere even if its in a town ore a safe zone