Steam installeren
inloggen
|
taal
简体中文 (Chinees, vereenvoudigd)
繁體中文 (Chinees, traditioneel)
日本語 (Japans)
한국어 (Koreaans)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgaars)
Čeština (Tsjechisch)
Dansk (Deens)
Deutsch (Duits)
English (Engels)
Español-España (Spaans - Spanje)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spaans - Latijns-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Grieks)
Français (Frans)
Italiano (Italiaans)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Hongaars)
Norsk (Noors)
Polski (Pools)
Português (Portugees - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Braziliaans-Portugees)
Română (Roemeens)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Fins)
Svenska (Zweeds)
Türkçe (Turks)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamees)
Українська (Oekraïens)
Een vertaalprobleem melden
Dit topic is gesloten 
Een ontwikkelaar van deze app heeft een bericht gemarkeerd als antwoord op bovenstaand onderwerp.
Regels en richtlijnen voor discussies
Dit bericht rapporteren
1) first of all nothing i stated was about me, all i did was point out facts from other games that try this same type of system and how everyone of them failed (to the player not the DEV, because they made money). every post i see you put on this subject is you trying to make it sound like people are whining and you trying to degrade people to shut them up. just because people dont want to fight other players dont make them whiners.
2)MOST people want to play the content of the game not be a punching bag for some power leveling player ( sound like you) playing 20/24 hours a day just so you can get "soft targets" and block them from enjoying the game. people who talk like you dont want pvp they want to make others quit playing. i seen this countless time in other games.
3) if DEV want PVP in a game fine do one or the other not both. NO RPG game with both type of open world set ups was ever a success (meaning still popular or played). the idea of this type of game working out is every low. but that the thing if the DEV go all out on pvp they lose 75% of the players who would of played this game for the content. if they go pve they lose 25% of the players who would played it for the pvp only. so what they try to do is hug the line which it telling me they dont want this game to last and could be after the burst sell of the game like so many other game being sold on Steam.
everything i read and seen on this game tell me it will sell well but will get bad reviews then after a month or two and will be no better than New World. i dont want to see that. i miss the old style MMO RPGs, open world exploring/raiding/level and character building. yes there is some old ones still out but after playing them for years they have got repetitive. i like something new but i will not put time and money into a game just to see it wither. seeing how much games go for now i dont have a right to have concerns?
that the thing it not easy and i dont think i ever stated it would be. thats why i spoke out about trying to have both, it wont work.
bulk of pvpers are griefers and the ones that are not just haven't been playing pvp long enough. if you want it non griefing pvp make it "flag up" pvp but that not what pvper want. catching someone off guard while they fighting an NPC or mining (dont know what resource collecting like in this game so i use mining) is what they want , a "soft target" "carebear" or "scrub" yes this not the first time this has happen and they have names for people who dont care for pvp or in your words griefers have names for non pvpers.
That's wrong and you have to look at different games to see the real issue.
Flag up PvP is not very popular because most games get it wrong. But look at Albion Online, it does flag up PvP the right way and the game is insanely popular. Those PvPers are not griefers, not even close, but there's lots of PvP to found in that game.
But look at games like Rust, the way PvP is setup makes it's perfect for the worst kind of PvP types. So it's all about the implementation, not the player. Because the same can be said for PvE games, I've seen the same crappy behavior from them. Just look at EvE high sec, there are a ton of griefers there who will steal your ore and use exploits to get your ship destroyed.
I mean we all know bad people exist, there's no getting around that, but game devs can mitigate it with the right systems in place.
1. Not saying anything about you doesnt mean it wasnt a statement you made.
2. If "most" people want pvp why are 6 out of 10 of most played games currently on steam pvp
3. i'd suggest looking at the same list of the top steam played games and see if they were "successful"
You have main character syndrome with a health does of im making up things like they are true and using them to discuss a subject I want.
Not all games are made for you.
Our days of PvP are well behind us.
Too old, too slow, fingers stiffening up. Eyesight not as sharp.
Oh well.
Yeah, yeah, flame away, haters. Whatever.
Thanks to the OP for opening this and revealing what my wife and I needed to know.
every game you just stated other than rust have less than 10k players or less. ablion has only 7.6k players shown on steam charts, that not popular. EVE is all pvp even in high sec, people can still shoot you and found several ways to do it even if the COP strike back at them. they do whatever to get that "carebear" kills, they have around 1-2k actual players it only show more because most of players have 5-7 account to by pass the rules of training only 1 toon on 1 account. they use the atls to cheat. rust has 80k players but only bez they have a lot of pve servers only. there is more pve server on rust then pvp and on the pvp server of most have rules of engagement. i never said the flag up is popular only it is the only way to have pvp in a pve open world and i know it not popular bez you cant gank without asking.
i never said that there should be no pvp just no open world pvp or "you can only get this if you go here but you get flag for pvp". if theses 2 things happen the population of the game will drop after launch. this is not me threatening anything it is a fact. anything that force players into a fight with other player will be the death of this game, fact. nothing the two you say change this. in a way you all keep saying the same thing you accuse others of saying but for pvp."if the game not the way i want i wont play it".
but it dont matter i already see what's going to happen. they will make the game with pvp. with " it not force" but you will not get the best stuff unless you do pvp. theses zone will be camp, and 2 months after launch it will be another "the game had promise but....". and the player base wont be there. then a DLC will come out and be popular for another month. then gone again. i hope im wrong, so wrong. but i wouldnt bet on it. guess it will come down to how they implement the pvp and on which group of people they want to lose. the small group of players that want pvp or the larger group that dont want pvp and want to choose when they pvp. guess will see.
The numbers dont mean anything because Albion is active 24/7, every single town and every single tile has players in it. But that really wasn't my point.
I understand this game will be extremely niche just like Rust with its open world PvP, my point was you calling all PvP types griefers, because its just NOT true at all. I've encountered far more griefers in PvE only games. Most PvP types are like me and find NPCs to be boring and predictable.
It all depends on how the devs implement the PvP and safe zones.
For the record I won't be playing this game either haha!
i did look them all up and not 1 game in the top 10 current players games of steam charts are mix pvpve. they are ether all pvp or all pve, the only one that come close is Rust which is 15th in the list.
not one of them top PVP games is a RPG . they are shooter/team/battle royal games. all the ones that are top rpg types are pve are co-op/single/story base.
when it come to RPG "most" people want mostly pve. you talk about the top games atm but the top record setting game are set by RPG type games ether MMO or single player. the only reason pubg; battle ground, dot2 and counter strike (all pvp only) are up on this list is they are free to play games no one paid anything for them.
New world record setting success only meet with its major lost of player base BECAUSE it was a mix pvpve game. which is what Dune is trying to do now. i guess if you sell 1 mill copies for 70 dollar i guess that is a success. dont matter if the game last pass 2 months.
side note: you use of "main character syndrome" is not corrected. no one here is mentally ill. if it was you would be guilty of the same thing. its a new term use as an excuse why millennial act the way they do. just like other words ( i wont get into that crap) use to "box" people up. just its shorter term, Karens. we all will know you then you're full of it then.
The first red flag was claiming all PvPers = Griefers, I tried to explain it, but he lost me at "New world record setting success".
He's wrong about New World it was suppose to have much more PvP but at the last minute they caved to the militant PvE crowd who demanded all of it be removed. So they gutted it best they could and made the existing bugs even worse with the new spaghetti code.
The same exact thing happened to WoW, I know because I was in Beta very early and the game was designed to be open world faction warfare, but the militant PvE crowd cried and cried and eventually the devs caved. So the faction warfare was gutted for PvE dungeons and PvP battlegrounds.
What's really crazy is the militant PvE crowd STILL wasn't happy, they complained even more because the game was hard and players couldn't solo everything like they can now. I can't tell if they know what they're doing or they just can't see how they destroy game after game then move on to the next shiny game.
It's freaking annoying!
Observing the mistakes and how they end Survivals that create the pvevp world. on the maps, I think that the full pvp mechanics will destroy the game, so I propose a new pvp and pve system that is not yet available in any game.
In this case, I propose my own idea for pvp pve.
PVP STRUCTURES AND PLAYER KILLS DEPENDING ON WHETHER THERE IS A PLAYER IN THE FACTION<<<
you can't force pve players to play pvp because it will destroy the gameplay.
It already describes my personal idea.
> GLOBAL SETTINGS<
[Global pvp from level 50 for players without a guild]
_____________________
Players in a guild can kill other players if they are in the guild
_____________________
>>>>[ Unlocked Energy Shield [equipment] giving the player protection while increasing his HP
from level 50, which the player receives as a gift for level 50 automatically]
___________________
From level 50, pvp for solo players is unlocked.
A player without a guild can kill a player without a guild
but still cannot attack or raid any bases.
___________________
Any player can join a guild from level 1 to the maximum level.
____________________
after joining a guild, the player loses PVE
He can attack all players and bases, only those who are in a guild.
________________
A player who is not in the guild cannot attack any structures.
[ This will encourage you to participate in guilds and pvp
Loot obtained from raids on bases]
________________
A PLAYER NOT IN A GUILD
can kill other players who are not in the guild from level 50.
________________
from level 50, a player without a guild can only attack players who do not have a guild
A player without a guild but cannot raid any bases.
________________
PVE:
1. Create a character that is not in a guild.
2. The player does not join any guild.
3. The player reaches level 50 and receives the opportunity to fight PvP between players only those who do not have a guild.
4. A player who is not in the guild cannot kill players who are in the guild.
5. A player who is not in a guild cannot raid any bases even after reaching level 50.
5. People Without a Guild have smaller gifts for Quests.
6. People Without a Guild can collect loot from players they kill, but only those without a guild.
7. People without a Guild fall victim to mob raids on the base.
8. Mobs that attack the bases of players without a guild attack them with greater force, mob raids on the bases of players without a guild are more frequent. <<
__________________________________________
PVE:
1. Create a character to create a guild, you must be level 50 with the NPC for in-game currency.
2. A player can create a guild once every 3 days.
3. Player Joins the guild.
4. The player may leave the guild
for leaving the guild he gets a penalty of joining the guild for 3 days.
3. The player reaches level 50
He gains the ability to kill players and raid structures only of those players who are in another guild.
4. A player who is in a guild cannot kill players without a guild or raid the bases of players without a guild even after reaching level 50.
5. People in the guild have better loot for Killing Bosses.
6. People in the guild can only collect loot from killed players who belong to a guild.
7. People in the Guild cannot be attacked or raided by players without a Guild.
8. People in the Guild are not ATTACKED by MOB Raids
9. People in the Guild can be attacked and their structures by the maggot.
This whole concept will allow wealthy players to be honestly encouraged to mature when using the pvp system, but also to encourage toxic games that, let's face it, turn players on :)
The only thing a person in the guild can do to new players is Aggress [Lure] Mobs against them.
yes New World was to be a all out faction open world pvp , you are correct. but that game would of not sold nowhere near the numbers it did if it was only pvp. the DEV of that game gave in to chase the cash. it is why 2 months later it lost most of the player base. they hope the end game pvp would keep people playing but it did not, when players only plays 2 hours a day vs a players playing 10 hours a day , the skill offset. with no real end game pve and people couldnt win in pvp of course they quit. dying 2 sec after you do your first attack and you spend more time respawning than playing (also you get 3-5 hit on a target but they dont lose more 20% of their hp but can kill you in 2 sec or 1 shot you, is bs). people just dont want to be other players punching bag esp. if they cant put in the same time they do in the game. if pvp is so 1 sided people wont play it.
the problem isnt lack of rules, they are arguing to not have pvp restrictions, every post i made was counter by people thinking i suggest no pvp but i have suggest pvp restrictions like you have.
but separating servers for pve and pvp will destroy the plot.
I believe that Funcom will surprise us with a specific pvp/pve system