Open PvP or Not?

[PKedUtoo]

This is the only question i really want answered about this new MMO

Will is be open PvP with only a few safe zones (like SB)

Or will it be set up areas that have PvP like 99.9% of all other MMO's

I find that most MMO companies turn to the old might dollar and conform to games that are designed for the Care Bear Masses. They will make games that revolve around quests, permission based duels, small area combat, PvP battle grounds and so on.

I'm sure all of us in the SB community want to here it will be OPEN PvP

I can honestly say the first time i here things like "PvP area" or "Battle Grounds".... OR seperae PvE and PvP worlds then this game will die in my eyes and I'll be playing some other games that have already promised Open PvP.

Lets Pray for the best

[Soulein]

Uh are you serious? Do you really think a development team that pioneered a game like Shadowbane would degrade down to a WoW/EQ style game?

[Avarix]

Uh are you serious? Do you really think a development team that pioneered a game like Shadowbane would degrade down to a WoW/EQ style game?

I wouldn't be too sure. I'm sure it wouldn't be WoW/EQ style, but full world PvP is not something that 90% of MMO players want.

[Blackmoon]

Face it guys, open pvp is too harsh for many players of the mmo genre.
I would hope that in design, they would create an open pvp server where all of the 10% could have some fun.

[Blazin]

At least give us some kind of PvP zone where we get to siege stuff... I will die irl without being able to burn something that belongs to someone else down and laugh at them! Makes me sad already just thinking about it. Go hardcore or go pick flowers in WoW imo!


*fixt*

[rihahn]

PvP is all about who you talk to:

At one extreme you have fans of completely pointless gank-fests where the world is basically a huge arena and there is no where to hide. The strong shall rule the weak through fear and terror sort of deal. These are usually labled "griefers", but in reality they're just getting their jollies from the game in much the same way every one else is.

At the other extreme you have people who feel the AI is enough and will usually just sit down when attacked by another player. Usually labled "care bears", these are the game's meat and potatoes as they'll run any treadmill you put in front of them for years and there are, at last count, about 17 million of them... Of which 7 million or so are playing WoW right now.

Me? I'm a "situational PvPer": I not enough of a sociopath to go out of my way to randomly kill people; but if I have a *reason* to kill them (asset acquisition, monetary contract, asset defense, etc) then it is very much all about feeling them twitch on the end of a rather sharp knife. No objective, no PvP.

So, for me it's about having a reason to kill folks - and a goofy title and access to better gear just doesn't do it for me... Been there, done that.

Let me siege other's lands, burn their castles to the ground, lay waste to their finances, scare the bajeebus out of their allies, and rule through effort.

Anything else is either multiplayer dodgeball or a 3D chatroom.

[coder1024]

I think you have a hard time creating a convincing persistent virtual world without open PvP.

[LeddZeppelin]

what i hope they do is create 2 or 3 different server types, a lore one (for all you namby pamby wusses :P), a PvP one (like SB is now) and then a WoW type one where you can only kill people in certain areas (to cater to the masses so they can actually get a decent size dev team and keep those updates cranking out)

[Glaive]

Well, Ledd, if they did that, then all the sheep would play on the normal server and us wolves would have to fight amongst ourselves, which is fine for banes and such, but sometimes you just wanna go and kill people and take their stuff. Sheep tend to have a lot of stuff on them, and get mad when you kill them, which leads to happy wolves. Of course, you need to give the sheep something as well, such as unique items from raids/quests.

[Soulein]

I think the main theme that Shadowbane has (and I hope this game will have) was player enforced justice. Your actions reflect your guild, and if you piss someone off you might just wake up to see a big rock on your lawn.

Shadowbane's grand experiment was seeing if players could create an actual political climate. In that regard, Shadowbane succeeded. Shadowbane servers have a history that people remember, a history that shaped the attitudes of guilds today. Shadowbane's pvp is so much more than a huge arena because of the political aspect! PvPers in other games have nothing to lose... when the battleground match is over- its over. There is no smack talk, there is no manipulation, and you dont have a city or home that your enemy can destroy.

SBG's new game can only improve upon this concept... hopefully it and Darkfall Online will take the experiment to the next level.

[Zerocyde]

Most people don't want open pvp because most people have never played real, open pvp. Shadowbane is the only mmo I know that has ever had REAL, "like it should be" open pvp.

[Ramsie]

The only comment I can really give is to echo what we said partially in the announcement.

We know our history, and what we did right and wrong. We have watched and took place in events not only in our own game, but in others. We will utilize what we learned from the past several years and employ systems that we can be known for.

That is not saying open pvp or otherwise, simply that we know what we like, what we do well, and what we are known for.

[LeddZeppelin]

The only comment I can really give is to echo what we said partially in the announcement.

We know our history, and what we did right and wrong. We have watched and took place in events not only in our own game, but in others. We will utilize what we learned from the past several years and employ systems that we can be known for.

That is not saying open pvp or otherwise, simply that we know what we like, what we do well, and what we are known for.

PLZ if you dont have /ta PLZ use WASD movement... it works INFENITLY better as a combination

[Ramsie]

I tried my best to get WASD in SB. It just was not worth the cost. So much was based around the movement structure being point and click.

I am a HUGE fan of WASD movement, and always felt SB not offering it was a problem.

So, hopefully that gives you an answer, without giving you an answer :P

[misterzebub]

Yep thanks Ramsie that does make everything clearer.

You guys are sticking to what you know on the point and click movement thing and you wanted PVP in the new game but it just wasn't worth the cost. :D







/sarcasm off

[coder1024]

Yep thanks Ramsie that does make everything clearer.

You guys are sticking to what you know on the point and click movement thing and you wanted PVP in the new game but it just wasn't worth the cost. :D







/sarcasm off
that made me cry!

[KenshinDC]

I tried my best to get WASD in SB. It just was not worth the cost. So much was based around the movement structure being point and click.

I am a HUGE fan of WASD movement, and always felt SB not offering it was a problem.

So, hopefully that gives you an answer, without giving you an answer :P
Nice Ramsie

[Xemise]

I'm up for WASD movement as well.. Especially if there isn't a /tar

[Ramsie]

I would not use many of the interactions (UI) from SB as a basis to judge requests. As stated earlier, so much of that games UI was to support click and move movement, that it forced certain decisions.

Think of your more mainstream control schemes and you will be better off. Not just MMO's but action genre and other games as well.

[misterzebub]

I would not use many of the interactions (UI) from SB as a basis to judge requests. As stated earlier, so much of that games UI was to support click and move movement, that it forced certain decisions.

Think of your more mainstream control schemes and you will be better off. Not just MMO's but action genre and other games as well.


Sounds excellent!

[TDLSeika]

please, open pvp please please please. ><

Every other system just leaves holes for griefing, let me kill the POS who smack talks me or ks'es me please.
i loved the pvp in shadowbane, being on mourning, where the politics was player driven and rp was a big part of the politics just spoiled me completely for any other type of pvp and game play.

So, do it again do it again!
me love you long time? Ill bring the cookies? :D

[Arkhubar]

My biggest hope for UI changes is it will go to something like WoW's. What I mean by that is I think it makes an astounding difference to playability and enjoyment (in a very good way) when the UI can be customized easily via addons + macros maintained by the community. I don't know if that was possible in SB or not, but if it was, the community to maintain something like that didn't really exist.

edit: Oh, and hell yes to WASD. Please include jumping. Not because jumping has any intrinsic value, but its addictive as hell to hit the spacebar repeatedly and jump around when you are waiting for something or someone. :P

[Ramsie]

SB does offer support for custom UI's, but it was not so simple to do. The other you mentioned did a nice job of using a known or easy to learn system. I do agree it is often times better to put tools in the hands of the users, rather than guess their needs.

[misterzebub]

All servers should have both open and no PVP. With the carebear geeks making up such a large share of the market SBG needs to find someway to squeeze money out of them while staying true to the game style they are famous for.
So here is my idea. What you do is allow the players to flag the toon as PVP or non PVP at creation. PVPers can run around like normal. Non PVPers are all put into a big plastic bubble like those things people have for their pet hamsters. The bubble should also have a sign above saying something like "I'm a Big Carebear Pansy." in neon hot pink.

[Zerocyde]

In regards to this open pvp or not debate, just stop and think. Can you honestly see SBG pulling us into a soft and cuddley game? Whatever it is they decide to do may or may not be everyones idea of open pvp, it may not even be open pvp for all I know, but I guarantee SBG wont pander to the carebears.

[Arkhubar]

SB does offer support for custom UI's, but it was not so simple to do. The other you mentioned did a nice job of using a known or easy to learn system. I do agree it is often times better to put tools in the hands of the users, rather than guess their needs.

Ah ok, I wasn't sure how that worked in SB.

P.S. Sorry if my use of the "other game" bothers people - I figured I should be honest in my suggestions rather than beat around the bush. Doesn't mean I think the "other game" is god's gift to gaming (it isn't, I have some major gripes with the game play), it just means I know they did some things right.

[VKToman]

Dont knock the default UI in "the other game"

[Protonix]

You guys should hire me to spin for you imo <3

[Assassin]

The fundamental problem with open PVP is that there's no balance mechanism to ensure the fights are close enough to fair to be fun.

Another way to put it is SB players like PVP but they also don't like to lose.

Thus you have full groups waiting at open trees and pouncing on individuals and small groups that also come to open trees for PVP and happen to be foolish enough to leave safemode.

It's a reflection of the same problems that emerged early on when Covenant of Swords, through superior organization and numbers, took over Treachery until they got bored. It is the problem that drove NA guilds from Braialla...inability to compete numerically.

Numerical tyranny, simply put, is bad for business. No one will pay to be bulldozed. That's why WoW has 50 million or however many subscribers.

I sincerely hope SBG can solve that problem because PVP games will remain niche games without a mechanism to ensure that there's some semblance of balance during fights.

[PKedUtoo]

We know our history, and what we did right and wrong. We have watched and took place in events not only in our own game, but in others. We will utilize what we learned from the past several years and employ systems that we can be known for.

lets hope this does not translate too

We know that SB did not make the money we would have liked to make, and we plan to correct this. We have watched other games ***wink***WoW***wink*** and like what we see. We will utilize what we have learned ***wink***WoW***wink*** and make a clone with new graphics and lore.

all joking aside i REALLY REALLY hope the new game is more like SB and NOT like current MMO games

[Lionexen]

It's not worth my time if there isn't open PvP. I know alot of other SBers probably feel the same way.

I'm not going to even research or follow along with the development of this game until open PvP is announced.

[LeddZeppelin]

It's not worth my time if there isn't open PvP. I know alot of other SBers probably feel the same way.

I'm not going to even research or follow along with the development of this game until open PvP is announced.

theyve pretty much announced it in their own special way, saying "we are going to play to our strength and what we know", and lets face it they know how to make a pretty good PvP game. again the only problem i can see with this is that they shouldn't make the game SO shallow that theres nothing else to do, then its gonna go the way of shadowbane and slowly shrink down to fewer and fewer servers...

[Lionexen]

I'm not going to follow along until is officially announced. I've gotten my hopes up for games like Darkfall where Dev's have dropped 'hints' to what is going to be in the game but not officially announced yet, and seen them never deliver on them.

When there's an official announcement on Open PvP, I'll start taking an interrest.

[Ramsie]

define open pvp to you, as i feel it may be different for different people the extent in which that reaches.

I can tell you that along with playing to our strengths, we also learned from our mistakes.

[KenshinDC]

define open pvp to you, as i feel it may be different for different people the extent in which that reaches.

I can tell you that along with playing to our strengths, we also learned from our mistakes.
Ramsie, you speak in riddles.

I love your face.

[Ramsie]

hahaha *bow*

[LeddZeppelin]

hahaha *bow*

your like the ancients from stargate, always speaking in riddles... or yoda, but without the force powers...

[Ramsie]

keep thinking that Ledd. When i choke someone from across the conference room, you will think otherwise!

[ConspiracyTheorist]

Is that what happened to Ashen?

[Arkhubar]

I think I can break down some of what Ramsie said.

The first part is that the definition of open pvp is subjective. You can have "open pvp" with no loot, full loot, partial loot (variety of categories there). You can have "open pvp", with or without seiging, with or without massive penalties, the list goes on and on. What Ramsie is saying is if you are going to say "ZOMG I WANT OPEN PVP", you need to be more specific: what *kind* of open pvp do you want? :P

The second part is a little cryptic. My hunch is (*WARNING* I do not claim this is what Ramsie meant, I'm just taking a wild stab) he means that it will not be exactly the same as SB's "open pvp".

Of course, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be very similar. It just means that they probably found some elements of the system that worked and others that didn't. They are going to try to keep the ones that did and toss the ones that didn't for a better game experience. That's a good thing for us players, if only for the reason that it means the game will reach a larger audience. What does a larger audience in a pvp game mean? MORE FRESH MEAT. :)

[iScout]

Well, the best of both worlds approach that I think has been most effective is that in EvE. So perhaps they might be working on there being NPC factions to which the carebear inclined seek protection to bake their bread in peace, and the great wilds where you can stake your claim and bake your enemies.

[Zenjah]

For me, open PvP involves some element of risk all the time, whenever you are logged into the game as your character. You might be relatively safe in a town or in your own stronghold, but not completely safe.

When you have all these characters with weapons and armor, swaggering around, threatening each other, nothing kills the mood like total "safezone" invincibility. If some punk wants to run his mouth in the face of a salty killing machine, he should be taking a risk.

Imagine if when Luke and Obi-Wan showed up at the Mos Eisley Cantina, Ben said, "You will never find as wretched a hive of scum and villainy, but don't worry, its a safezone." The tension would vanish. Hiring a transport off-world would have been a dull event.

Open PvP like in oldschool UO, or the Asheron's Call Darktide server, or our beloved Shadowbane, offers far superior immersion than games that keep PvP restricted to special areas and conditions.

Perhaps a few safezones are a necessary evil. Perhaps full looting of all carried items is too much. But the more you restrict PvP, the more you restrict looting and destroying things, the less immersive your game will be for the PvP crowd.

[LeddZeppelin]

what i think is going to happen from reading ashen's old boards is that it will be something like big provinces (lol im so canadian), and you will swear aleggience to one province (sort of like the realm system in SB now) and you can only open pvp with the other provinces. what i hope it will be is the same sort of thing now in SB, you loose your inv when you die, you teleport back to your tree or hometown or w/e (non of this spirit BS with **that other game**) and this allows not only a place for newbies to level up and stuff, but a palce for hardcore pvpers to ownface...

[Ramsie]

"a better game experience"

That is a goal no matter what.

[Lancer]

id have to say i liked how sb and wow had lowbie areas to lvl up w/o the threat of ganking. i think leaving the char selection screen and entering world only to be ganked by a group of lowbies who entered world 2 mins before you is stupid.

past that point, i think 1 or 2 safezones for trade and such is helpful. outside of that is pvp heaven.

[Arkhubar]

id have to say i liked how sb and wow had lowbie areas to lvl up w/o the threat of ganking. i think leaving the char selection screen and entering world only to be ganked by a group of lowbies who entered world 2 mins before you is stupid.

past that point, i think 1 or 2 safezones for trade and such is helpful. outside of that is pvp heaven.

I also completely agree. Lowbie ganking is not pvp.

[PKedUtoo]

When there's an official announcement on Open PvP, I'll start taking an interrest.

AMEN!!

one screenshot a game does not make

[ConspiracyTheorist]

The one player RPG game that then tosses you out to the wolves wouldn't be too bad. For example, the game starts off as a regular RPG Adventure game, where the single player game will get you to a certain level range (think R4-5 in SB depending on your actions and performance). During this time, you learn to use your character, you fight lots of monsters, you basically get tutored in the game mechanics and build expectation of the real game, which would then be the PvP world. After you leave the single player game, then you'd get tossed into a guild or clan, with the option of joining a player ran clan later on as well.

Dunno, just an idea to make it easier and more interesting for the first time players. You can make it so that each race or profession has a different but intertwined storyline, and future patches can add more single player stories for the vets that reroll so they wont get bored.

[TDLSeika]

sb had the best pvp imo, i was always fine with losing what was in my inventory, newbie island was fine, and the few safezones for trade was awesome.

What im hoping is that currency isnt so hard to get that pvp becomes not worth the risk. A big plus to SB was always that gold was easy to get, you didnt have to save for months and months to get what you needed or support a city, and ebaying wasnt as huge an issue (at least when i played it wasnt) as it was in games like lineage 2. If gear and gold are hard to get like in L2 then loot on death takes on a new meaning, and youll lose people who arent hardcore pvpers.

I dunno, i always liked that farming and xp was really secondary to the player driven politics and pvp in SB, it was important, but not something you had to spend 90% of your game time doing unless you REALLY wanted to.

[Qualme]

I am a hopeless carebear. I can't initiate combat period. I love quests. But more than all of that, I love the true sense of fear from open PvP and the challenge of surviving even the most simple of activities due to the threat of Pkers.

In response to some posts about carebears and politics. I held 2 cities on Mourning server, Hunters Village and Ilifirin Alcar. HV was next to commander and IA was next to K2 which are two of the most prized locations in the game. Yet as a carebear, i kept them both until I was done with them with politics alone. We were no great fighting force ever. But we had lots of friends. Even strident enemies sometimes helped defend my cities at the same time. Sometimes even griefers, UDL, or Shadowclan would secretly protect my members and help during sieges.

Never underestimate politics in a truly open PvP game.

In response to ALL artificial attempts to prevent griefing: Griefers will always find a way to use the rules/limits/system to their advantage while new players never have a chance learn how to use them to stay safe.

Love,
Qualme

[PKedUtoo]

The one player RPG game that then tosses you out to the wolves wouldn't be too bad. For example, the game starts off as a regular RPG Adventure game, where the single player game will get you to a certain level range (think R4-5 in SB depending on your actions and performance). During this time, you learn to use your character, you fight lots of monsters, you basically get tutored in the game mechanics and build expectation of the real game, which would then be the PvP world. After you leave the single player game, then you'd get tossed into a guild or clan, with the option of joining a player ran clan later on as well.

Dunno, just an idea to make it easier and more interesting for the first time players. You can make it so that each race or profession has a different but intertwined storyline, and future patches can add more single player stories for the vets that reroll so they wont get bored.

You just described "Age of Conan" (even though age of conan is not 100% open PvP it is a single player RPG for the begining levels)

http://www.ageofconan.com/en/index.html

[SinijS]

I wouldn't be too sure. I'm sure it wouldn't be WoW/EQ style, but full world PvP is not something that 90% of MMO players want.


If full world PvP is not something *you* want *you* can always go play WoW or thousands of its clones.

There are plenty of games catering to PvE, there are very few that carer to PvPs. Most people like and want PvP - just look at sports, FPS/RTS games or even battelgrounds in WoW. Problem is designing PvP game that is not punishing, its easy in PvE games where you can let player win, its more difficult to not pile it up on loser in PvP game.

[SinijS]

I tried my best to get WASD in SB. It just was not worth the cost. So much was based around the movement structure being point and click.

I am a HUGE fan of WASD movement, and always felt SB not offering it was a problem.

So, hopefully that gives you an answer, without giving you an answer :P

I *like* point and click, leave WASD for twitch-based games, you need to have ONE HAND FREE for macros/hotkeys to have skill-based PvP game.

[SinijS]

"a better game experience"

That is a goal no matter what.

Come out of the closet and say if you want to make BarbyDressUpOnline or Another WoW Clone so we can start drinking heavily and forget about SBG earlier rather than later.

[Beliar]

Well, its important to be able to kill everyone everywhere... I just want to kill people cause they're taking my spot, are looking ugly in their pink robes, or just cause I'm in a bad mood. That was always the big advantage of Shadowbane, and something no other game really had.
If you really don't want to be too hardcore do it the other way round - make a PvP game and add a carebear server or something.

[SinijS]

Well, its important to be able to kill everyone everywhere... I just want to kill people cause they're taking my spot, are looking ugly in their pink robes, or just cause I'm in a bad mood. That was always the big advantage of Shadowbane, and something no other game really had.

Right on, I want to be able to PK you for posting this, even if I entirely agree with what you said. Still, YOU WILL PAY FOR IT!

[PKedUtoo]

Come out of the closet and say if you want to make BarbyDressUpOnline or Another WoW Clone so we can start drinking heavily and forget about SBG earlier rather than later.

You hit it right on the nose here.

(letting us know if we need to be looking for a different game in the future or not would not give up to much about the game... but it would save us a lot of waisted time)

[Cohort]

If they can implement a way to stop the uber leveling power gamers from smashing the carebears they will have a pvp game that is successful. Only way I can think if doing this is adding a level limit to attackability. SO if player A is 10 levels higher than player B, he cannot attack player B but he can be attacked by player B if he has friends or uber leet gear. OF course I think that should only apply to the lower levels and stop say once you get to level 50 outta 70. That way all the carebears can learn the game and not be at such a savage disadvantage.

[Lancer]

If they can implement a way to stop the uber leveling power gamers from smashing the carebears they will have a pvp game that is successful. Only way I can think if doing this is adding a level limit to attackability. SO if player A is 10 levels higher than player B, he cannot attack player B but he can be attacked by player B if he has friends or uber leet gear. OF course I think that should only apply to the lower levels and stop say once you get to level 50 outta 70. That way all the carebears can learn the game and not be at such a savage disadvantage.


no no no! that would make the game lvl/item based. in shadowbane an r4 could kill and r7 easily because the items we're not different for a lvl 40 as opposed to a lvl 75. by reducing the bonuses received by different lvl ranges of gear, it gives a greater chance for the lowbie to fight back against a higher lvl character.

i loved this aspect of shadowbane hope to see more of this in future games.

[Ghannn]

I *like* point and click, leave WASD for twitch-based games, you need to have ONE HAND FREE for macros/hotkeys to have skill-based PvP game.

How is having macros making a game skill based? Being able to push start to begin your macro, crossing your fingers to hope your macro is better than theirs is not skill. Im sorry but twitch based IS the only skill based game. The rest are just template designs and macros a majority of people dont even make them selves. if your *like* was sarcasm, then retract previous statement.

Allow people just getting started a time to breathe. say allow them to leave the starting area at any time, but boot them out at level 10. This start area should be pvp free. Then send them into a safetown with a max level of say 20-25ish. Monster rich enviroment around this town, make it group friendly but have stray monsters for single players. Make it a safezone about a mile out from the walls, then pvp from there.

You can also make it like the battlezone crap. But add a nice little spin to it. Make the Best possible hunting areas, best towns, best merchants, best gold mines etc PVP areas. Make it so the carebares can survive without pvp. but reward the pvp players with resources and such.

Think Sieges
player ran npc's
player generated items
wasd based movement
minimize combat macros
ability to aim/dodge wars and projectile attacks
make melee more of an interactive combat type. Think of Asherons call. One mistake they made was to have auto drag and the only thing a melee had to do was click the attack button and dodge the wars. Not acceptable. It needs to be aimed so that melees can aim around shields, melee gets old because you arnt doing anything. Involve them in their character.

thats my opinion thrashed out ina good 10minutes.

[misterzebub]

Ghannn is a pooner.:D

Sounds like a reasonable idea. I'd suggest something like Eve Online. A nice secure zone for the care bears and wild and woolly badlands for the hard cores.

[Avarix]

If full world PvP is not something *you* want *you* can always go play WoW or thousands of its clones.

There are plenty of games catering to PvE, there are very few that carer to PvPs. Most people like and want PvP - just look at sports, FPS/RTS games or even battelgrounds in WoW. Problem is designing PvP game that is not punishing, its easy in PvE games where you can let player win, its more difficult to not pile it up on loser in PvP game.

I never said it wasn't something i wanted. I was simply pointing out that full world PvP without severely limiting things is not going to appeal to a large enough player base to make a really successful game.

[Arkhubar]

Full world pvp is totally unnecessary. For example, there is zero reason for newbie areas (and even lowbie areas) to be full pvp. It just kills the playerbase and wastes people's time. I dunno about you, but when I'm leveling up a character, I want to level it up, not be delayed by people pvping with me, even if they are my own level. I want to get to the end game ASAP. Doing anything else before then is just a waste.

Sticking with the "zomg you don't want full pvp go home carebear" attitude is going to produce a dead/dying game from the get go. IMHO, the best bet for those of us who want a "PvP" game is to make some comprimises to make it more popular. Why? Because, a populated PvP game is >>>>> a dead PvP game. You can't kill people if they don't play. :P

[misterzebub]

You can't kill people if they don't play. :P

Well............ you CAN but the care bear jail time penalty thing and the permadeath rules really discourage this kind of ganking. :rolleyes:

[Ghannn]

Ghannn is a pooner.:D

Sounds like a reasonable idea. I'd suggest something like Eve Online. A nice secure zone for the care bears and wild and woolly badlands for the hard cores.

a valid idea but then you basically have two seperate games. One thing that may be good for PvE when introduced to PvP may be detrimental and entirely unbalance the enviroment. Binding your decisions and causing a rippling effect whenever an item leaks through your generator.

One way to counter that is Death items. Each time you die you drop a certain amount of items based upon your level. The higher level you are the more items you drop. What decides which item drops is the value. The better the item, the higher the value, the more likely to drop.

And that only counter the items, you still have to watch for spells, quests, etc etc. If you are going to have PvP in a game you have to orientate the game to PVP not PvE. PvE must be an extention of PvP. People enjoy PvP because of the competition, while i believe others enjoy PvE to replace something they are missing in their life. To escape reality. They want less stress while others strive upon it.

Basically if you are going to have PvP it has to be the decision maker with pve as a side note. Killing animals should simply be a way to gain resources, with most of the xp gained from killing enemies of equal level. Less xp gained for every time you kill the same person. Simply make monsters an obstacle around a gold mine, or quest orientated. Do not make them the focus.

[Lionexen]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

define open pvp to you, as i feel it may be different for different people the extent in which that reaches.

I can tell you that along with playing to our strengths, we also learned from our mistakes
Shadowbane's open pvp is what I want - it's what keeps many people coming back for more. Some say that it drives away people, but I don't feel that is the case. The reason so many people were driven away from Shadowbane was due to a buggy release and steep learning curve.

[Tapped]

Ok i am sure this has been said many times already.i am sure this idea has been gone over but i am going to spit it out anyway.

How about a game to the scale of WoW..Truly massive. With both PvE and PvP in game like a WoW pvp server for instance with a few changes of course.

Idea.. PvE noob area of of course and as the person levels up high end instances with high end gear such as WoW 40 man raids. WoW has the instance quest thing done perfectly. PvP is where the game is absolutely horrid and pointless. So lets fix that by adding in sieging, city building, ownership of land and other resources. This gives a point for the pve the better PvE your guild nation is a part of the better your guild/nation will do in acquiring land resources and cities/kingdoms.

jumbled i know i think you can smell what i am cooking. Why beat our heads on the wall this is not rocket science about what works and what doesn't. Wow worked for the carebear pansy treehuggers. Shadowbane was the best PvP game of all time even though it could also be called the buggiest game of all time. Both games were the best around and i say were because this game could out shine them both if its done right, to far in either direction and you will lose loyal Sb'er or become a second rate theme park CLONE

Tapped

[Cohort]

no no no! that would make the game lvl/item based. in shadowbane an r4 could kill and r7 easily because the items we're not different for a lvl 40 as opposed to a lvl 75. by reducing the bonuses received by different lvl ranges of gear, it gives a greater chance for the lowbie to fight back against a higher lvl character.

i loved this aspect of shadowbane hope to see more of this in future games.

That was true though only for people who massively spiked their skills who were totally twinked. IT just didn't happen if you were in lv40ish gear. Besides with what I was talking about the r4 still has the opportunity to try and kill the r7 if he wants to try it, just not the other way around. That just seems to be an easier way to keep people for longer periods.

Or perhaps having a flag that can be turned on or off like DAOC did for their pvp servers. Giving some people the option to go full out at lv 1 and others to wait till the learned the game better.

[Cookiemonster]

Hope there is open pvp, was the main thing i liked someone in your own nation smack talked u could kill him there and then.

[Precur]

Idea.. PvE noob area of of course and as the person levels up high end instances with high end gear such as WoW 40 man raids. WoW has the instance quest thing done perfectly. PvP is where the game is absolutely horrid and pointless. So lets fix that by adding in sieging, city building, ownership of land and other resources. This gives a point for the pve the better PvE your guild nation is a part of the better your guild/nation will do in acquiring land resources and cities/kingdoms.


Tapped

The idea presented above has alot of merit. Having a SB clone with better graphics is doom to failure from the start. Like it or not a game has to generate income. SB has already proven that a game based only on full open pvp does not appeal to the masses thus it will generate low revenues, it will not attract the needed funding from investors to ensure its survivability and enhancement. This is the reality of the gameing industry .. mass appeal = more money.

The challenge is to integrate both playstyles into one game, this has to be done from conception .. not as an after thought. Make it so that one depends on the other, an integrale part of succeeding at the end game will come from having both playstyles in your nation.

Have the PvPers fight it out for control of territories much like mines. Once accquired the PvErs can go out and farm/quest in safety in these areas for a limited duration and get valuable resources needed to craft umber gear etc. Give PvErs crafting professions, have in-game auction/trade boards.

We need something to keep the small scale PvPers busy besides griefing lowbies and ganking. Random arena like Guild Wars would be popular, this is one aspect of that game I really enjoyed .. no running around .. no time lost .. just hit the join button and in a matter of seconds one is off PvPing .. one never knew what the group make up would be which in ihmo make it even more interesting and challengeing.

Anyhow best of luck to you folks on your new game .. make it Rock!!

[SinijS]

I never said it wasn't something i wanted. I was simply pointing out that full world PvP without severely limiting things is not going to appeal to a large enough player base to make a really successful game.

I think you bought too much into carebear preachings. What makes game really successful, subscription numbers, customer loyalty, brand recognition or profit margin over life of the game? Was UO successful? How about college football or boxing? How about M59, EvE or any FPS/RTS? How about dozens of DIKU clones that try to compete with WoW? How about Apple or Sun, is it successful when compared to Microsoft?

Don't go around tossing ignorant statements you heard somewhere without understanding what you are talking about first.

[SinijS]

I am a hopeless carebear. I can't initiate combat period. I love quests. But more than all of that, I love the true sense of fear from open PvP and the challenge of surviving even the most simple of activities due to the threat of Pkers.


You are not a carebear, you just don't like to PK. Carebears are people averse to possibility of losing when other players attacking them. You can get any carebear to play PvP game as long as you give them invulnerability and Iwin button. Playing without these things is what makes you NOT a carebear.

[KayleeM]

If you take a look at SB as a phenominon, then its difficult to assertain what level of success it attained. If you were to rewind time and fix all the dupes, lag & bugs in SB that we have expereinced over the last four years... how successful would it be then? That is really the metric we are looking for, and its really impossible to get. Its ALL speculation. If SBG went with another hardcore PvP game, then its difficult to say whether it will take off or not.

Personally, I think that WoW is what it is because its a Blizzard Game. I mean, how many hundreds of thousands of copies were preordered without ever having Demo'ed the game? Thats carrying the game on the Blizzard name alright.

SBG, at least in my opinion, is not super visible on the gaming industry radar yet. Could be a stategic move, i dunno. I do think it was a smart move keep SB associated with UBI because, bless the game and its makers, it has had more than its fair share of issues over the years and has left a lot of people with bad opinions of UBI/WP/SB.

I personally like the hybrid of the two. Open PvP with a tad bit more restriction here and there. Perhaps something simple like instead of having only two types of overwolrd areas: SafeZone/PvPZone, have a few middle flavors that restrict the type of PvP allowed. Aka, newbie hunting grounds just outside the safeholds allow pvp of characters within 10 levels of each other. Churches are sacred grounds except between true Good and true Evil aligned characters. etc.

[SinijS]

I'm really surprised to see all this defeatist attitudes on this board. I assume I'm still on SBG forum and not accidentally got redirected to World of Carebear message boards.

First, SB did not fail, it played out. All mmorpgs release and then linger around until people lose interest. Lack of subscription *years* after release is not an indicator of failure.

SB proved that there is a market for open-PvP (attack anyone at any time) games and tested number of radical ideas, some of them worked while others failed.

Shadowbane by no means a failure, not even its horrible launch or persistent technical difficulties managed to kill it off.

[KayleeM]

who said it failed?

[SinijS]

If SBG went with another hardcore PvP game, then its difficult to say whether it will take off or not.

How about if SBG went with a DIKU (Wow clone) instead? Do you think title will be successful with WoW and lots of other DIKU alternatives around? I'd bet it would be DOOMED TO OBSCURITY.

[KayleeM]

I am still missing it. Who said SB failed? How does the quote of my statement make any reference to going with a Wow Clone?

[SinijS]

I am still missing it. Who said SB failed? How does the quote of my statement make any reference to going with a Wow Clone?

Precur and few others stopped short of saying that SB was a failure since they didn't get WoW subscription numbers and that was all because of open PvP. I deeply disagree with such statements.

[KayleeM]

Okay, sure, if someone makes that kind of an ignorant statement, then some slappage should occur. There are too many variables in the "How Successful is SB?" problem to make blanket statements like that.

[xCoolsx]

Ok, first of all, we are all SB fans here and obviously fell in love with the open pvping. Obviously SBG is a business and as such wants to sell as many copies of their new game to the broadest range of players. To do that, pvp HAS to be more restricted I'm sad to say. Don't get me wrong, I wish we lived in a perfect world where people didn't quit games for getting rpk'ed a few unexpected times. The point is that although we may be hardcore gamers and pixel murderers, the other 95% of mmorpg'ers are not. If you want to sell a million copies of this game, open pvp just ain't gonna cut it.

*Extreme tangent*
Sorry, this just popped into my head: If this thing is a MMORPG/FPS like Neocron or something, you can count me out.

[KayleeM]

Why not have two flavors servers, much like the kiddie pool and the regular pool? :)

[xCoolsx]

Why not have two flavors servers, much like the kiddie pool and the regular pool? :)

I guess that's the easiest solution to placate everyone.

[SinijS]

Obviously SBG is a business and as such wants to sell as many copies of their new game to the broadest range of players. To do that, pvp HAS to be more restricted I'm sad to say.


I disagree, SBG should aim at producing niche and very specialized game and build on their strengths instead of watering whole thing down in futile attempts to broaden appeal.

Restricted PvP will only make game less appealing to target audience, who prefers unrestricted PvP. Its like putting child-safety locks as a standard equipment on Ferrari to try to sell them to soccer moms. Not going to happen even if price is not an issue.

When we all talk about unrestricted PvP we are not talking about newbie gankage, that is separate problem that SHOULD be addressed. We are talking about ability to attack anyone anywhere at any time for any reason, given that they 'graduated' and are in 'grown up' world.

[KayleeM]

Perhaps pull a quick one on the players. Imagine SB with a PvP server and a Non-PvP server. All the carebares will go to the non-PvP server, which is chocked full of Pro-PvP propoganda. Once they level to 75 and are bored out of their mind, then they might come over to the PvP server. Its not like any player base would be lost with that approach.... in fact, they would stand to gain a few 'converts' who manage to grow up a bit and get some thick skin.

[SinijS]

Perhaps pull a quick one on the players. Imagine SB with a PvP server and a Non-PvP server. All the carebares will go to the non-PvP server, which is chocked full of Pro-PvP propoganda.

They already tried this with Lore server. :D

I say don't bother with Non-PvP, leave it to WoW juggernaut and focus on what you do well - PvP.

[xCoolsx]

They already tried this with Lore server. :D

I say don't bother with Non-PvP, leave it to WoW juggernaut and focus on what you do well - PvP.

You do make a good point. The other PvE and highly restricted PvP games are already COMPLETELY dominated by existing games. So much so that there is very, very little chance of taking players away from them if that's what they prefer.

Halleluja! I'm a convert! Open pvp is a must. It's still the only market that isn't flooded. It's like, Shadowbane, take two. Shadowbane was released when it was just a little too unfinished. It tried to fill this hardcore mmorpg niche and WOULD have if it lived up to it's pre-release hype. Now it looks like the gang may give it another shot with a shiz ton of experience under their belt now.


... then again, we hardly know anything about this new game at all. It could, in all seriousness, be a Puzzle Pirates clone. We just don't know what the dev's intentions and visions are for this game. Just a LIIIIIIITLE dev input could help us out a lot.

[PKedUtoo]

Halleluja! I'm a convert! Open pvp is a must.

welcome to the dark side


... then again, we hardly know anything about this new game at all. It could, in all seriousness, be a Puzzle Pirates clone.

I'm going to Pk you over and over again just for suggesting this :D

[SinijS]

welcome to the dark side

Dark side? Welcome to enlightenment. Perm-statloss dreads died for our sins and whatnot.

[Arvont]

I disagree, SBG should aim at producing niche and very specialized game and build on their strengths instead of watering whole thing down in futile attempts to broaden appeal.

Restricted PvP will only make game less appealing to target audience, who prefers unrestricted PvP. Its like putting child-safety locks as a standard equipment on Ferrari to try to sell them to soccer moms. Not going to happen even if price is not an issue.

When we all talk about unrestricted PvP we are not talking about newbie gankage, that is separate problem that SHOULD be addressed. We are talking about ability to attack anyone anywhere at any time for any reason, given that they 'graduated' and are in 'grown up' world.

I dont think Devs go out and say "Im going to make a niche game". Maybe it's just my way of thinking, but anyone who is going to spend the time developing a game wants to make a game that appeals to a broad audience. Niche games happen, don't get me wrong; it's just not what developers are aiming for. It just doesn't make business sense.

As for your ferrari analogy... Ferrari can get away with not broadening their appeal by charging an arm and a leg. Are you willing to put up $100 a month to have a game that may be more desirable to your tastes?

SBG can play off of their strengths, but that doesn't mean it won't sacrifice some of those strengths to appeal to a broad audience. Right now WoW has a HUGE market share of the industry. Do they have open PvP? nope. That being said, don't be surprised if the game isn't open PvP but has better PvP since that is a huge strength for SBG

[PKedUtoo]

Ok, first of all, we are all SB fans here and obviously fell in love with the open pvping. Obviously SBG is a business and as such wants to sell as many copies of their new game to the broadest range of players. To do that, pvp HAS to be more restricted I'm sad to say.

IF SBG aims at making a Cookie Cutter ThemePark MMO they will be blown out of the water.

There are HUGE companies out there that are finding it hard to populate there MMO titles. We are talking about 60+ million $ projects going down the drain becuase they offer the same old thing.

With useing unknown charicters and themes the only way any MMO would make it is if it offered MANY features that other MMO's did not, becuase they would have to pull a 100% different market base. Sure your always going to get the fan boys lined up to play... but is that enough to pay the bills?

I do wish SBG the best of luck on this project, but like any company out there.. unless you have known francise charicters or a 100% original idea, just forget any chance of a good sized population.

[SinijS]

I'd say problem-free release is the key, you generally don't get second chances regardless of how amazing your title becomes later-on. Just look at DAoC - testament to how mediocrity from no-name studio can be successful by not being festering pile of **** on release.

[Muzadi]

Well, its important to be able to kill everyone everywhere... I just want to kill people cause they're taking my spot, are looking ugly in their pink robes, or just cause I'm in a bad mood. That was always the big advantage of Shadowbane, and something no other game really had.
If you really don't want to be too hardcore do it the other way round - make a PvP game and add a carebear server or something.


See, I've always found this approach interesting, because I consider the current way that SB is set up to NOT be hardcore in the slightest. Why? Simply put, virtually no consequences.

You really want hardcore? Don't be a sissy, have permadeath.

I love PvP, and I love open PvP. What I don't like, however, is meaningless, pointless, random PvP. I like PvP with a purpose; I want to burn down my enemy's city because that city is impacting my gameplay in some other fashion. I want to raid that other guild because I can get resources out of it.

The point is, Ramsie is entirely correct - the point is to provide better gameplay. The second you start making assumptions as to what will make better, more enjoyable gameplay is the second you stop innovating. Nobody is ever going to make a game that everybody likes 100% of the way - what is certain, however, is that that game had better have enough people who like it well enough or it won't stay in business.

[Muzadi]

They already tried this with Lore server. :D

I say don't bother with Non-PvP, leave it to WoW juggernaut and focus on what you do well - PvP.


Utterly absurd statement. PvP vs. PvE has nothing at all to do with either loreplay or RP. You can have PvP'ers who love RP and PvE'ers who hate RP.

[Arvont]

See, I've always found this approach interesting, because I consider the current way that SB is set up to NOT be hardcore in the slightest. Why? Simply put, virtually no consequences.

You really want hardcore? Don't be a sissy, have permadeath.

I love PvP, and I love open PvP. What I don't like, however, is meaningless, pointless, random PvP. I like PvP with a purpose; I want to burn down my enemy's city because that city is impacting my gameplay in some other fashion. I want to raid that other guild because I can get resources out of it.

The point is, Ramsie is entirely correct - the point is to provide better gameplay. The second you start making assumptions as to what will make better, more enjoyable gameplay is the second you stop innovating. Nobody is ever going to make a game that everybody likes 100% of the way - what is certain, however, is that that game had better have enough people who like it well enough or it won't stay in business.

I just don't see any way to implement permadeath in an MMO. It would have to be extremely difficult to die at the very least. No one wants to spend time developing a character and having it die. Not only that, but when you put variables such as lag or afk-issues into the mix it will leave a bitter taste in a lot of players mouths.

PvP can be meaningful without permadeath. Player looting is always a viable option. Whatever you had on you at the time of your death is fair game. It will make players think about what they're getting into before PvP.

I agree with the point you're making though. Meaningless PvP does nothing for me. I loved playing UO and shaking from the adrenaline rush because I was in battle with someone knowing that I was either going to lose stuff or get some good loot :)

[SinijS]

I think permadeath discourages risk taking and makes advancement ultra-shallow. You would have to start with 100% battle-ready character (almost the same as not having an advancement) and/or have AFK training halls.

Only way I can see it working if permadeath affects only some aspects of your character, in effect moving significant portion of advancement to your family/clan/respawns and resetting only some aspects of your current reincarnation.

Another way I can see permadeath working - make it rare occasion by putting way to recover from death without incurring permadeath (i.e. priests that could bring you back).

[bobcarn]

...
I love PvP, and I love open PvP. What I don't like, however, is meaningless, pointless, random PvP. I like PvP with a purpose; I want to burn down my enemy's city because that city is impacting my gameplay in some other fashion. I want to raid that other guild because I can get resources out of it.
...

This is how I feel. I loved when UO first was released and there was a sense of danger in the air when you left town because a PKer might be around the corner. I loved when SB was first released and you were able to go to one of the spawns, meet people there, group up for experience, and have to keep an eye open for PK groups.

I love PvP. But like Muzadi, I like meaningful PvP. The post that went "I want to kill anybody, anywhere, for any reason" totally turns me off. It sounds like Quake or Unreal Tournament, not a realistic world with combat strategy. Look at Shadowbane.... here you can stand outside of Kings Cross, consistently kill anyone who is bound there, and then walk inside where the guards and vendors and trainers treat you like everyone else... even though you're killing their citizens. The fact that death carries almost no consequences creates a violent world that could never really exist. Look at the way SB was when it was released, and the way it is now. A new player trying to get started now will simply get frustrated and leave if every time he steps outside of town he gets sent back as a ghost. Currently, the mentality is "if it moves and it's not part of our guild or allies, kill it". Yeah, it's entertaining for a couple of sessions, but it's not something that has long-term value.

It's just that it used to be that if you left the safehold, there was just as much a chance that you'd meet someone who wanted to team up, as there was you'd meet someone who wanted to kill you. Now, it's just so unfriendly (both in playstyle and in actual dialog in the chat channels) that it just turns people off. And face it, if you can't attract new people, you're never going to grow and improve.

[Brenthal]

I just hope the new game is like shadowbane lol...I hope they keep it down to a few servers though, So it keeps the servers nice and pact :)

[Vandarr]

Perma-death and full looting are not options I'd like to see. While I would be fine with both, in the current environment of SB, I get people evaccing from me all the time just so they don't see their name in PvP spam. If something that trivial causes people to avoid fights, I'd hate to see what permadeath and full out looting would do.

I'd be ok with it, but there's a very, very small percent of the population who would stay in a game like this. It probably would not be commercially viable.

[LeddZeppelin]

perma death would be the most obserd thing ever. noone would want to pvp ESPECIALLY with any sort of grind at all...

[SinijS]

I think full looting and permadeath in a game like WoW would be disastrous simply because WoW *revolves* around grind and gear grind, so it will represent colossal loss to a player. If you build your game around other things, like building your nation, and make gear and grind super-shallow it will mean small loss for all involved and will be acceptable.

Imagine that in SB you have full loot, but at the same time its takes few minutes to roll full suit of whatever and it cost fraction of resources and money. Got killed? Not a big deal, stop by guild quartermaster and get one of 100 armor sets stashed for that reason. Your guild doesn't provide that service? Well your guild won't have many people willing or ready to fight.

Now you will have real reason to fight over mines – you will need them to keep producing your gear, if you lose them for a while you might run out. It will also add another way to undermine guild - just resource-starve them and by the time you get to bane they already will be weakened.

Last but not least - zerg will be harder to keep equipped simply because there are a lot more people to equip.

[Beliar]

Full loot might be a bit too much, but it depends on how easy it is to get items. But the item factor shouldn't be completely negated imo.
I liked the idea Wolfpack had in the early days of Shadowbane. It was planned to be able to bind a few of your items to your soul, and all others could be looted.

[PKedUtoo]

Full loot might be a bit too much, but it depends on how easy it is to get items. But the item factor shouldn't be completely negated imo.
I liked the idea Wolfpack had in the early days of Shadowbane. It was planned to be able to bind a few of your items to your soul, and all others could be looted.

i do agree that full loot is a little to much

[waltzie]

i do agree that full loot is a little to much

Can be possible to add particular "Zones" where there will be "full loot","no rules",ecc... where drops goodies are really uniques?
Maybe where dorps Raids mobs ... so it will be more dangeruos & really Funny ...

[SinijS]

Why 'bind' items if they can be easily replaced. Imagine standard gear in SB was SDR and it was REALLY cheap. If you lose your gear - you just pick up some more from your city or SDR. Is there good reason (other than keeping dupes around) to keep one of your cheap and readily available SDR items?

[Beliar]

Where is the advantage in full looting if everyone is running around in worthless crap?

[PKedUtoo]

Where is the advantage in full looting if everyone is running around in worthless crap?

excellent point :D

[Haleth]

Where is the advantage in full looting if everyone is running around in worthless crap?
It actually takes playerskill when u have an equal equipmentlevel.
And on the other hand... running araound in top notch gear knowing about the possibility to lose it adds another factor of excitement to the game.
I had the biggest adrenaline rushes while pvping back in Ultima Online when I was on my statloss pk equipped with the best gear I could find being hunted by a group of anti-pks... knowing to lose everthing.. gear and even char really made things exciting.

To me personally Ultima Online still sets the standard for any other pvp game.

[SinijS]

Where is the advantage in full looting if everyone is running around in worthless crap?

How is standard gear is worthless crap? Its what you use. If you kill someone with slightly better gear you get to upgrade until next dirt nap, if you died with better gear it somebody else's turn to upgrade.

I guess you never played UO during golden days, it had full loot and it was lots of fun since killing someone was big deal. You had monster drop loot and player crafted loot. Standard monster non-magical drop was easily available - you could buy it cheaply from players or kill monsters for it. You had player crafted loot that was considered standard equipment and it was better than non-magical monster drop gear. You also had rare magical drop, it was better than player crafted loot. Additionally you could 'recycle' all loot into basic components (with a loss) and use it to craft loot - as a result almost all loot was useful. You could ether use it as your backup suit or recycle and craft items you need.

In UO when you died you just went to your house or bank and picked up another identical suit to replace your lost stuff. When you killed somebody you used loot to create another backup suit for yourself. Anyone, even newbies, could afford to get all but best magical loot but hardly anyone could afford to keep replacing it. As a result you would run in what you can afford to lose - as a result there was standard gear sets that was universally used.

If you used something better than standard equipment you became a target for an opportunistic gank and you had to keep your K2D ratio high (or spend lots of time mining or farming) to keep your gear.

At the end of gold days system got tainted by 'bless item deed'. Some people got to keep one or two of their best items as blessed. As a result they got to keep top-of-the-line best possible loot (usually weapon) and got substantial ongoing advantage.

I think full loot is universal equalizer and also prevent dupes from having too much of an effect.

Key point here is to make gear READILY AVAILABLE and to make newbie gear sub-standard but adequate and non-recyclable (something like bone armor) to discourage farming of newbies.

It sad to see new generation of PvPs and PvP game designers losing history and having to re-invent things. I though that SB's loot system was sad mistake - it was difficult to get gear and it mattered a whole lot more than it should. Dupes and events hit and it all derailed into haves vs havenots instead of being simply about kicking *** on even playfield.

[GodsHandd]

Make a strife realm,where cities are built, guilds are formed, and pvp is open. Incorporate guards, much like sb to offer protection against the casual pk'r. Institute a "reputation" aspect in character development, allowing individuals to ascertain anothers tendencies based on previous actions. Have 2 seperate leveling zones to cap level,much like oblivion and chaos. One would be PvP free,though at a lesser xp rate; the other would be accelerated, but entail the risk of getting rolled. Although we all love SB, it had, and still has its faults. If the concept behind SB, including the politics, were incorporated into this current endeavor, coupled with beautiful graphics, widespread game distribution, and strategic marketing, IT WOULD SUCCEED. The key is getting it right BEFORE release, limiting bad press, poor game performance, and most importantly, eliminating aggravating and buggy gameplay issues that caused many who gave SB a try to quit and never looked twice.

[SinijS]

I'm tired trying to tell people that in PvP game

WE DON'T NEED ANY LEVELING ZONES OR GRIND WHATSOEVER

[Cohort]

I'm tired trying to tell people that in PvP game

WE DON'T NEED ANY LEVELING ZONES OR GRIND WHATSOEVER


I seriously think that a game made this way would have a great launch and maybe 6 months before it dies out to current SB pops, then gets canceled within 2years. Hopefully I am wrong though and this is the next generation of mmo's

[Zenjah]

WE DON'T NEED ANY LEVELING ZONES OR GRIND WHATSOEVER

When you say "no grind" do you mean "no progress is ever made on your character" like in a FPS?

I can't think of any form of "progress" that wouldn't be called a grind by the people who feel they need to have a perfect end-game toon in order to compete. And even if there is no character progression, then building your city is a "grind."

[PKedUtoo]

When you say "no grind" do you mean "no progress is ever made on your character" like in a FPS?

I can't think of any form of "progress" that wouldn't be called a grind by the people who feel they need to have a perfect end-game toon in order to compete. And even if there is no character progression, then building your city is a "grind."

I guess grind mean somehting different to everyone... and i would agree that all progression could be called a grind.

I think most of us have a point where we would stop concidering leveling fun and start to concider it grinding. If it takes me 2-3 hours to get a high level then great, but if it takes me a week or more (like in some games) then it has become grinding.

NOW.... back on topic

OPEN PvP OR DEATH TO ALL!!!!!!

hmmmmm...... well, if its not open PvP i guess it cant be death to all... but i figure something out.

DEATH I SAY!!

[zeroTonin]

Open pvp so I can run around with my viking char raping and pillaging all day! And of course replace viking with any hack and slash char, cause vikings ain't likely to happen and we all know it!

[SinijS]

When I say grind I mean I don't have to go 'hey guys I need to go get some levels on my char before I can PvP, someone log on druid and lets go to giants at x123.y123' in nation.

Lets model it after military - you don't ship green rookie directly to front lines (well at least not if you want to get results) with his pocket knife and bright yellow t-shirt on his back and then get him to do 'kill 10 rats' until he can fight. You stick rookie to a training camp where he is told and shown how to do basic killing, then you send him to war with basic equipment you need to kill others. Better military, more time they spend training and better starting equipment they have.


As to open PvP debate - lets close it once and for all. IT WILL BE OPEN PvP or most of us wouldn't be here (or we are wasting time right now). Since we are here, lets assume we are not wasting our time.

That and imagine you are dev for PvP- mmorpg, what do you tell your kids when they ask what you do at work? Do you tell them something like "Billy, I'm another talentless hack busy cloning WoW. I also had my ambition surgically removed, it hurt for a while and left big scar where my balls used to be" or you lie and tell that you work on creating fun games for people to enjoy?

[SoliTear]

I wouldn't be too sure. I'm sure it wouldn't be WoW/EQ style, but full world PvP is not something that 90% of MMO players want.


I have never played Shadowbane. It was the open PvP that kept me from it. I and 6 others formed a team for EQ's rallos zek server. We did well and had fun. Open PvP was a blast for us. BUT... it isn't that common for a group to want to play the same game together. The above statement is so true. I bet if we checked, the percentage of the WOW population that does PvP isn't that huge. I'd bet the majority does PvE. Allowing the option for both is probably the best bet. I am axious to see this game. I am betting the "lessons learned" will allow this game to really be good. GuildWars has quite a few players that only do PvE. Having some way to get "both" crowds involved seems to be a good idea.


I do expect PvP though in this game, and I will see how PvP works when the game is released.

[SinijS]

I have never played Shadowbane. It was the open PvP that kept me from it.

Your loss, you could always go WoW (http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/index.xml) yourself.

it isn't that common for a group to want to play the same game together

Orly? I disagree, from my guild that recently celebrated 10 years, to my coworkers that play WoW/CS/SC together to my friends that play games with me.... even my SO plays games.

Even if you are lonely nerd in the basement you can find people to play with. Other people is what puts MM into MMORPG. Designing game where you restrict how you can interact with other people is just broken.

[Ramsie]

SinijS, That attitude is not a healthy one, and one we want to eliminate

All I ask is that no one gets dismissed on these forums for the type of game they play or played. All points of view are welcomed and needed.

[SoliTear]

Your loss, you could always go WoW (http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/index.xml) yourself.


Nah! Why would I do that? Seems like quite a few posters on this forum have a grudge against WoW. Gotta do better than that to hurt my feelings. LOL!

Do a study. A real study on the number of people who play PvP and PvE and Open PvP. Get the marketing numbers.... Then come back and we can talk about the value of "restricting how a person interacts with others in a game."

[SinijS]

How about instead we count corpses (http://www.istaria.com/about.php) of all countless (http://www.vanguardsoh.com/index.php ) failed (http://www.darkfallonline.com) attempts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asheron's_Call_2) to create PvE mmorpg? Why do you think doing exactly same thing as these guys will work for your 'Yet Another DIKU'®?

Unless you have mega budget and no pressing deadline that you can out-polish turd^h^h^h^h WoW you might as well not try to.

With SB lingering in 'played out' mode there is a need for alternative open PvP mmorpg, there surely no need for PvE mmorpg since there are tons of alternatives and even more coming out.

Supply and demand, biotch?

[Ramsie]

SinijS stop the attitude or stop posting.

That is the attitude that needs to change moreso than that ofSoliTear. You will not be allowed to run people off people you feel you are "more hardcore".

[Cohort]

Sinijs you are a such a tool.

[Ramsie]

Cohort, that does not help...

[SinijS]

or stop posting.

Done. I'm not going to change my attitude after decade of gaming.

[KayleeM]

Its sad, really, to see a good thread with lots of great ideas from lots of intelligent people take a turn for the childish. I won't get into it, but this is the root of what is/has made the UBI forums the perpetual epeen waving contest it is. Way to be open minded people. General Statement: This may be a shock to your ego, but you *CAN* be wrong every now and then.


I have never played Shadowbane. It was the open PvP that kept me from it. I and 6 others formed a team for EQ's rallos zek server. We did well and had fun. Open PvP was a blast for us.


I started in EQ also, and the harshness of SB was a tough pill to swallow, but now, after having fully adopted the 'Its just a damn game' mentality... SB is by far the best MMO I have ever played and probably ever will for some time. Seriously hun, give it a try, log onto a server and I can show you the ropes.


BUT... it isn't that common for a group to want to play the same game together.


Granted, I haven't polled a game server or multiple games (dunno if you have or not) but I can say that in my experience, groups of people from school/work constitute MOST of the guys & gals I game with.


I bet if we checked, the percentage of the WOW population that does PvP isn't that huge. I'd bet the majority does PvE.

This is true, because WOW is geared for that demographic. Everything about the game (physics, storyline, gear, combat) is created from the ground up to be PvE and, from what I can remember, it does PvE exceptionally well. There will, however, come a time when even the most devout WoW or EQ player gets bored. Normally they just quit or take a break. Never is the "hey, come try PvP for a second" ever really offered to them. If it was, I bet the adrenaline rush they expereinced way back when the first started will come back to them all over again.

Then again, some people just don't do well with losing. Many MANY people can only have fun when the win. They can't seem to grasp the concept of just having fun playing Win OR Lose. Its these people that either: a) Never try an open PvP game or B) do try it and cannot adjust to it and end up being a whiny crybaby.

Allowing the option for both is probably the best bet. I am axious to see this game. I am betting the "lessons learned" will allow this game to really be good. GuildWars has quite a few players that only do PvE. Having some way to get "both" crowds involved seems to be a good idea.


I agree with this whole heartedly. Both aspects should be addressed. SBG sticking to their reputation however, I see an inbalance happening. The new game would be more 'open PvP' than 'closed PvE'

To make an analogy, open PvP is like addictive drugs. Our upbringing inherently keeps us away from them, but once you try the forbidden fruit, you're hooked forever.

[cornholio]

define open pvp to you

I'd consider a game like WoW to be "open pvp" if you could run around and kill anyone lv 10 and above. I like to use WoW as an example, because you can easily imagine what truly "open pvp" would do for the population! IMO it would be a good thing but nonetheless WoW would lose 90% of it's subscriber base. (I don't see that as a bad thing because, imo, I would be doing someone a favor by "helping them" to realize how dumb it is to farm mobs all day long. They'd learn what it is like to be a mob!)

When sb first came out, there were safeguards in place designed to protect the open pvp system "from itself". it was very tough to grief people and remain anonymous. You couldn't do squat as an errant. You could get banished from every open tree. Your guild could get wiped off the map. But then came multiple accounts and evac bots. This gave griefers a way to bypass the built-in safeguards against this "dark side" of open pvp. And that was only the beginning. Dupes helped destroy much of the safeguards against unrestricted pvp.

There were many tiny blunders that added to the problems associated with open pvp, like safe zone ruins. That was a biggy back when corruption first launched. Groups could form up at the ruins and nothing could be done to stop it.

And then there were the 4 am banes against the pk guilds, which for them was a way of bypassing accountability. And then there was 4 am city prepping, which allowed the small pk guilds to bring down the large guilds...

all of that just makes my head spin... open pvp is such a complicated idea to implement. I think sb did it better than any game but it is so easy to pull on one thread and have it all unravel.

[waltzie]

To make an analogy, open PvP is like addictive drugs. Our upbringing inherently keeps us away from them, but once you try the forbidden fruit, you're hooked forever.


Hrgh .. HARF ...
more ... pleasEEE .. .gimme MooRE !!! HARF MOOORREEE !!!

:D

[Viscuss]

All this reference to WoW an *%#( like it is about to make me crai. I tried that game an when I finally hit lvl 2 I quit an cancelled account. You have no idea the amount of pain I go through when I think about how I gave them another how ever much cash it takes to buy an subsribe to that game.

So if you could all please never, never, never an I mean freakin not ever repeat the name of that title again you would please me.

[bobcarn]

Done. I'm not going to change my attitude after decade of gaming.

SinijS, it's not your views on gaming or PvP that people are complaining about, it's how you're treating them. We're all adults here and expect to be treated with a bit of respect. You have valid views on gaming, and there's not problem with that. But there's a time and place for everything. Trash talking and putting down your opponents may be fine on the battlefield within a game, but not within a forum where all we're doing is exchanging ideas. Keep all of your views if you want to, but show a bit of respect. That's all.

The devs are adults who are tackling this new project not just from a gaming aspect, but from a business aspect as well. For any game to be successful, there has to be an anticipated client base they can sell it to. Driving away potential customers is NOT a good business model. The devs want to hear everyone's opinion, not just the hardcore gamers'. Since they're the ones that are developing this game, and they want to hear what everyone has to say, simply respect that and let people voice their opinions in an intelligent, respectful manner.

[VoxPopuli2]

While Sinij may not be the most diplomatic poster, I agree that if SBG tries to make a watered down Shadowbane/ WoW combo in order to appeal to as wide as possible a playerbase they are not likely to be successful. UO, DAOC, EQ, WoW, these large games already dominate the pve/pvp MMO market -to displace them a game would likely need tremendously advanced graphics or gameplay. Given that SBG is a small company, it is unlikely they will have the money to come up with the next generation of graphics in an MMO.

That leaves them with some new twist to gameplay, such as advanced dungeons, or whatever. Here again, I think they are better off leaving it to the WoWs of the world to focus on this area, and instead focus on an innovative concept which in itself does not require millions and millions of dollars to develop- i.e. open pvp.

Open pvp is a revolutionary concept in MMO games, and while it has its share of adherents (as evidenced by Shadowbane's popularity) it has never been done in a commmercially successful manner in the history of MMOs. This is the niche where a small company like SBG can really make a mark for themselves without spending 100 million dollars to develop a game. Open pvp players don't care if the game engine is merely adequate and not revolutionary, they don't care if the graphics are good but not great, their focus is on the gameplay.

Of course, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. While the concept of open pvp is attractive to a fair amount of players, unless you design the gameply properly the game will fail as a commercial enterprise. This is why nobody in the history of the world (earth) has ever made a commercially successful open pvp MMO. It is amazingly difficult to design such a game properly to attract a mass audience. While I hope SBG does give it a go, my hunch is that at the end of the day they will go for some WoW/SB combo, believing that to be the less "risky" approach.

Of course the problem with this is that the hardcore pvp types will quickly lose interest in a modified "WoW" type game, while the less hardcore pvpers are unlikely to leave their better-funded and populated games for some SB/WoW combo. Unfortunately, corporations, whether huge ones like Blizzard, or smaller ones like SBG, often take the committee approach to major decisions, which tends to stifle innovation.

All that being said, if SBG does have a go at an open pvp system, the main lesson to take away from Shadowbane is that you need to design gameplay so that it isn't possible for some small group of hardcore players to dominate all the other players in the game. While it can be fun to see a guild of 20-30 members destroy guilds 2 and 3 times their size the end result is a game in which only a few successful guilds will pay to play. Very few people want to pay money so they can be losers in their leisure time activities. The original designers of Shadowbane had a great vision, but they lacked the experience to design their game so that a wide variety of players could successfully play it. If SBG can find a way to do this and allow a largely open pvp world they should be able to find a profitable niche for their new MMO.

[Chadwick]

It makes me feel dirty, but I agree with Sinij's overall point, if not his tact. Inserting a PvE grind into a game like SB made little sense. The game was supposed to be about PvP conflict... but before you can play the game you have womp on some lizardmen for a week? Yeah, new players need to learn how to play the game, but SB PvE was not exactly a good training ground for PvP, either.

Were I designing a system, this is roughly how I would do it:

1) (Almost) no mobs

The only mobs I would include would be strong city guards (more on this later), walking resources (animals for crafting), and anything else needed to create ambiance.

2) Lateral advancement

Every new player should start out with some useful skill. To use SB as an example, every new wizard should have a GM mage bolt and decent atr. A new wizard won't be nearly as good as a max lvl version, but they could still contribute to PvP. Advancement should provide versatility, not raw power.

3) Open PvP (with organic protections)

Virtually everywhere will be a PvP+ zone. Maybe a few places should be completely safe, but I'm a huge sandbox proponent so I want as seamless an experience as possible. What I would want are coded in protections that might make certain areas tantamount to safeholds. In a major factional capital, there would be a lot of powerful guards to enforce the laws. Out in the wilderness... good luck.

4) Early leveling through arenas

I would incorporate a robust arena/dueling system where small groups could fight each other with no penalty attached (unless, perhaps, the particular players wanted penalties or placed wagers, etc). New players could fight each other in these arenas with little fear of max level players interrupting their fights. Perhaps, as a failsafe, incorporate a few PvE scenarios into the system. I could imagine, for instance, a team-siege scenario to get new players used to siege warfare, but ideally we would want people fighting with and against each other as early and often as possible. I didn't play it in release, but the Guild Wars PvP arena from the trial would be almost exactly what I would want. Quick 3v3, 5v5, etc fights. If you lose, no big deal, you jump back in. Don't make new players run back to get their corpses and the like.

One of the big problems of SB lowbie ganking was that 1) the gankee often lost quite a bit of their time investment 2) it wasn't a fair fight to begin with 3) they would have repair their gear, make sure they had a tracker, and then spend along time trying to find their assailant to get a rematch. PvP is fun, but only if we give the player options for instant revenge. The time between initial humiliation and the exacting of vengeance is a time of frustration. Initially, that feeling can help keep players playing, but if it drags on long enough, it almost certainly leads to cancellations. The key is to limit the impact of the loss and make sure that players have instant revenge opportunities available to them.

[VoxPopuli2]

I don't mind having pve in the game, if the game is all pvp you lose a fair amount of casual players. The main problem with Shadowbane was that the casual player was always at a huge disadvantage to the powergamer/hardcore pvpers. Of course this has been the problem with every single open pvp game to date, so the question is how do you design a (largely) open pvp game that allows both hardcore pvpers and casual players to play.

Using hard-coded factions a la WoW or EQ does not appeal to me, and means that right away the game is not open pvp, as generally these games don't allow attacks on factionmates. But Chadwick does have a great point about factional strongholds being protected by very powerful guards. If you change this to player-controlled stongholds you are taking a step in the right direction. In lowbie zones near to a player town you could have npc guards as well, making it very difficult for high level toons to raid the lowbies, but not impossible, just to keep things interesting. Higher level zones would be out of range of guard patrols, as they should be, to encourage conflict over these areas.

Another mistake Shadowbane made was to make it very easy to get to most any zone to roll lowbies there, in the mistaken guise of encouraging "pvp," When in fact, to the exact opposite is the way to go. Make it difficult to get to enemy xp zones, so that griefing lowbies is not easy. At the same time, areas where higher level toons can fight each other should be relatively easy to get to. This simple formula is a recipe for success in any good pvp game, but unfortunately the developers of Shadowbane never seemed to grasp it.

So things like battlegrounds in WoW could have a place in this new game, in conjunction with the territorial features of Shadowbane. For instance, while player controlled-zones would be fairly difficult to raid, high-level pvp battlegrounds could be easy to get to. At the battlegrounds guilds and players could fight for items or tokens that would aid them in their territorial struggles. Basically this gives you the best of both worlds, easily accessible pvp combined with player-controlled territories.

The one great advantage to an open pvp game for the developers is that, if done right, it is much less expensive to develop such a game because the players provide the content. In the pve games players are constantly demanding new dungeons, new lands, etc, because the old ones get stale after a time. In a pvp game this is much less needed because xping in a zone will come with the added element of potential enemy incursions. So for a smaller company an open-pvp oriented game offers a great opportunity to make a splash even without a huge design budget -and this has been proven by the popularity of Shadowbane in spite of its many many horrendous design flaws. SBG is in a perfect position to draw on the lessons learned from SB to make a successful open pvp MMO, let's hope they will seize the opportunity and not take the "safe" route and make a bargain-budget WoW clone.

[Vandarr]

I'd like to see safeholds that aren't coded, but enforced by powerful guards as detailed by Chadwick. If I feel like it, I should be able to raise a mass of people and raid it, killing everything in my path.

However, it'd be kind of cool to have an arena area. Players could pay admission (their bet), and be chucked into a small area where they could fight. Loser's cash is deposited immediately into the winner's bank.

Of course, this would be pretty hard to code, I'd imagine. Still, I like the idea!

[SoliTear]

if SBG is going to have PvP and PvE in the next game, it would be interesting to see if they could take the basic concepts in DAOC and polish them and see what they could come up with. Open PvP does keep many away. I believe that SBG would like to have commercially sucessful game. You do know that investors like to see a company make $$ when they invest. Also, a commercially successful game keeps SBG's doors open and people employed.

i've participated in PvP games before, i don't even mind getting my teeth kicked in for a while during my "learning the game time", but it the game allows for Open PvP, well, count me out.

[waltzie]

It makes me feel dirty, but I agree with Sinij's overall point, if not his tact. Inserting a PvE grind into a game like SB made little sense. The game was supposed to be about PvP conflict... but before you can play the game you have womp on some lizardmen for a week? Yeah, new players need to learn how to play the game, but SB PvE was not exactly a good training ground for PvP, either.

Were I designing a system, this is roughly how I would do it:

1) (Almost) no mobs

The only mobs I would include would be strong city guards (more on this later), walking resources (animals for crafting), and anything else needed to create ambiance.

2) Lateral advancement

Every new player should start out with some useful skill. To use SB as an example, every new wizard should have a GM mage bolt and decent atr. A new wizard won't be nearly as good as a max lvl version, but they could still contribute to PvP. Advancement should provide versatility, not raw power.

3) Open PvP (with organic protections)

Virtually everywhere will be a PvP+ zone. Maybe a few places should be completely safe, but I'm a huge sandbox proponent so I want as seamless an experience as possible. What I would want are coded in protections that might make certain areas tantamount to safeholds. In a major factional capital, there would be a lot of powerful guards to enforce the laws. Out in the wilderness... good luck.

4) Early leveling through arenas

I would incorporate a robust arena/dueling system where small groups could fight each other with no penalty attached (unless, perhaps, the particular players wanted penalties or placed wagers, etc). New players could fight each other in these arenas with little fear of max level players interrupting their fights. Perhaps, as a failsafe, incorporate a few PvE scenarios into the system. I could imagine, for instance, a team-siege scenario to get new players used to siege warfare, but ideally we would want people fighting with and against each other as early and often as possible. I didn't play it in release, but the Guild Wars PvP arena from the trial would be almost exactly what I would want. Quick 3v3, 5v5, etc fights. If you lose, no big deal, you jump back in. Don't make new players run back to get their corpses and the like.

One of the big problems of SB lowbie ganking was that 1) the gankee often lost quite a bit of their time investment 2) it wasn't a fair fight to begin with 3) they would have repair their gear, make sure they had a tracker, and then spend along time trying to find their assailant to get a rematch. PvP is fun, but only if we give the player options for instant revenge. The time between initial humiliation and the exacting of vengeance is a time of frustration. Initially, that feeling can help keep players playing, but if it drags on long enough, it almost certainly leads to cancellations. The key is to limit the impact of the loss and make sure that players have instant revenge opportunities available to them.

I don't agree .. I don't want a GW clone

[VoxPopuli2]

if SBG is going to have PvP and PvE in the next game, it would be interesting to see if they could take the basic concepts in DAOC and polish them and see what they could come up with. Open PvP does keep many away. I believe that SBG would like to have commercially sucessful game. You do know that investors like to see a company make $$ when they invest. Also, a commercially successful game keeps SBG's doors open and people employed.

i've participated in PvP games before, i don't even mind getting my teeth kicked in for a while during my "learning the game time", but it the game allows for Open PvP, well, count me out.


The thing is there are many big-budget heavily-subscribed MMOs already doing the pve with certain areas for pvp thing. While I'm rooting for SBG, they are a small studio without the financial resources of the studios producing DAOC/WoW/EQ etc. Trying to compete in thise arena is a recipe for failure for the SBG folks.

The MMOs developed by small studios that have been successful are most often ones that do something dramatically different than the current games out there -for example Ultima Online, or Shadowbane (upon its initial launch), or DAOC when it first came out. So, while you may not like open pvp games the truth of the matter is that there is a very motivated core audience of gamers who does like this type of game. From a business standpoint, SBG would be foolish to forsake their ties with this section of the MMO fanbase to try and "improve" on the WoW/DAOC systems when they lack the financial resources of the studios which develop those games.

In business, as in life, if you try to please everybody, you generally end up pleasing nobody. The pve/factional pvp segment of the MMO market is saturated at this point. However, there are currently no MMOs out currently other than Shadowbane which target the open pvp segment. And Shadowbane, while a fun game, is much like the UO of the pve/factional pvp type games -it is a pioneer but just as EQ and then DAOC and WoW improved on UO in both gameplay and popularity, the same is likely to happen to SB when the next generation of open pvp games comes out.

Should Future Fantasy utilize a variety of means to make sure an open pvp system is not a complete mindless gankfest? Absolutely, but if they go the road of factional pvp only a la WoW or DAOC they are likely to attract very little of the SB playerbase, while at the same time finding that WoW/DAOC are not easily dethroned with a me-to type product.

[SoliTear]

While I'm rooting for SBG, they are a small studio without the financial resources of the studios producing DAOC/WoW/EQ etc. Trying to compete in thise arena is a recipe for failure for the SBG folks.
I believe the statement of "learning from our past mistakes" will cause SBG to "strategically develop" their next title. Telling SBG to aim low because they are a small studio just doesn't sound like a good business plan for any organization.

So, while you may not like open pvp games the truth of the matter is that there is a very motivated core audience of gamers who does like this type of game. From a business standpoint, SBG would be foolish to forsake their ties with this section of the MMO fanbase to try and "improve" on the WoW/DAOC systems when they lack the financial resources of the studios which develop those games.
The size and budget of a studio does have an impact on how much they can put into a game system and the time they have to develop their title. I do believe your are selling SBG short by saying they shouldn't have big goals or goals other than making Shadowbane 2. The experience of developing and maintaining Shadowbane gives them a very significant experience base from which to work. The team has an idea of how much work and effort goes into the different parts of development and maintenance of a mmorpg. I believe everyone will be surprised what SBG can do because they are going into this development with "experience."

However, there are currently no MMOs out currently other than Shadowbane which target the open pvp segment.
That statement alone says quite a bit. I doubt there are no games which target the pvp crowd. Also, for a game to be successful, a player base of 400k is still significant, at least to me.

Should Future Fantasy utilize a variety of means to make sure an open pvp system is not a complete mindless gankfest?

By using the term Open PvP, you are limiting the game design. Putting any limits on Open PvP seems to move the game to PvP. The way some on these boards talk, they are really looking for a Fantasy First Person Shooter rather than a mmorpg.

I believe that a game that has both PvP and PvE would appeal to the largest crowd. Making PvP competition-like aka GuildWars or making it like DAOC with the relics and zone control has quite a bit of merit. Open PvP is extremely hard, if not impossible to balance. A game without balance or close to being balanced will fail. A game that offers a variety of ways to play the game would draw in many different players.

In the end it will be very interesting to see how this new title develops and is revealed.

[Chadwick]

I don't agree .. I don't want a GW clone

Nor do I, but instancing is going to have to play a role in any commercially successful PvP MMO. One of the critical failings of SB is that it is a lot of work to go find the action. Players want to log on and kill people, but spend 30 minutes buffing up and running around for a single fight. Any new game will have to find ways to facilitate combat better than SB did.

Instancing/arenas should not be the only means of PvP. Genuine GvG combat over a large world can be a lot of fun. There is no escaping the fact that, if you want people to keep playing your game, you need to get them to the fun parts as quickly as you can.

[Mourne]

I didn't read through everyone's replies, but I just wanted to add my two cents that I definitely support open PvP in this game.

[VoxPopuli2]

I believe the statement of "learning from our past mistakes" will cause SBG to "strategically develop" their next title. Telling SBG to aim low because they are a small studio just doesn't sound like a good business plan for any organization.


The size and budget of a studio does have an impact on how much they can put into a game system and the time they have to develop their title. I do believe your are selling SBG short by saying they shouldn't have big goals or goals other than making Shadowbane 2. The experience of developing and maintaining Shadowbane gives them a very significant experience base from which to work. The team has an idea of how much work and effort goes into the different parts of development and maintenance of a mmorpg. I believe everyone will be surprised what SBG can do because they are going into this development with "experience."


That statement alone says quite a bit. I doubt there are no games which target the pvp crowd. Also, for a game to be successful, a player base of 400k is still significant, at least to me.



By using the term Open PvP, you are limiting the game design. Putting any limits on Open PvP seems to move the game to PvP. The way some on these boards talk, they are really looking for a Fantasy First Person Shooter rather than a mmorpg.

I believe that a game that has both PvP and PvE would appeal to the largest crowd. Making PvP competition-like aka GuildWars or making it like DAOC with the relics and zone control has quite a bit of merit. Open PvP is extremely hard, if not impossible to balance. A game without balance or close to being balanced will fail. A game that offers a variety of ways to play the game would draw in many different players.

In the end it will be very interesting to see how this new title develops and is revealed.


First of all, it's best to be clear when discussing these issues. An open pvp game can in fact include pve, they aren't mutually exclusive as you seem to imply. As for open pvp being hard to balance, this is why there is such an excellent opportunity for SBG in the area of the market. Making an "improved" version of Guildwars or DAOC or WoW is, in my opinion, not likely to be a very fruitful pursuit for a small studio simply because cutting edge graphics and gameplay are needed to really make a splash in this saturated part of the market, and this entails a big development budget that SBG is unlikely to have.

A good example would be the movie business, where the big-budget adventure films with lots of location shots and special effects are made almost exclusively by the major film studios, not because they are the only ones who have these type of ideas, but because very few small studios can finance 100 or 200 million dollars to make them. However, in the independent film market, smaller studios can find success with movies that emphasize plot, or acting, things that audiences don't necessarily get in the big budget features.

The MMO market presents a similar situation, and you are doing SBG a dis-service by trying to steer them in a direction you prefer simply because you don't like "open" pvp. If you don't like open pvp there are many MMOs out there you can play. The beauty of an open pvp MMO is that not only is this an under-served market, ripe for the picking, but that the development costs on an ongoing basis are generally lower than the non-open pvp games. In games like WoW or DAOC, boredom sets in once all the mob zones have been investigated, and players leave these games for something new quite often unless a steady stream of expansions are released.

In an open pvp game in which the players control the environment (towns/zones) to some extent, things are constantly changing without any input from the devs, hence the developers aren't forced to constantly be designing new content to keep the players interested. As you say, doing an open pvp game right is hard to do, but if anyone can do it it is likely to be SBG, given their experience with Shadowbane. An open pvp game does not have to be a 24/7 gankfest, there can be various limitations that discourage things like lowbie ganking and city or bindstone camping, etc. etc. But if SBG restricts things so much that they have a DAOC/WoW clone of some sorts they are unlikely to attract much interest from the SB players out there, and would have to rely mainly on stealing players away from WoW and other games like it. I'm not saying that would be impossible to do, I just believe their better bet is to go for a market that is underserved and waiting for the next generation MMO to capture the open pvp market.

[PKedUtoo]

I know this is a little off topic...BUT I keep hearing people talk about WoW as cutting edge.

have any of you even played WoW?

I don't know about you, but i hate WoW's graphic style and even though many may like it my personal oppion is they suck.

Combat is awful... it feels like a poorly made Turn based game.

the quests are pointless and boring "go kill 7 of this and 4 of that." :/ come on now.. thats crap.

If the new game is anything like WoW (except for the fact that they are both MMO's) then count me out.

p.s. Even being able to play WoW for free on a private server does not even make it worth it. FREE does not even make this game any good :/ (now thats sad)

[SoliTear]

. . . you are doing SBG a dis-service by trying to steer them in a direction you prefer simply because you don't like "open" pvp.
You've got to be kidding? Right? If I have ANY influence on the game design, then the developers at SBG really need to hire some professional game designers. This forum is for the building of a community around "this next product of theirs." Players are not usually the ones who understand the gaming industry typically gamers are focused on the environment of the current game that has their attention. In this case it would be Shadowbane. The people left on this forum are hardcore, dedicated Shadowbane players. I expect most of the posters here to be heavily biased toward making the next product a "fixed" version of Shadowbane.

I am well aware my opinions are in the minority of the people who post here. But an open forum is for discussing ideas and topics. You cant have a discussion on "Open PvP or Not?" without someone representing the or Not? portion.

On the boredom issue: Players can get bored doing PvP as well as PvE. Boredom has to do with a person perceiving an action as being tedious. All players get "burn-out" when it comes to a game. Variety is the spice of life. Just making a game an Open PvP does NOT guarantee that the game will never be boring.

[PKedUtoo]

You've got to be kidding? Right? If I have ANY influence on the game design, then the developers at SBG really need to hire some professional game designers.

You've got to be kidding? Right?

There are two big things that SBG has going for them

1) they are known for Shadowbane

2) they listen to the players and make many changes based on player ideas and input.

without this SBG would get crushed in a world of big business

NOW... with that said, SBG has two big things agaist them

1) they are known for Shadowbane

2) they listen to the players and make many changes based on player ideas and input.

I know we all love shadowbane, but i think most MMO players will remember it as a buggy gank fest that they hated.

AND as far as listening to players goes... you can get a very fun game that is inovative and different, BUT the draw back is... you get a fun game that is inovative and different :/ lol. Lots of people are affaird of change and they only want to see small amounts of new content with brand new graphics. Also most people what a world they can relate too in other games/movies they have played or watched in the past. (the reason WoW was such a big hit)

I honestly think if SBG gives up there Shadowbane roots and makes a PvE/quest based MMO like the rest of them, they might as well stop now. There is nothing that is going to make them outshine the other companies unless they go down a road less traveled.

only my 2 cents

[cornholio]

Also most people what a world they can relate too in other games/movies they have played or watched in the past. (the reason WoW was such a big hit)

I honestly don't know about that. I really think some people play WoW just to be zombies. I was watching a friend play his 57 orc warrior on wow a while back, and it was just... sad. He always lead off with the same power, the one where you rush up to the mob really fast and stun him. Funny thing is, about 50% of the time he'd misjudge the distance, and he'd actually step back so he could be in range to use that power. Sometimes he'd have to try more than once to be in the proper range.

I'm like, just go [censored] attack the thing, if you aren't in range then the opportunity is lost and it's best to lead off with something else.

He looks at me like... huh? (insert orc grunt sound effect)

But what kills me is how the hell can you play a game for 100 plus hours, using the same exact power to lead off every single encounter, and yet still misjudge the range requirements! argh. And he never uses the hotkey for it either. Always clicks on everything. lol.

Let's face it, people who play like that, they got owned right the [censored] out of shadowbane, because shadowbane is a game where if you have everything mapped to hotkeys, and you have fast reaction time, you can do incredible things. Wow is not like that at all, because you're always running around and that's too pedantic of a playstyle. Well there are many other reasons of course. Anyway my point is that games like WoW cater to the eternal noobs by making them feel like they're somehow "pro" because they made it to level 60. lol. Patronization SELLS. More than anything else in mmorpg gaming.

[PKedUtoo]

Patronization SELLS. More than anything else in mmorpg gaming.

that last statement is my point in a nut shell :)

in compairision to a hardened hard core PvP player ALL PvE palyers are noobs, becuase they dont have the skill/training it takes to fight REAL people.

SO becuase of this you make a market where 90% of everyone is like that :/

lets hope that SBG makes a game for the 10% of us that have the skill to play in a Open PvP game and the rest of the people can pick one of the many titles out there and in dev. that already cater to there game play style (mindless zombies)

[KayleeM]

...but if they make the game 5% NON-Hardcore... wouldn't that attract more targets for the main player base? :)

[waltzie]

...but if they make the game 5% NON-Hardcore... wouldn't that attract more targets for the main player base? :)



lets hope that SBG makes a game for the 10% of us that have the skill to play in a Open PvP game and the rest of the people can pick one of the many titles out there and in dev. that already cater to there game play style (mindless zombies)


I agree both ..but ..this can be the opportunity to change the situation ..

I think that a good MMORPG with a real Open PVP can invert the proportions & carry the poeples to play 90% for PvP against 10% for PvE
Anyway ... a good 10% of really interested players for a good OpenPVP can make a SBG affordable.

To make the "transition" between PvE to PvP ... less traumatic ... will be nice to let in SBG a good (little as you whant but present) PvE enviroment too.

Last but not the list, Build the game with the opportunity for a soloing to be possible.
If i whant to impersonate a "errant" 6 build my PC alone, this must be possible (hard but possible) & this PC can be build strong as the Best Guild Leader in the game (again .. hard but possible)

[PKedUtoo]

.Build the game with the opportunity for a soloing to be possible.

I will agree that there are a lot of "lone wolf" player types out there and i would love to see the game made so you can get by without grouping.

grouping in any game will always have its advantages, but it should not be something you have to do.

[SoliTear]

.Build the game with the opportunity for a soloing to be possible.

I will agree that there are a lot of "lone wolf" player types out there and i would love to see the game made so you can get by without grouping.

grouping in any game will always have its advantages, but it should not be something you have to do.

I used to have that opinion, but I thought about it a little. Wanting to solo everything in a MMORPG seems to be an oxymoron. Grouping seems to me to be really difficult because games get into a mindset of player "roles" For example: A group is advertising for a TANK fighter and an Area of Effect Nuker. Now if you are a damage dealing fighter, they don't want you because they want the fighter to draw all the MOB aggro and then have the Nuker blow up the MOBs once they are in a group.

I believe a "small group" idea and making the classes so that you can't pigeon hole them would be the ideal. GuildWars did one thing really well, they got the players used to grouping by making some quests solvable by a group only. Now mind you that was in the tutorial newbie area and the group was only two people, but you got the idea. Also, at the end of the newbie area was a "trial" where you were grouped with two others against 3 opponents. So, you ended up experiencing PvP early in the game and it gave you a taste of it.

With thought and intentional game design, I believe players could be introduced to grouping and PvP ideas early in the game without traumatizing them. "Framing a player's expectations" is the key. I don't believe MMORPGs should be solo-able, but then again, it shouldn't take a major effort to get a group together either.

[PKedUtoo]

you lost me as soon as you said GW.

GW = Poop

forced group instances = crap

[SoliTear]

you lost me as soon as you said GW.

GW = Poop

forced group instances = crap

What's the point of discussing stuff with replies like this?

[PKedUtoo]

What's the point of discussing stuff with replies like this?

I honestly dont know what else to say,

forced Group Instances are awful. If your ever forced to be in a small group in a game it is no longer a MMO.

most people will agree that GW does not even count as an MMO. The only reason that they are even listed as an MMO on game sites is becuase they have a common area that everyone can meet up at. Everything else in the game is NOT an MMO.

SO.... to have a discusstion we need to be talking the same language.

we are talking about "MASSIVE MULTI-PLAYER online roleplaying games" and not "Small groups of Forced Instances Online Role playing games" I guess also know as SGoFIORPGs (lol) or for short GW

[Benji_]

Well, first of all, PKed- You didn't say FORCED instances were bad in the prior post. Nor did you explain your point of view beyond what I like to call 'teenage logic.'

As far as it goes, forced instancing is a bad concept, yes. However, if you take a look at (for instance) World of Warcraft's battlegrounds and arena concepts, it isn't so bad- You can, at any time, get into an instance that is GUARANTEED to have PvP. I can guarantee you that if Shadowbane had the same concept, there would be more people playing today simply because they don't have to look for PvP in the wilderness.

[SoliTear]

. . we are talking about "MASSIVE MULTI-PLAYER online roleplaying games" and not "Small groups of Forced Instances Online Role playing games" I guess also know as SGoFIORPGs (lol) or for short GW

And YOU are talking about MSOGG - Massively Single Player Online Griefing Game.

[LeddZeppelin]

you lost me as soon as you said GW.

GW = Poop

forced group instances = crap

there is no point in having any sort of intelligent debate on these boards with posts like this... there is 0 reason to pout and say " omg you said GW, i quit!", not only is it childish but is a waste of the interwebs

[Benji_]

there is no point in having any sort of intelligent debate on these boards with posts like this... there is 0 reason to pout and say " omg you said GW, i quit!", not only is it childish but is a waste of the interwebs

Heh, there is almost nothing on any gaming forum that ISN'T a waste of the internet.

[VeshAlkaline]

again, the pvp aspect of any game becomes limited by your end game intent.

Lineage - castle siege, makes for largeish scale pvp(but is also a terrible yet pretty game)
WoW - raid instances, possibly the worst end game of all time, like my gf says "so you spend 5 hours in here so you can...have a different shirt?"
SB - Economic and Regional disputation, City and eventually (even thought it failed) kingdoms.

Obviously i'm leaving a couple SGoFIORPG's out cause GW and FFXI uh are awful, that's why we are on this forum i the first place. To make sure this ends up awesome.....and so we all get into beta....that too.

[PKedUtoo]

Heh, there is almost nothing on any gaming forum that ISN'T a waste of the internet.

AMEN :)

its all "what if" conversations

[waltzie]

As saib before ... in my fantasy i see SBG an open PVP, but with some add on ... mainly a sandbox Open PvP, but

some region will be themepark
some places/dungeons will be instanced
some arenase like GW
etc ...

[VoxPopuli2]

As saib before ... in my fantasy i see SBG an open PVP, but with some add on ... mainly a sandbox Open PvP, but

some region will be themepark
some places/dungeons will be instanced
some arenase like GW
etc ...


Yes, a game like this that takes the best parts of SB and WoW would be tremendously popular if done right, I think. SB is great because of the player-controlled cities and realms, but the problem with the game is that other than the realm control and resources (mine) battles, there is absolutely nothing else for players to do. And given that the city control features cater mainly to a guild's leadership, the game can get boring fast for the rank and file.

So if you have a mostly open pvp game with battleground-like instances where players can find pvp 24/7 you create a game which stands a better chance of retaining the non-guild leadership players. In addition, you can set it up so that pvp in the battlegrounds can earn tokens or items or points to help with the city/zone control system, as well as having just mindless FFAs (which can be fun).

The problem with WoW, and the reason players leave after a time, is that the pvp there is not meaningful, and there is little player control over the environment. WoW and other games like this attempt to solve this dilemma by coming out with new expansions on a regular basis, but this is a very expensive route to go in terms of programming costs and server upkeep, and only works for a time until a game gets overloaded with expansions.

The beauty of the player controlled zones and cities a la Shadowbane is that the players are constantly creating new content (via wars, diplomacy, etc.) so that the dev team doesn't have to constanly work on new expansions to keep its playerbase from moving on the next new game. Player controlled zones/cities combined with a few Theme Park attractions to keep things interesting should be a powerful combination, and give SBG a chance to make a next generation MMO that will take the genre to a new level.

[sumdood]

i'd be ok with a few high-level non-pvp zones or even instances. it would work out quite well, if people fought over them.

treat non-pvp instanced dungeons like mines in shadowbane. after all, instanced dungeons are resource generators; its a place strictly made to give players stuff. the owners of the instance can decide who can use it, whether it be only their guild, their allies also, or if they're just nice guys everyone. just like mines, an hour each day the instance would be up grabs. i think if you did this, even wow players would be encouraged enough to get into pvp.

[MajmaJ]

I have several thoughts on this subject.

First, I admit I'm way late on this thread and did not take the time to read past the first two pages.

I'd like to make my points in sections.

First, there is the assumption that an absurd arbitrary percent of players are not willing to play in a 100% pvp environment. I'd like to see what research you have to show this. While Ill agree a great many people instantly reject the thought of not only pvp but especially full pvp I also know as many that instantly reject the thought of anything but.

My point is gamers, or MMO players to be more specific, do not like the same things. When targeting your player base you shouldn't lump them all together and say, "we're making this game for MMO players". If you do you're trying to build a game that satisfies people who want completely different things. Its impossible to do that.

The only chance for a game like the one currently in development by SBG to succeed is to target a niche of players.

Assuming that 90% of all players do not want a 100% pvp world as you say that leaves 10% (still a huge number of players) who are looking for a game that simply does not exist right now. There is currently no modern open pvp game, if SBG fills that void they will attract that player base and assuming the game doesnt suck they will do well.

Second, you can have open pvp and have relatively safe areas. For example in Shadowbane now you are relatively safe in your own town although its not 100% safe. I believe this principle can be used by skilled world builders to create a world with hot and cold areas. For example, the average person will not run a great distance to find someone to pk when there is pray in a much easier place to access. This means that the further you are away from an area where players start, say a runegate in SB for example, the safer you are.

[MajmaJ]

Full world pvp is totally unnecessary. For example, there is zero reason for newbie areas (and even lowbie areas) to be full pvp. It just kills the playerbase and wastes people's time. I dunno about you, but when I'm leveling up a character, I want to level it up, not be delayed by people pvping with me, even if they are my own level. I want to get to the end game ASAP. Doing anything else before then is just a waste.

Sticking with the "zomg you don't want full pvp go home carebear" attitude is going to produce a dead/dying game from the get go. IMHO, the best bet for those of us who want a "PvP" game is to make some comprimises to make it more popular. Why? Because, a populated PvP game is >>>>> a dead PvP game. You can't kill people if they don't play. :P

I agree with you in one sense. In a game with a player controlled environment the players need to take steps to ensure that in the big picture the game remains fun for everyone.

However the way you confront leveling is questionable. I'm the same way as you, I level up as fast as possible avoiding anything that will slow me down. However this begs the question, what is the point of leveling in this case? If everyone is like us, which I assume they are not, leveling would be pointless. Back on topic, assuming that you will have to level, I think making low level areas complete safe zones is a bad idea and Ill give you the reasons.

Based on what you have said you believe you should be able to level in safety up until level 40 or so (Perhaps your were thinking a little lower, it makes not difference).

While I think this would work and because we're talking lowbie content it really wouldn't make a big impact on the game I think there is a better way of handling it.

I personally believe that leveling should be progressively preparing you for the harsh world pvp environment of the endgame content, not providing you with complete safety and then throwing you into the fray.

This is one way, although I admit there hasn't been much thought in it, that I believe would work better.

Newb Island
01-10 Should be Safe to Allow players to get use to the controls ect
11-20 some safe zones and one PVP zone (which has greater xp rewards)

Lowb Island (transfered there at 21 and secluded)
21-50 Safe Cities but open pvp zones secluded from mainland to prevent high level gankers.

Mainland
51-60 endgame

[BBQ666]

Keep SB rules when it comes to PvP. that is one of the main reasons it still is way ahead of the other games.. its a nice feeling not being safe.. lowbie island is well and all.. But main world should be unsafe cuz that really just puts more preassure on you as a player to behave and as a guild aswell..

Please.. No WoW..

[Benji_]

A safe mid-level island is stupid. You say 'to prevent high-level gankers' but yo don't do that. Level 50 vs level 20 is worse than 60 vs 30. I guarantee you a lot of people will keep a character at 49/50 and gank lowbies all day if you do it.

The training wheels come off when you leave noob isle. Find people to protect you or learn how to avoid the gankers, one or the other. People managed leveling up just fine when Shadowbane launched, and that was with the high level gankers- because other high levels will also be anti-gankers and protect the low level areas.

[Azareal]

The only MMOs I can stand to play for very long are open PvP. I didn't even try WoW until they had a PvP server. And even then its quite annoying when you can only kill the people from your enemy faction.

Honestly if SBG thinks they can restrict PvP and still have it open in any way I think they are mistaken. If they go with restrictions they are simply competing against WoW, conan, warhammer, etc. Maybe that will make them money, but like most it will fail.

Also Im quite sure I've seen Ashen say SBG is sticking with player driven content. If they do and they have city building and these things that make SB so great you have to have open PvP.

Sure you could limit PvP to certain zones then have cities be safe except during a siege. But this limits the so called "War" to a one style fight. This would be a failure in my eyes. SB is not just great because of open PvP, but because of the fact that open PvP allowed for guilds and nations to choose what style of war they want to fight.

Some would camp cities and kill the enemy when ever they could so as to wear them down. Some would try to kill the xp groups so they couldn't level up spec groups to counter them. Banes are not the only war that takes place in SB and this is what makes SB different and IMO such a great game.

Mines for resources were a great concept that should be built on. Basicly fighting over the actual resources needed for war.

SB had mercenary guilds who brought a wonderful flavor to the game. They played war off of principles from Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". Read this (http://www.mordkessel.com/wiki/mediawiki/index.php/Category:Mercenary_Guide) to get a feel for how people all looked at and played SB THEIR OWN WAY.

Honestly all of these other games simply force me to play the game to the developers style which is just catered to get mass appeal. Nothing wrong with that and making a lot of money....but not every game like this will be successful...there's just too many of them out there.

I played WoW, GW, SWG, Asheron's Call 1 and 2, etc. I played none of them to end game because I simply cannot play or create my own style and flavor to the game.

[BBQ666]

and remember SB.. a lvl 30 has a decent chance at taking down a lvl 50 if he attacks the right target in the right time.... That was the thing with the SB..


Lots and lots of fun ;)

[AjaxBA]

I definitely prefer open PvP at higher levels, much like SB has it setup. Altho, I think that once you are off noob you should be basically competitive. which in sb terms would mean safezones up to 40, 40-75 all open pvp

[BBQ666]

come on.. dont change the pvp part.. use sb straight off. It forces people to work together and help eachother.

[Matten]

free for all pvp is a must....a MUST

[PKedUtoo]

I have several thoughts on this subject.

First, I admit I'm way late on this thread and did not take the time to read past the first two pages.

I'd like to make my points in sections.

First, there is the assumption that an absurd arbitrary percent of players are not willing to play in a 100% pvp environment. I'd like to see what research you have to show this. While Ill agree a great many people instantly reject the thought of not only pvp but especially full pvp I also know as many that instantly reject the thought of anything but.

My point is gamers, or MMO players to be more specific, do not like the same things. When targeting your player base you shouldn't lump them all together and say, "we're making this game for MMO players". If you do you're trying to build a game that satisfies people who want completely different things. Its impossible to do that.

The only chance for a game like the one currently in development by SBG to succeed is to target a niche of players.

Assuming that 90% of all players do not want a 100% pvp world as you say that leaves 10% (still a huge number of players) who are looking for a game that simply does not exist right now. There is currently no modern open pvp game, if SBG fills that void they will attract that player base and assuming the game doesnt suck they will do well.

Second, you can have open pvp and have relatively safe areas. For example in Shadowbane now you are relatively safe in your own town although its not 100% safe. I believe this principle can be used by skilled world builders to create a world with hot and cold areas. For example, the average person will not run a great distance to find someone to pk when there is pray in a much easier place to access. This means that the further you are away from an area where players start, say a runegate in SB for example, the safer you are.

I 100% agree

[pixledriven]

Assuming that 90% of all players do not want a 100% pvp world as you say that leaves 10% (still a huge number of players) who are looking for a game that simply does not exist right now. There is currently no modern open pvp game, if SBG fills that void they will attract that player base and assuming the game doesnt suck they will do well.

Someone threw out a number earlier in this thread about 17 million MMO players out there. I don't really know how accurate that number is, but think of it this way: If you build a game that appeals to 10% of the market, that's a potential 1.7 million subscriptions. Successful game IMO.

[Benji_]

17 million is probably a bit low, these days. Hell, WoW just hit 9 million active subscriptions, I think.

[Ramsie]

17 million is probably not that far off. One thing to know would be is this all people who log in, or those who PAY for an MMO.

[pixledriven]

Exactly. I'm in total agreement with the idea that niche markets are the way to go at this point. There are alot of people out there who are looking for something that the big mainstream games don't provide, and the market is large enough now that even a small percentage of players can still equal alot of revenue.

You just have to make something that will KEEP players after they've bought into the hype and decided to check out the game in hopes that it'll be the "the one they've been waiting for," or at least close enough that it's the one they'll play until thier own personal gaming utopia is released.

[Beefy_]

It's important to remember, too, that fiscally speaking, a niche game that attracts a high percentage of multi-year players will end up getting you a better profit margin than a non-niche game that attracs a high percentage of "6 months than leave" players. Throwing out a quick guess, but I'm pretty sure your budget is nowhere near what Blizzard's was for working this project, so going the niche route is the only way you're going to realize a good margin on this game. And of course, your competitive advantage over WoW is that you can and have created a pvp/siege player niche that they couldn't begin to touch. Just build on that and you'll do fantastically well.

[FMFHazard]

Also, a lot of us, especially those who've been playing SB for YEARS now, are hardcore PvP gamers. We came to SB for hardcore PvP...we came BACK to SB for hardcore PvP. You give a niche market what they want, they are more loyal than your traditional market of the majority. You give the majority what they want, you're just catering to the same market that every other developer is.

If anything, I'd like to see a game with hardcore PvP that features Conc. Pots from day 1! Otherwise, there will be buffbot accounts again...and the players who can't afford multiple accounts will get frustrated and quit because they only play for PvP and can't compete without being able to come CLOSE to matching the buffs their opponents have.

[PKedUtoo]

"age of conan" anyone?

this is the kind of game SBG will need to contend with.

[Morath]

I just don't see any way to implement permadeath in an MMO. It would have to be extremely difficult to die at the very least. No one wants to spend time developing a character and having it die. Not only that, but when you put variables such as lag or afk-issues into the mix it will leave a bitter taste in a lot of players mouths.

PvP can be meaningful without permadeath. Player looting is always a viable option. Whatever you had on you at the time of your death is fair game. It will make players think about what they're getting into before PvP.

I agree with the point you're making though. Meaningless PvP does nothing for me. I loved playing UO and shaking from the adrenaline rush because I was in battle with someone knowing that I was either going to lose stuff or get some good loot

SOE tried the permadeath with the first era of Jedi in Star Wars Galaxies...all this did was piss off the people who attained a Jedi in the early stages after dieing...in effect they changed the fact of lossing your Jedi forever after death...no one in the game liked it...except for the Bounty Hunter who was the reason for the permadeath of course...LoL...(shhhh, don't tell anyone that was me :D )

In effect permadeath does not work...but harsh consequences do work...the hard part is figuring out what type of harsh consequence would be "fair" (and I use that term loosly in an open PvP environment)

Right now I am deployed to the sand box and cannot play any MMO...I have never tried SB and after reading these forums I am extremely excited to get home and give it a try...I have never even heard of the game until I stumbled upon this web site and forum...

I'll be home in 11 more days!!! WOOT!!!

Morath (or Azryie) is the name...and slaying is the game...look for me and "teach" me the ropes...LoL...

[Charas]

The one thing SB got horribly wrong was the failure to enforce or even encourage any semblance of a level playing field. A level playing field (and by this I am mainly talking about numbers parity) is an absolute must for any PvP game. You cannot have a football league where everyone is free to make up their own teams of however many players they can get (well, you can, but noone will watch it and after awhile noone will play it either).

Small PvP games like flight sims have only two sides and have communities that will regulate their own numbers, but once you get into MMO size (like WWIIOL aka BE) you must have game mechanics to promote a level field (it doesn't have to be quite so level as modern sports). The BE developers immediately implemented side balancing features as soon as the side imbalance became significant and began to impact the campaigns. I don't know if DaoC ever did anything to remedy the problem, but that game made it quite clear that when you have more than 2 sides (they had 3) side balancing is more difficult and even more important to control.

[FreshFTP]

I think the main theme that Shadowbane has (and I hope this game will have) was player enforced justice. Your actions reflect your guild, and if you piss someone off you might just wake up to see a big rock on your lawn.

Shadowbane's grand experiment was seeing if players could create an actual political climate. In that regard, Shadowbane succeeded. Shadowbane servers have a history that people remember, a history that shaped the attitudes of guilds today. Shadowbane's pvp is so much more than a huge arena because of the political aspect! PvPers in other games have nothing to lose... when the battleground match is over- its over. There is no smack talk, there is no manipulation, and you dont have a city or home that your enemy can destroy.

SBG's new game can only improve upon this concept... hopefully it and Darkfall Online will take the experiment to the next level.

Amen

[Charas]

The problem with the experiment is that it resulted in a game of politics rather than a game of "skill". Shadowbane's PvP was largely irrelevent because of the political aspect. The only way for PvP skill to be relevant is if the server politics allow it to be, which is fine when the server politics allow it, but when they don't it isn't so fine.

"..., there is no manipulation..." Yes, but in SB manipulation (vis a vis politics) is all there is because it trumps everything else. It isn't a game played on a playing field as much as it is a game of manipulating the playing field, and more often than not the field is manipulated so much that the eventual play on the field is irrelevant.

I think we are in a position today to judge the results of having a game where the penalty for "losing" is the practical inability to play the game, and those results are a free to play game with almost empty servers.

I have seen some numbers thrown around for number of people who play MMOGs and optimistic %s of those that would be interested in a hardcore PvP game and I think they are rediculously high. The most successful PvP centric MMOG I know of is BE and it is not particulalry successful (though it survived a release even worse than SB and is still subscription based and in bussiness).

Those of us still playing SB represent such a tiny fraction of MMO players that it is not even funny, and it is foolish for us to think that there are enough people like us to support a new game. Any developer in their right mind would have to use SB as an example of what not to do.

1. Poor performance (lag spikes, rubberbanding, ctds, et al).
2. Poor/unwanted interface (point and click movement).
3. Gameplay that is second fiddle to politics and has the potential to make players quit the game (hard to play when you have no access to cities, and it is easier now than it used to be).

These are the three big factors that killed SB imho. While it is difficult to quantify how much of a role each played I find it very difficult to imagine any development team getting the go ahead to develop a MMOG that has any of these features planned. Then again, it is difficult to imagine how the original team got the go ahead to develop SB without even a contingency plan in case the player base rejected the UI.

[pixledriven]

I might get shot down for this one, but I imagine that Wolfpack didn't so much as get the go ahead as get told "release it now, you have no choice."

Poor performance is not a feature, and no game developer wants in in their game. =p

Here's the thing. UO was a friggin sandbox, and people still pay to play that game. There are A LOT of gamers out there that enjoy/crave PvP. Look how well DAoC did, honestly. Completely open PvP? Probably not a huge number of people are interested, but a PvP based game is something that will draw players if done well. The games currently available that offer it are either free - or the PvP is an obvious afterthought put into a PvE game - and it sucks.

Look at the games that are coming out soon, and currently in development. The industry is starting to branch out, and niches are starting to get filled. You may not believe that niche games are the future for many smaller developers, but seriously - think about what it would take to challenge Blizzard, or Sony Online.

I honestly believe that if you can create a game that is capable of appealing to SB players - AND other PvP players out there - that you will have a successful game. Many many people stopped playing SB not because of features, politics, interface or gameplay quirks (though it did happen); but because of performance issues. We got an unfinished game with no content that crashed on you half the time, and the other half of the time the servers were down.

Thats why I quit. I beta tested SB, played it for nearly a year after release. Hell, my guild laid one of the game's first banestones. I came back because of the PvP. I quit wow because of the PvP.

We're out there, there are many of us and: If you build it, we will come.

[Daerim]

I see everyone ask for WSAD movement and decry the point and click movement of Shadowbane, but there is one major advantage that point and click has: the elimination of stupid circle-running PvP tactics. Every time I watch a PvP video for a game with WSAD movement or engage in PvP in a game with WSAD movement, I am assailed by idiots running in circles to try and bork their opponent's line of sight.

If its WSAD-movement (and I see no indication that it will not be, given the market), then I hope that there will be mechanics in place to discourage this sort of BS. Inability to attack or decreased attack effectiveness when straffing with no penalty for turning in place comes to mind as a quick fix, but something has to be done about it.

[pixledriven]

Well, if you don't include Mythic's "positional styles," and include a decent weapon range (read: different weapons can hit different ranges, and a greatsword has a nice range on it), then you're halfway there. Also if you include attackers closing on their targets (and following them), and not make it take any perceptible amount of time to change directions and swing... (ie. the toon turns and swings, you don't have to manually turn your character in order to continue to attack.) Then I don't see an issue with people having WASD.

Both WASD and point+click movement styles have their advantages and disadvantages. I'd like to see both included. I enjoy both for what they offer and would hate to be forced to deal with one of the other - and don't want everyone else to be forced to deal either.

When it comes to annoyance factor, I'd rather see a game without jumping, and perhaps less time spent on implementing unique dances for the toons to do.

[FreshFTP]

I prefer point+click as opposed to WSAD...because I always hit the wrong keys!!

[PKedUtoo]

i prefer both as an option.

why carter to only one play style when many of the new MMO's have both.

[Charas]

I might get shot down for this one, but I imagine that Wolfpack didn't so much as get the go ahead as get told "release it now, you have no choice."

Poor performance is not a feature, and no game developer wants in in their game. =p

Here's the thing. UO was a friggin sandbox, and people still pay to play that game. There are A LOT of gamers out there that enjoy/crave PvP. Look how well DAoC did, honestly. Completely open PvP? Probably not a huge number of people are interested, but a PvP based game is something that will draw players if done well. The games currently available that offer it are either free - or the PvP is an obvious afterthought put into a PvE game - and it sucks.

Look at the games that are coming out soon, and currently in development. The industry is starting to branch out, and niches are starting to get filled. You may not believe that niche games are the future for many smaller developers, but seriously - think about what it would take to challenge Blizzard, or Sony Online.

I honestly believe that if you can create a game that is capable of appealing to SB players - AND other PvP players out there - that you will have a successful game. Many many people stopped playing SB not because of features, politics, interface or gameplay quirks (though it did happen); but because of performance issues. We got an unfinished game with no content that crashed on you half the time, and the other half of the time the servers were down.

Thats why I quit. I beta tested SB, played it for nearly a year after release. Hell, my guild laid one of the game's first banestones. I came back because of the PvP. I quit wow because of the PvP.

We're out there, there are many of us and: If you build it, we will come.

Actually, poor performance is a feature; it is a feature of poor design and/or poor management. While it may not be a feature that any publisher wants, it is also a feature which can be quantified and written into milestone requirements, and when any publisher fails to do so it is a feature that they will get. If I were in charge of publishing I would write performance requirements into the milestones, and if the developers failed to meet the requirements for any step I would withold funding and/or cancel the project. It is also a feature which can be the result of the publisher having unrealistic requirements for the project; if you ask the developers to do the impossible then the result will perform poorly (in particular it will fail to do what was asked).

[pixledriven]

I see your point. Calling an issue a feature, though, is a little too Microsoft for me.. hehe

[roscoPColtrane]

Back to the PVP subject, open PVP isn't a problem as long as you face the consequences. Not only by being targeted by your victim's guild, but in game mechanism/scenario can make you pay for this. I'm not only talking about punishment, but you could be forced to follow an in-game path devoted to PK for example.

Could be fun, you've chosen this path anyway.

[PKedUtoo]

the one thing i HATE WITH ALL MY HEART about new PvP MMO's is the fact that PvPers are punished for killing players by being flaged as Pkers.

go with a Full Open PvP system with NO restrictions to killing people (except maybe the first 15-20 levels) or just forget it IMO

[roscoPColtrane]

the one thing i HATE WITH ALL MY HEART about new PvP MMO's is the fact that PvPers are punished for killing players by being flaged as Pkers.

go with a Full Open PvP system with NO restrictions to killing people (except maybe the first 15-20 levels) or just forget it IMO

Would you accept being tracked by NPC guards ?

[PKedUtoo]

Would you accept being tracked by NPC guards ?

there should not be a penilty for killing anyone in a PvP/PK game.

and yes by PvP most of us here mean Open PK anywhere we like (except safe holds)

If you want someone dead, then you grab a bunch of your buddies (if you need them) and go kill said person yourself.

even though I'm against being hunted by NPC guards... I guess I could live with it IF:

1) all merchants and trianers would still talk to you
2) the NPC guards where not so powerful that you have no chance of killing them (maybe have guard levels based on the level of the NPC's in the city)
3) if you are killed by a NPC guard your loot should not drop (but i want full inventory looting, except equipted items when player killing.)

[roscoPColtrane]

there should not be a penilty for killing anyone in a PvP/PK game.

and yes by PvP most of us here mean Open PK anywhere we like (except safe holds)

If you want someone dead, then you grab a bunch of your buddies (if you need them) and go kill said person yourself.

even though I'm against being hunted by NPC guards... I guess I could live with it IF:

1) all merchants and trianers would still talk to you
2) the NPC guards where not so powerful that you have no chance of killing them (maybe have guard levels based on the level of the NPC's in the city)
3) if you are killed by a NPC guard your loot should not drop (but i want full inventory looting, except equipted items when player killing.)


You must enforce a way to protect newbie from being chainkilled. There are morons everywhere, and chainkilling noobs is the better way to disgust new players.

I agree with 2) You should also be allowed to loot their real equipment. But you agree to take the risk to sell it to a lawful merchant. Not everyone is gonna buy from you a guard's shield spilled with fresh blood.

1) You could have "other" merchants (meeting them at midnight, in a dark street, or in the cave of a shop) talking to you if you choose this path, and "other" trainers, for other special skills.

What I mean is the PK behavior should not suffer from penalities, but there should be a in-game reaction, bad for the casual PKer, and satisfying for the "rp" PKer. For example, a NPC could hire you for some kind of PK mission. There are many way to florish this way of playing. Otherwise you're just another CS sniper shooting people in a static environment.

[gremmlynn]

Well, I'm hoping the major reason to play this game is the opportunity to fight and kill other players. Any sort of PK flag would be a bad thing IMO. Any sort of NPC omniscience as to what a player may have done would also be a bad thing. Let's just assume we all have the foresight to wash the blood off and the NPCs are practical (or greedy) enough not to ask any embarrassing questions.

[PKedUtoo]

Well, I'm hoping the major reason to play this game is the opportunity to fight and kill other players. Any sort of PK flag would be a bad thing IMO. Any sort of NPC omniscience as to what a player may have done would also be a bad thing. Let's just assume we all have the foresight to wash the blood off and the NPCs are practical (or greedy) enough not to ask any embarrassing questions.

100% agree

[Forsakens]

Why fight when you can love?

[pixledriven]

Because we love to fight?