[Megathread] Wildstar - Now F2P

[SirRobin]

Actually, regarding World-PvP, my experiences in pre-Honor WoW were actually a lot of fun on PvP servers. Yes there was some ganking, but since there was no system actually rewarding it? It didn't happen nearly as often. Of course the Honorocalypse changed all that. I loved early WoW's PvP-Lite atmosphere. Just have "safe" zones and "contested," PvP-flagged, zones with both having PvE content covering start to cap. Have them be separate zones too please. Not those half and half messes WAR had.

[Xavas]

Stop arguing and check this!

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/03...reation-music/

[SirRobin]

Zone-wise, I personally hope that Carbine uses the 3-5-3 layout at the least.

Just as an example...
Level 1-10: One Safe Exile - One Contested - One Safe Dominion
Level 11-20: Two Safe Exile - One Contested - Two Safe Dominion
Level 21-30: One Safe Exile - One Contested - One Safe Dominion
Level 31-40: Two Safe Exile - One Contested - Two Safe Dominion
Level 41-50: One Safe Exile - One Contested - One Safe Dominion

Each "Safe" zone would have PvE content, open(world) and closed(instanced), covering that level range. Each "Contested" zone would have PvE and PvP content, open and instanced, covering that level range. Yes its a lot more work than "one-faction, one-path," but early WoW having multiple zones to choose from, for PvE leveling, at a couple of its progression milestones added so much to the in-game experience.

Also, Mythic learned during WAR's development that a lot of their potential customers still wanted Open-PvP. Their efforts to staple Open-PvP on to what had been a mostly Closed-PvP design, didn't work out so well though. Needs to be part of the design focus to begin with. Hopefully Carbine has learned from all these other developers' mistakes... Seriously, keeping my fingers crossed here.

[Cebel]

PvP/PvE servers is an unwarranted segregation of players and is an outdated principle.

Mr. Kittyvicious, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

The line quoted basically sums up how ridiculous your argument is. There are certain types of players, those that enjoy it, and those that don't. Those that don't clearly have an option to opt out of it, and those that do enjoy it have the option to opt into it. Its really that simple. So stop being rude and insisting that "95% blahblahblah" don't enjoy it because we all know that's a complete bullshit statistic you just made up on the spot to attempt to support your shit argument. Don't like it, roll a pve server. Period.

It doesn't matter if you're quoting a movie, please don't insult other posters. Infracted. -Edge

[ShimmerSwirl]

Nope, try again. See the following.

Oh I don't know, because it's WHERE YOU WORLD PVP? Other games do this. They have certain islands, or continents for PvP. Fracturing your playerbase based on whether they want to kill/be killed in the open world is pointless. Having 100 servers is also pointless. In the modern era of MMOs, we should ideally be playing on much larger shards with specific large content areas for PvP.

I'm not sure you entirely understand the concept of 'world pvp'. If it's in a instance or segregated island like you propose, it is no longer 'world pvp'. I don't disagree that having PvE and PvP servers segregates the playerbase, but why is that a bad thing in this case? If some players like world pvp and some don't, why not just let them go to a server where they can play the style they like? The problem with having servers where only certain zones are pvp is that players like yourself would complain about not getting to see certain zones because they wouldn't want to risk the pvp combat when they enter.

People who are getting all angry at my idea, which doesn't change your actual world PvP capabilities in any way, are people that no matter how much you protest clearly just want the advantages/disadvantages of ganking or griefing.

For many players its about more than just 'PvP capabilities'. That element of risk and danger gives a lot of excitement to the world that simply cannot be duplicated on PvE servers. I realize you clearly don't value that aspect at all, but you cannot say anyone who does enjoy that is somehow wrong and in some pathetically small minority. According to realmpop, 40% of WoW players are on PvP servers. Thats a little under 4 million players. Clearly there is a strong market for players who want world pvp.


You are focusing on a singular aspect of world pvp (griefing), and using it to flatly say that world pvp is bad; but you ignore all the other facets of world pvp. What about 2 max level players fighting in the open world? Or fighting against an equal midlevel toon while leveling? Or city raids? Sure its true that getting ganked repeatedly by someone much higher level than you gets old, but that is just one of many aspects of Pvp. And the beauty of an MMO is that the community has the power to regulate itself. Griefers are often times dealt with by opposing, high-level players when word gets out that such things are being done, assuming you have a good community of players.

[SirRobin]

I would like there to not be a PvP/PvE server divide but its pretty much a given. Now they could do without it and make it just zone specific but anyone who can't reach some content because they don't want to risk PvP might be unhappy about it. I consider it similar to the RP and non-RP server divides. It may not be really needed but if enough of your potential customers want it? Well it probably wouldn't be very smart to not provide it.

[Kelimbror]

I would like there to not be a PvP/PvE server divide but its pretty much a given. Now they could do without it and make it just zone specific but anyone who can't reach some content because they don't want to risk PvP might be unhappy about it. I consider it similar to the RP and non-RP server divides. It may not be really needed but if enough of your potential customers want it? Well it probably wouldn't be very smart to not provide it.

This is a logical argument I can get behind. While I would love to blame entitlement and dismiss it, there's a solid ground in not being able to experience all of the content without being forced to PvP. Having the intial choice of a PvE/PvP server eliminates that penalty, but also limits you for the future.

Now, I guess the most ideal solution is to keep server structures the same but allow free transfers between all server types. This way if you change your mind about the decision you aren't financially penalized for it. I just feel that a design that encompasses all playstyles under one server is a more dynamic environment and prevents segregating players by playstyle. Even real life friends will want different servers. Forcing either of them to give up the ability to play with their friends simply because they don't want to the possibility of ever being ganked is honestly discrimination in a video game world.

Either allow free transfers or a working guesting feature that applies to ALL content in the game provided you are in a group with your friend and it is a non issue. Those solutions are also adequate upon further review.

[llDemonll]

The line quoted basically sums up how ridiculous your argument is. There are certain types of players, those that enjoy it, and those that don't. Those that don't clearly have an option to opt out of it, and those that do enjoy it have the option to opt into it. Its really that simple. So stop being rude and insisting that "95% blahblahblah" don't enjoy it because we all know that's a complete bullshit statistic you just made up on the spot to attempt to support your shit argument. Don't like it, roll a pve server. Period.

I don't think you read his post entirely:

Imagine that leveling content had 2-4 choices for where you could be at a certain level. 50% were PvE zones, where player combat isn't possible at all and the other 50% are anything goes PvP experiences.


The zones are just as large, diverse, filled qith quests and gathering, except one gives you the constant threat of PvP.

If a game was designed like this, it provides for every person, regardless of their enjoyment, to have fun of their choosing. It dictates the content and you 'choose' to participate in that form of content instead of having an imperialistic society where someone with greater power can choose how you get to play.

PvP/PvE servers is an unwarranted segregation of players and is an outdated principle.

He's saying there should be one world that everyone is a part of, but zones (think WoW) where you are "safe" or "in a PVP zone". It's the same as PVE servers in WoW, only you are tagged for PVP automatically depending on what zone you're in

[ShimmerSwirl]

This is a logical argument I can get behind. While I would love to blame entitlement and dismiss it, there's a solid ground in not being able to experience all of the content without being forced to PvP. Having the intial choice of a PvE/PvP server eliminates that penalty, but also limits you for the future.

Now, I guess the most ideal solution is to keep server structures the same but allow free transfers between all server types. This way if you change your mind about the decision you aren't financially penalized for it. I just feel that a design that encompasses all playstyles under one server is a more dynamic environment and prevents segregating players by playstyle. Even real life friends will want different servers. Forcing either of them to give up the ability to play with their friends simply because they don't want to the possibility of ever being ganked is honestly discrimination in a video game world.

Either allow free transfers or a working guesting feature that applies to ALL content in the game provided you are in a group with your friend and it is a non issue. Those solutions are also adequate upon further review.

I think the danger of free transfers in this case is that it will be a griefers heaven. They will freely level up to max on a PVE server and get decked out, and then transfer over to a PvP server and wreak havoc.

Players know what they are getting into when they roll on a pvp server, it should be a permanent choice imo.

[Kelimbror]

Players know what they are getting into when they roll on a pvp server, it should be a permanent choice imo.

It would be nice if people thought about the good of a game instead of their personal preference as what should dictate design. It would be better for the game to have an alternate approach than you get what you pick on day 1 and screw you otherwise. Same concept as people saying this needs to be a subscription game and better not be F2P or else it's going to suck.

I prefer there to be no PvP outside of queued battlegrounds and for there to be no content associated with PvP...but I'm certainly not going to say please remove PvP from MMOs because that would be a terrible idea.

I don't know what the most elegant solution is, though server transfers might not be as you've pointed out. If I had to pick the most efficient and customer serving solution it would be traditional servers with a full blown guesting feature and some form of transfers though not unlimited.

[Deleted]

1) You aren't responding to what my quote was talking about...I never said people wouldn't know the difference. Please read before blasting ignorance.

full of luls. maybe you should take some of this awesome advice of yours. We were talking about world pvp and suddenly people were talking about ganking and non issue stuff lol.. it is pretty funny.

2) I didn't say 'grown ups', stop putting words in my mouth. Maybe using quote marks on one word was confusing. It was a play on words which is why I put the quote marks just around the word up. It implied that I'm not trying to say it's a maturation specifically, to prevent being an actual insulting statement.

How about I say have 'grown out' of it? Does that suit your fancy better? It just meant that people get tired of that playstyle, especially as their life and playstyle changes.

lol yes i knew exactly what you ment it was a simple miss quote. The arguement is still valid.. how do 95% of people with limited time or who have grown 'up' not know the simple difference between pve and pvp servers. wanting to kill anything on sight one year and the next wanting to be left alone is just hilarious and most games give options of changing this through migration and the easy option of re-rolling.

[Edge-]

Already explained this...just make a large enough zone with actual content on it. Give it it's own set of dailies, resource gathering, whatever it takes to make it a little PvP eden where there is a point to be there other than to just PvP. That's the only thing that makes pvp have an element of surprise. And tbh, needing the element of surprise for enjoyable PvP just reinforces the ideas I expressed about people just wanting their jollies. Whether it's because they like taking advantage of people or overcoming a disadvantage, it's pretty farcical and vain.

If you have non-PvP objectives, you'll end up with Ilum again (We all know what happened in 1.0, and BW's revamp of Ilum with the new FFA PvP area has lead to people politely waiting in line for quest objectives rather than fight over them). Simply having an open area won't lead to world PvP. You need to incentivize the PvP pretty heavily through rewards for participation, both short term (dailies) and long term (zone specific PvP achievements that give nice rewards, zone control etc.)

[Deleted]

It would be nice if people thought about the good of a game instead of their personal preference as what should dictate design. It would be better for the game to have an alternate approach than you get what you pick on day 1 and screw you otherwise. Same concept as people saying this needs to be a subscription game and better not be F2P or else it's going to suck.

I prefer there to be no PvP outside of queued battlegrounds and for there to be no content associated with PvP...but I'm certainly not going to say please remove PvP from MMOs because that would be a terrible idea.

I don't know what the most elegant solution is, though server transfers might not be as you've pointed out. If I had to pick the most efficient and customer serving solution it would be traditional servers with a full blown guesting feature and some form of transfers though not unlimited.

just re-roll or migrate. Two simple options and it doesnt need to be more complicated than that.

[Kelimbror]

The arguement is still valid.. how do 95% of people with limited time or who have grown 'up' not know the simple difference between pve and pvp servers. wanting to kill anything on sight one year and the next wanting to be left alone is just hilarious and most games give options of changing this through migration and the easy option of re-rolling.

Please read the rest of the thread, it might let you know the answers to your questions. By all means, continue the industry trend of punishing players instead of providing more options on how to play the game the way they want. Let's make sure all games are just like we individually want them so that they all fail.

It's hilarious to read what I've underlined because it shows a very clear disconnect that you don't understand what people outside of your MMO-champ bubble want. Sure, it's so 'easy' to pay for a server transfer or to completely relevel a new character.

I'm just going to assume all your posts are for comic relief and aren't to be taken seriously at this point.

---------- Post added 2013-03-06 at 01:54 PM ----------

If you have non-PvP objectives, you'll end up with Ilum again (We all know what happened in 1.0, and BW's revamp of Ilum with the new FFA PvP area has lead to people politely waiting in line for quest objectives rather than fight over them). Simply having an open area won't lead to world PvP. You need to incentivize the PvP pretty heavily through rewards for participation, both short term (dailies) and long term (zone specific PvP achievements that give nice rewards, zone control etc.)

Ah, but here's where it gets interesting. If all these people want PvP so badly, why are they not PvPng on a level playing field out in the world? Other people in here seem to think that world PvP is everything that would be present in a zone like I established, except that ganking and griefing wouldn't be possible.

So which is it? Am I right and people only want world PvP to gank and grief or do they actually want world PvP? If it was the latter they shouldn't need motivation to PvP like you have described and we have seen happen first hand.

[Deleted]

It's hilarious to read what I've underlined because it shows a very clear disconnect that you don't understand what people outside of your MMO-champ bubble want. Sure, it's so 'easy' to pay for a server transfer or to completely relevel a new character.

most mmo's are now free to play.. should migration's be free? no. That's just a ridiculous suggestion and even in mmo's with subs they shouldnt be free as that causes server balance issues.

the only way people should get free migration is to fix balance issues on a server. thats it.

Ah, but here's where it gets interesting. If all these people want PvP so badly, why are they not PvPng on a level playing field out in the world? Other people in here seem to think that world PvP is everything that would be present in a zone like I established, except that ganking and griefing wouldn't be possible.

So which is it? Am I right and people only want world PvP to gank and grief or do they actually want world PvP? If it was the latter they shouldn't need motivation to PvP like you have described and we have seen happen first hand.

we roll pvp servers knowing about ganking / griefing etc.. we also want world pvp with objectives etc. The two can very much exist along side one another.

[SirRobin]

My experience with incentives for PvP is that they can do more harm than good. The Honorocalypse was an example of what happens when you introduce a rewards and punishments system, for PvP, that doesn't actually include any punishments. An orgy of ganking and griefing followed and was the beginning of the end for my time in WoW.

Personally I would prefer for the incentives to be exclusive to Closed, Instanced, PvP. Leave World-PvP without incentives and its one less thing to encourage ganking and griefing. Of course you'll still have that behavior, you just won't be encouraging it.

[Razael]

most mmo's are now free to play.. should migration's be free? no. That's just a ridiculous suggestion and even in mmo's with subs they shouldnt be free as that causes server balance issues.

the only way people should get free migration is to fix balance issues on a server. thats it.



we roll pvp servers knowing about ganking / griefing etc.. we also want world pvp with objectives etc. The two can very much exist along side one another.

I'm jumping quickly on this subject. In no way there should there be free migrations. I play GW2. And my Server , that i chose on day 1 was among the top 5 EU servers, for world pvp, and when they announced free migrations to other servers would end soon, my server went from top 5 to bottom 5. Its a rollercoaster, and alot of guilds on my server switched to the number 1 server at the time (Desolation) on the last day of free transfers.

[ShimmerSwirl]

It would be nice if people thought about the good of a game instead of their personal preference as what should dictate design. It would be better for the game to have an alternate approach than you get what you pick on day 1 and screw you otherwise. Same concept as people saying this needs to be a subscription game and better not be F2P or else it's going to suck.

I prefer there to be no PvP outside of queued battlegrounds and for there to be no content associated with PvP...but I'm certainly not going to say please remove PvP from MMOs because that would be a terrible idea.

I don't know what the most elegant solution is, though server transfers might not be as you've pointed out. If I had to pick the most efficient and customer serving solution it would be traditional servers with a full blown guesting feature and some form of transfers though not unlimited.

Its not like PvE or PvP servers are a great mystery to players. You know what you are getting when you choose your server, its not a blind choice.
I fail to see any connection whatsoever between server types and the f2p vs p2p argument.

So despite saying for the last 2 pages that world pvp is for people who "only like to gank and grief," and its "farcical and vain," and "95% of players aren't looking for excitement in potential showdowns and abuse by other players", and "pvp/pve servers are an outdated principal," you now are saying that removing said pvp from games is a 'terrible idea'?

I don't mean this as an accusation but in all sincerity are you only perpetuating this argument for your own amusement or do you genuinely stand behind these blatant contradictions?

Ah, but here's where it gets interesting. If all these people want PvP so badly, why are they not PvPng on a level playing field out in the world?

They are. That's the whole point.Yes there is griefing. There is also a lot of legit world pvp going on. I don't blame you for not grasping this since you seem to truly abhor pvp, but the root of this whole issue is not so much 'pvp combat', as it is 'pvp environment'. Your definition of 'world pvp' seems to mean direct player vs player combat, actively fighting the enemy. What myself and I think others enjoy is what I would call 'pvp potential', where you are not necessarily actively engaged in pvp combat 24/7, but the possibility of it always lurks around the corner. Whether you're questing, farming, exploring whatever, not knowing if/when you might get jumped, or when you may have the opportunity to jump someone else, thats the thrill of it. Its that potential and constant danger even if your not looking for it that makes world pvp fun.

[Cebel]

I don't think you read his post entirely:



He's saying there should be one world that everyone is a part of, but zones (think WoW) where you are "safe" or "in a PVP zone". It's the same as PVE servers in WoW, only you are tagged for PVP automatically depending on what zone you're in

Which is the exact same thing that he has been complaining about. What YOU are misinterpreting is that the "pvp zones" that he is proposing, are essentially empty, goalless battlegrounds, separated from all other aspects of the game. So no, I did read his post in its entirety, its just that you didnt fully comprehend what he was suggesting.

[Kelimbror]

Which is the exact same thing that he has been complaining about. What YOU are misinterpreting is that the "pvp zones" that he is proposing, are essentially empty, goalless battlegrounds, separated from all other aspects of the game. So no, I did read his post in its entirety, its just that you didnt fully comprehend what he was suggesting.

Well now you are just insulting all of our intelligence. Please show me where I proposed an 'empty goalless battleground'. You just proved to everyone here that you didn't read anything.