I gotta say that your concept of hiding PVP within PVE just doesn't sound appealing to me in any way, shape or form, also don't get why if you're against appealing to PVP players why are you so focused on merging PVP & PVE into one playstyle. If I was in charge of making a mmo I'd make it a mix of sandbox and theme park style with large open world cross faction PVE worlds in which Players could toggle (cross-faction only) PVP mode on or off as desired, I'd aslo create "Red Zones" which are areas on the map where PVP is mandatory (so any Player who enters is automatically put into PVP mode and the only way to disable PVP mode would be to leave the "Red Zone") and allow any player to try their luck against any other player regardless of faction, the "Red Zones" would have a variety of time limited content on rotation (capture the flag/tag/randomly assigned team vs team) as well as a variety of instanced PVP (areana deathmatch/last man standing/capture or defend the flag / etc) as well as open world/instanced PVE.
Thx for feedback. Your approach however was done several times and it gives back a way to artificial experience. SWG did it e.g. and it was really not an immersive experience to see a player in full stormtrooper armor standing next to NPC corpses in stormtrooper armor while the attacking rebel players were opted out of PvP. They also had the red zones on a timer etc. In totall quite good but factional public PvE only in the open world killed the immersion. In the first approach they used a temporal marker that made players who actively engaged in combat attackable by other players of the other faction. I imagine you wouldn't want that either. A lot of jerks in the PvP faction on top exploited that system, and the complains led to dismissing it instead of fixing the loopholes. The "a lot of jerks" thing is why I do not want to appeal to PvP players. A lot of players with PvP focus do on top not really care about the content but want superbalanced tournament arenas to just compare their virtual manhood. Their approach is 100% non-compatible with creating an immersive world experience in a game. Content driven conflicts will get troops into non-balanced situations from time to time and it is their decisisons in tactics to solve this (outnumbered in an area allowing for a covered retreat or SEAL team invading enemy headquarters are both "unbalanced" and not tournament style in any way, but not designed for the smaller team to be ganked as well). A large portion of the PvPers in DCUO even reject content-heavy approaches despite the pitiful shape of PvP in DCUO. So even if it just nags you, some state of inner unrest or innatly feeling uncomfortable, please, I try to understand: what factor is it that urges you to wanna have a barrier between PvE and PvP. Why is "a game where you face opposition" not good enough until you know if that opposition is AI or player? Especially since the system I have in mind is focused on, as described in other posts, eradicate personal interaction/harassment between winner and loser, display of ego, and all the other moronism that usually makes PvP unenjoyable for casuals.
"clearly defined zones" require barriers. Besides that, if you care to read up, the question moved on from the hidden part to "if the opponents - winners and losers alike - can't behave like jerks and the skills needed to compete in PvP and PvE are at the same level, what is left that makes PvP a problem/repulsive/'wrong' or whatever?" All your remarks by now are just avoiding to answer that part of the question. What makes fighting another player different from fighting an AI in an environment where the AI utilizes the same behavior/tactics/loadouts etc. as any player?
No, you are the one avoiding the question of blatantly hiding information, and tricking players into participating in something they didn't know was even there What do you believe constitutes a 'barrier'? In WAR, there was nothing physical to define the PvP areas. Same like in GW2 there was nothing physical to define a lower area (when you entered your stats would automagically drop to match, so no MEG players going back to the starter areas and blowing through everything with sleaze), and in EQ1 to cross between zones (including entering cities) simply required crossing a line (which could be both a blessing and a curse when fighting: blessing because if you were on the verge of losing you could just step back a few feet and zone out; curse because if you were close to winning you could get knocked out of zone)
Again not an answer. Not helpful. So, I mark it for you: We are already discussing other options, as to Azreaus post on top of this page is basically suggesting the NGE-SWG approach. Andf me pointing out in return that I try to not have any "world breakers" in a game. I really already.... ....pointed out that you need to catch up. So, will you now.... ....please answer the question you seemingly try to avoid?
So, because you decided to 'move on', we just have to forget unanswered questions? You and older sister are exactly alike: will have intense discussions, butt because she has moved on to another subject, the other person has to forget about any unanswered questions from a previous subject Consider this one-sided monkey-blow ended, you win
Sorry, when I posted I didn't see you edited the post I answered to, and it also didn't update after I send my response. So: These lines to cross are "barriers" for the games to define which rules are applied in (stat scaling etc.). Now in the games you picked I believe the game gave no warning. I know you also played SWG where the GCW zones gave warnings. I however do not remember if going back out of the zones stopped switching your toon over to PvP mode or if the warning was "you will be PvP in x seconds" no matter where you went to after you crossed the line. I am nearly sure it was the latter, or it was the latter in Restuss (first GCW zone established) and the other zones worked differently. Doesn't really maater though since there are "barriers" that a player can cross to enter a zone of the game where "other rules" apply. And I'd like an approach where the rules are the same all over the game. Does that answer your question? And I didn't decide to move on; the more rewarding discussion with Azreaus brought the discussion to that point with both of us picking examples. Since my interest is in really getting an answer to the question you avoid, I actually did not win. Because without understanding, I cannot change the conception in the "right" direction, just change it blindly. So again, please: What makes fighting another player different from fighting an AI in an environment where the AI utilizes the same behavior/tactics/loadouts etc. as any player? Keep in mind, the points a) losers whining b) winners rubbing it in in any way c) PvP enginewise totally different from PvE are taken care off, the game systems will not allow for a) or b) - with b) being a gigantic bugger for a large portion of the folks who consider themselves "the great PvP community of DCUO", I totally know that - and c) is the spelling it out of "where the rules are the same all over the game."
It sounds like SWG's Red Zones were a mix of PVP & PVE (never played SWG so don't know) my version would be a PVP only region in which various areas were set up for the different mni-games, one of which would randomly activate at different times (trying not to make it too predictable) and at about 3 mins before a mini-game triggered all players in the Red zone would see an onscreen message about i so they'd go to the appropriate area and if it's team based they'd be randomly assigned to teams. My version of the Red Zone would equalise players stats so skill would be main driver of winning or losing, I'd also put an exception onto the "leave zone to have PVP mode disabled" function to ignore a player currently engaged in combat to stop peeps using the auto mode switch to avoid losing matches/fights.
Before pointing out your flaw, let's point out where we agree, and that is the skill thing. I totally agree that the "let's grind as a loser so I can finally hide behind teh best gear"-approach should never again work in any game. Now your flaw and why SWG had minimum PvE added in their zones: You do realize that in an open world PvP zone the game would either need to punish by not giving any or reduced reward for time spent to the winners in pure PvP whenever no opposition shows up for the time the minigame runs? Or the minimal opposition directly withdraws after realizing they are outnumbered? To avoid that, SWG had heavy turrets etc. in the war zones, so people would have to "work" for rewards nontheless and on the other hand had rewards they could "count on". Bringing this up however brings me back to the conception that didn't appeal to you: You did realize that the "I came to PvP and don't care for PvE" would be in the exact opposite and thus, very similar position than you'd be with the generic "you'll face opposition" approach? From 20 years of MMO experience, games trying to keep PvE and PvP strictly apart in a desperate way they mostly produce a "yeah, video game limitations" experience for players. Totally ok for the mostly lame pure video game licenses with themepark, but very disappointing for blockbuster licenses in the Star Trek/Wars etc. range, where fans come from a different medium (movie, comics, whatever) into a video game and very often leave soon afterwards. Fun fact: most of the former SWG players blame the last major update called "NGE" for the demise of SWG. But before that happened, Sony was to some extend still publishing the numbers video game companies nowadays hold back - active subscriptions etc. They celebrated the sale of the one-millionth boxed copy and their active subscription numbers of the same time was roughly at 250k. So they already had a loss of way over 75% customers (since there was a way to update a trial account into a full one without buying a boxed copy as well). Simply because the movie fans couldn't be persuaded to a monthly subscription with what the game had to offer. If you want to turn a blockbuster license into success, you need a product that keeps the casuals and first-timers who try the game just because they like the lore you are licensed to use. And having as few artificial barriers in the game as the lore suggests will help a lot. So that's what I'm trying. And your suggestion of zone limits here and there is a lot to "learn" for new players. So, if "hiding" the PvP is so repulsive to a huuuge number of players, I'd prefer going with seperated server phases per faction. Speaking of it: I'd still like to know what your remaining issue with PvP is when the game system/structures themselves take care of points a) losers whining b) winners rubbing it in in any way c) PvP enginewise totally different from PvE? Even if it is just some sorta feeling or a singular game related bad experience, please share. It's not only me, companies in general try to make PvP more enjoyable or just tolerated as game content (those companies mainly because sending the player against each other saves them the trouble and costs of developing a challenging AI). One recent MMO port from PS3 to PS4, Defiance, for example used the port to nerf snipers down to "barely able to PvE" in response to feedback from players who did not find their PvP portions appealing.
hi guys Im back. admittedly I can not keep up with the lively discussion here on this thread. so Ill just focus on waht I said to be my favorite class which is the Technomorpher. My bases for this Class are Hordak, Modulok and Multi-Bot. so for Hordak we had a toy that does not transform but rather implicated to have magical powers. we can also include Horde Prime to be avle to shape shift anyway here is the Filmation/80's version Modulok Mulit-bot now having establishing the Shape-shifting abilities of these Horde Units we can now proceed to the TechnoMorphers.....
since i have limited photoshop skills, moreso with drawing I can not draw what I want to say to you so i'll just describe it as best as I can. in comparison with DCUO's morphing powers which has 4 alternate mode so does this class. 1. walker pod mode bi-pedal or 2 legged 2. mantis mode 4 legged w/ torso - kinda like a centaur 3. scorpion mode 6 legged 4. Mons-taur mode 6 legged + 4 armed w/ torso I will expound on these in the coming days. sorry, my mind is kinda slow these past days for more reference Modulok Multi-bot
Well for those not in the know of the characters within the MOTU franchise, here is a link to the He-man wiki http://he-man.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Characters PS, Here is He-man anime style
to continue, as for walker pod mode here are where I took inspiration from. they are agile and fires rapidly. they are from Macross/Robotech series. you may look at the Star Wars Imperial Walker
Bad idea to rip from other lores already while not being able to display the full, rich original lore one bought the license for. There are only a few gamers who go from game to game and try them and compare level of challenge, game systems, etc. With a bought license, the majority of people coming in first are fans. And if the game comes up with an improper version of their established lore, the fans leave again in majority. Happened to SWG (75% or boxed copy buyers not subscribing for longer), Matrix online (very early shutdown) etc.
SWG stuck to the lore (mostly, with added bits that was formerly canon butt now not, like the Death Troopers), SWTOR on the other hand, basically made up 90% of it's **** (like WoW did with Warcraft after they lost the IP contract)
