Would you play ESO if it was World PvP orientated

smeeprocketnub19_ESO

dharbert wrote: »

skeletorz_ESO wrote: »

dharbert wrote: »

Global PVP = griefers 24/7. It's as simple as that.

There are already players who try to drag mobs onto you in the world and in dungeons. It never works and the mobs never attack me, but it doesn't keep them from trying it over and over again.

Those players aren't trying to drag mobs onto you, they're just fleeing through the dungeon instead of fighting everything. LOL dude, you are not the center of the universe.

But I agree. Griefering would be constant.

I don't consider myself to be "the center of the universe" by any means. There is a certain dungeon that I like to farm, and I guess a couple of others were tying to as well.

They were constantly attacking mobs on the other side of the room and down the hall, dragging them right on top of me, every single time.

Like I said, the mobs never attack me, it will never work, but i guess they thought it would run me off.

They're clearly all out to get you.

I have never intentionally trained anyone and I have pulled mobs to a better area, as well as fled from mobs plenty of times. That's probably what was happening there. Assuming the worst is generally a poor way of looking at things.

smeeprocketnub19_ESO

Laura wrote: »

diamondeyethunderbow_ESO wrote: »

I'd still play it, as long as there was no looting. It's not supposed to be EVEScrolls Online - and don't get me wrong, I love me some EVE. Full loot is complete crap in fantasy MMOs.

I don't think it'd be the best thing for the game, though. Opt-in PVP is a much better idea.

@diamondeyethunderbow_ESO just for the sake of getting a conversation flared (and pure curiosity) why is full loot complete crap in a fantasy MMO and not a space or future MMO? seems strange to me.

It was fun on some EQ servers and UO. I agree I wouldn't want to see it in this game (because I want to see it appeal to a larger crowd instead of me and a small niche. very few of us play mortal)

The downside about the EQ servers back in the day was having your body camped. THAT sucked. But reps mattered more then, so it was generally just a few jerks that did things like that.

Absynthe

No

I'm all for the Justice System, as a person chooses to participate by their IC criminal actions.

However, total world PvP where people can gank you for no real reason beyond their own enjoyment? Absolutely not.

Srugzal

No

dharbert wrote: »

skeletorz_ESO wrote: »

dharbert wrote: »

Global PVP = griefers 24/7. It's as simple as that.

There are already players who try to drag mobs onto you in the world and in dungeons. It never works and the mobs never attack me, but it doesn't keep them from trying it over and over again.

Those players aren't trying to drag mobs onto you, they're just fleeing through the dungeon instead of fighting everything. LOL dude, you are not the center of the universe.

But I agree. Griefering would be constant.

I don't consider myself to be "the center of the universe" by any means. There is a certain dungeon that I like to farm, and I guess a couple of others were tying to as well.

They were constantly attacking mobs on the other side of the room and down the hall, dragging them right on top of me, every single time.

Like I said, the mobs never attack me, it will never work, but i guess they thought it would run me off.

I think there's something about the mob aggro mechanic that prevents them from aggroing outside their "home" area. I've even attacked mobs returning to their base from chasing someone, and they never engage, even in a narrow passageway. There are some other proximity mechanics that also come into play, but I've never been able to figure it all out.

You can get caught up in groups chasing someone, however, if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, and not too far from their home base. I've seen this dynamic in places like Crow's Wood. Those damn spiders...

Kinsaven

No

I like PvP, but I also like some peace and quiet when I'm questing. I don't want to have to look over my shoulder the whole time, in fear of being ganked by some high-level player who is bored or simply finds it 'fun'. Because that's usually what happens. World PvP is hardly ever fair or a fun challenge.

That said, I wouldn't mind a toggle, so players who do like that sort of thing can flag themselves for PvP whenever they want. Just don't force it on people.

Hamfast

No

The first online game like this I played was Meridian59, they had 10 severs, 101 to 109 had PvP outside of towns, server 200 was PvE only... I learned to hate PvP on server 103... there were times I was stuck in town because groups were camping the gates and killing everyone, step out the gate and you were dead before the game loaded... I finally started a character on Server 200 and played until they shut the servers down... I just looked it up, if you like open world PvP, there are 2 Meridian 59 servers up now, and it's free to play.

Since then, every game I have played except for 3 has had PvE and PvP servers, and for the most part, the total PvE server populations were several times the PvP population... the three games I played that did not were Eve Online - full PvP, Aion - Sold as PvPvE but required PvP if you wanted to get to the end game and ESO...

As I think about it, Eve Online is actually the only Full PvP game I know, you compete for resources, you compete for space (literally), you even compete in the markets, a totally player driven economy...

I no longer hate PvP, not in the strictest sense, I don't mind competing with other players for resources, in the markets and other ways like that (As long as I can compete)... I do not like to fight with them, it depresses me... I stopped playing Eve when I realized that even if I had maxed out my ability to manufacture things, I could not compete and make money, there were things I still enjoyed doing, but Eve is a gankers paradise, and I lost interest... Aion I quit when I found that I had to PvP if I wished to progress... turn ESO into an open PvP world and I will go find another game.

Open world PvP is a Gankers dream, you may not be a ganker, but there are enough people out there that are, they will do everything they can to ruin the game play for as many people as they can...

Look at the threads on the Justice System, it's hardly been announced and players (not ZOS) have been telling us all about it... how it will do this, not allow that... we do not know how it will end up, I spoke with Matt Firor at QuakeCon and felt a bit reassured, the Dueling option will not be implemented unless and until they can make sure that there will be no harassment... I hope that same view is kept in all future updates.

Malpherian

No

I selected No, because I assumed that you meant Open world PvP as in kill anyone anytime anywhere.

The justice system only allows you to do this to "law Breakers". If I remember right. It's not true Open world PvP.

SirAndy

No

Synfaer wrote: »

Also for those that answer Yes;

No ...

Slurg

No

No, with the exception being I'd like to kill other people's winged twilight thingies that get in my face so I can't see my enemy in the middle of a fight. I'm happy to let their sorc masters standing a safe distance away live, though.

zaria

Kinsaven wrote: »

I like PvP, but I also like some peace and quiet when I'm questing. I don't want to have to look over my shoulder the whole time, in fear of being ganked by some high-level player who is bored or simply finds it 'fun'. Because that's usually what happens. World PvP is hardly ever fair or a fun challenge.

That said, I wouldn't mind a toggle, so players who do like that sort of thing can flag themselves for PvP whenever they want. Just don't force it on people.

Agree here, Cyrodil has plenty of opportunity for small groups, even solo players if you are good.

World PvP in ESO also has the problem with the zones, let say you could enter reaper mach from Cyrodil, this is a level 30-40 area, not much to do here for other factions than kill other players, I guess guards would be hostile and pretty though say level 40 two dot bosses so this would mostly be for veteran players.

World PvP worked better in WOW as you level together most of the time.

Elencha

No

I think someone could make a killing if they designed a game like Call of Duty with a fantasy theme. That's what a lot of people here seem to want. Sort of a third-person shooter with bows instead of guns. Add melee and sorcery, and boom, you've got all the PvP you want with none of that pesky RPG nonsense that's obviously just for carebears.
This way massively-multiplayer online role-playing games can concentrate on being role-playing games that are massively multiplayer instead of trying to be shoot'em ups with bows. Combat can go back to being part of the overall experience rather than the main focus of gameplay.

isengrimb16_ESO

No

Elencha wrote: »

I think someone could make a killing if they designed a game like Call of Duty with a fantasy theme. That's what a lot of people here seem to want. Sort of a third-person shooter with bows instead of guns. Add melee and sorcery, and boom, you've got all the PvP you want with none of that pesky RPG nonsense that's obviously just for carebears.
This way massively-multiplayer online role-playing games can concentrate on being role-playing games that are massively multiplayer instead of trying to be shoot'em ups with bows. Combat can go back to being part of the overall experience rather than the main focus of gameplay.

Indeed, I think that's the thing that's missing in the market, and why every fantasy game gets plagued for a wish for CoD instead of an RPG.

A lot of people are so used to computer RPGs, or never played tabletop RPGs, and don't realize that an RPG is about story and character, not combat. Combat rounds take a lot of time and aren't all that great in tabletop, best used sparingly only when it was necessary for the story/situation. Nor was it meant to be "GM vs Players" .. I always saw it as co-operative storytelling, and not a "game" anyway.

Elencha

No

Exactly. Even though I've never played tabletop RPGs, I've always loved the RPG genre. Admittedly, I'm just biding time until someone invents a holodeck, but I see the RPG as a movie with which I can interact and of which I am a part. A movie with violence, certainly, but not a movie that is violence.

Krinaman

No

Hell no.

When I want to PvP I'll go to the PvP area.

Let's face it. People who want open world PvP just want to gank someone who doesn't want to PvP. There's literally no other reason for it.

Elencha

No

Too true, @Krinaman‌. Although, I have noticed this tendency to control how other people play the game throughout this forum, so it isn't really surprising to find it in this context.

Syntse

No

isengrimb16_ESO wrote: »

Elencha wrote: »

I think someone could make a killing if they designed a game like Call of Duty with a fantasy theme. That's what a lot of people here seem to want. Sort of a third-person shooter with bows instead of guns. Add melee and sorcery, and boom, you've got all the PvP you want with none of that pesky RPG nonsense that's obviously just for carebears.
This way massively-multiplayer online role-playing games can concentrate on being role-playing games that are massively multiplayer instead of trying to be shoot'em ups with bows. Combat can go back to being part of the overall experience rather than the main focus of gameplay.

Indeed, I think that's the thing that's missing in the market, and why every fantasy game gets plagued for a wish for CoD instead of an RPG.

Chivalry: Medieval Warfare?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry:_Medieval_Warfare

kassandratheclericb14_ESO

No

I leveled three toons in WoW on a PvP server. Not...ever...again....

ThisOnePosts

Yes, but only if my gear/pocessions could be looted on death

Yes.. but I could care less if the items could be looted or not. I think it would be interesting either way.

isengrimb16_ESO

No

Elencha wrote: »

Exactly. Even though I've never played tabletop RPGs, I've always loved the RPG genre. Admittedly, I'm just biding time until someone invents a holodeck, but I see the RPG as a movie with which I can interact and of which I am a part. A movie with violence, certainly, but not a movie that is violence.

Good analogy.

It's kind of like the difference between, say, watching an actual horror show/movie, and a splatterpunk-slasher movie.

The splatterpunk movies are fine, for what they are; an excuse to show a lot of terrifying situations and gore, usually hanging on kind of a thin thread of a story.

True horror leaves something to the imagination; it's more about the shadow that flits across the wall, the footstep you hear when you're alone in a locked house, than what the monster actually does to you - some of the creepiest horror I've seen doesn't show you at all what the monster does.

As you can tell, I prefer the latter. I'm having more fun watching the old, original Dark Shadows series than I've had watching any of the modern "horror" (really, splatterpunk) movies that have come out since, oh, Friday the 13, I guess.

The following is about said show, so I'm gonna hide it behind a spoiler for anyone who might .. not want spoilers. I'm also NOT referring at all to the Johnny Derp movie. Seriously, he looks more like the Joker than Barnabas Collins (or A joker, anyway).

There's a part in this show (amongst others) that I actually find very, very creepy - yet you didn't see what exactly happened.

Would-be grave-robber Willie Loomis breaks into the Collins family crypt, looking to steal jewels he thought was buried with one Naomi Collins. Inside the crypt, he realizes that there's a secret door, and finds his way into the room. In that room, is a coffin with chains on.

So of course he thinks that's where the jewels are. He breaks the chains ... and opens the coffin. The actor did a pretty good job of showing just where the character's mind breaks, as a hand comes up to grip his throat.

Now, we never saw exactly what happened after that .. it's the change in Loomis' personality that tells the story. He was, when introduced, a low-life thief, a person with the self-control and patience of a chimpanzee, who won't take orders or even suggestions, even from his own best friend, for his own good. He is also implied to be an habitual ***. Brash, violent and uncontrollable. After the aforementioned scene, he's a completely different person; taking orders while shaking in his boots, trying to protect the girls he once sexually harassed from his new boss. What was done to him is probably best left to the imagination.

Creepy as hell without one bit of gore. Awesome storytelling (especially for a soap). Much more enjoyable (for me) than just seeing buckets of blood wash over everything. Same goes with these sorts of games. Sure, I don't mind the violence, but I don't need to fight, fight fight constantly. Gimme story over combat any day.

Oh, and yes, I agree completely with the holodeck thing. Doubt I'll live long enough to see it, but boy, that would be awesome.

Elencha

No

An excellent example, @isengrimb16_ESO‌. Perhaps, in my case, it's the result of being raised on Stephen King novels, but I far more into the subtly-crafted story than the "OMG, kill it now!" thing. but I agree, this is lacking in the fantasy genre. Much as a I don't enjoy the PvP thing, I can understand the draw of venting frustrations on fellow human beings in a context that won't get you thrown in jail. And I get that not everyone digs the aura of the military or futuristic settings. I am curious why this obvious slice of the market has been ignored by all but the MMORPG developers. It seems odd. Maybe because fantasy is seen as solely the interest of RPG geeks?

Edited to add a missing comma. And to fix relut... Really, Elencha, relut...?

Tamanous

A good way to reduce the total subcribers to 15% of the current amount would be to make this game an open world pvp game.

Go ahead and consider this ZoS?

... yar.

This game is going to implode even with simply adding the justice system. It will be messed up for quite some time.

isengrimb16_ESO

No

Elencha wrote: »

An excellent example, @isengrimb16_ESO‌. Perhaps, in my case, it's the relut of being raised on Stephen King novels, but I far more into the subtly-crafted story than the "OMG, kill it now!" thing. but I agree, this is lacking in the fantasy genre. Much as a I don't enjoy the PvP thing, I can understand the draw of venting frustrations on fellow human beings in a context that won't get you thrown in jail. And I get that not everyone digs the aura of the military or futuristic settings. I am curious why this obvious slice of the market has been ignored by all but the MMORPG developers. It seems odd. Maybe because fantasy is seen as solely the interest of RPG geeks?

Edited to add a missing comma

I grew up on the Dark Shadows books, and comic books, as the series went off the air when I was three; it went into syndication later, but at an afternoon time I couldn't always catch as a young teen. Of course, my mom gave me Jaws to read when I was 9, and The Shining at 12 (on holiday; while reading it, we visted a hotel between Banff and Jasper which used to look EXACTLY like the Overlook as described, at least inside. I know it's not imagination or faulty memory, because I confirmed this with a Native who went there several times. He was the one who told me it changed - but it used to freak the heck out of him, too.) I was also more into the old horror comics (and war comics to a lesser extent); wasn't much into the superheroes and such like that. For kiddie comics, well, Scrooge McDuck and Hot Stuff was always well sought after by me.

Funnily enough, I was never actually into fantasy; while I loved playing the fantasy RPGs with my friends (namely AD&D and Earthdawn), the one I ran was technically modern-day horror - Werewolf: the Apocalypse. Funny thing is, the other two games had horror-ish storylines, too, as it turned out.

Someone linked a Fantasy PvP game above - it looks like it should fit the bill of a lot of people here, really.

For me, as far as taking frustrations out, well, that's what NPCs are for. My one-time Goldshire thing was just a side trip; I'd expected to be chased away a lot sooner - and I didn't go after a single player. I don't mind entering battlegrounds for something different once in a blue moon, but I sure don't want pvp all the time, or even most of the time.

theyancey

No

I would join the majority of players who would unsub immediately.

Oberon

No

Krinaman wrote: »

Hell no.

When I want to PvP I'll go to the PvP area.

Let's face it. People who want open world PvP just want to gank someone who doesn't want to PvP. There's literally no other reason for it.

+1

Boil away the huffing and puffing and we're left with this.

Financial suicide is hardly a compelling reason to give to MMO companies to convince them to go with either full loot or permadeath.

Elencha

No

Huh... I wonder why that isn't more popular. I've never even heard of that game before...It does sound like it'd be just exactly the thing for people who prefer their PvP worldwide...

Eryndae

No

I played on a PvP WoW realm-- due to wanting to play with friends-- and ***hated*** it. In WoW, it looks like the pvp servers have lower populations overall than the pve ones, so I know my preference was a common one!
: > Without a choice of pve server to switch to, I would be very sad about this happening!

Delith

Yes, but only if my gear/pocessions could be looted on death

ITT: Cowards. No wonder MMOs can't stay profitable for long.

Oberon

No

Delith wrote: »

ITT: Cowards. No wonder MMOs can't stay profitable for long.

No wonder open world pvp full loot MMO's can't stay profitable for long--they just don't have the subscriber base to support them.

Standard pve MMO's do quite well, actually. Even SWTOR, a game that is often maligned, has a huge subscriber base and is extremely profitable.

isengrimb16_ESO

No

Delith wrote: »

ITT: Cowards. No wonder MMOs can't stay profitable for long.

Why aren't you playing Chivalry?

Elencha

No

ITT? The technical school? I don't know what they have to do with anything, but the fact that someone doesn't enjoy what you enjoy hardly makes them a coward, but of course you know that. Unless, of course, you are just unfamiliar with the definition of cowardice.