Open world PvP Zone

[Hyrist]

The other "good" argument is: "I will get ganked", which assumes some sort of PvP Anarchy.

Again, I've already listed the reasons why you'll get instanced based over 'open world', but I'll go over the one you've overlooked again.

Having instance based insures activity for anything objective related. Without it, you're talking about roaming an empty zone when objectives cannot be completed if you're playing during in active times. For Frontlines - having enough people to actually participate in the core Objective mechanic is a prerequisite for the instance to exist in the first place - guaranteeing that objective based play and team play are the priorities. Short of that, yes, is Anarchy PvP, which really is the only innate value of open world.

So don't pretend you are compromising. Frontlines is the compromise already. Large zones with many modes and multiple objectives enticing groups to split and diverge as needed. Asking for continual compromises until you actually get exactly what you want isn't compromise.

And to correct another argument based off of fallacy - for those who don't remember - Slaughter was not objective-less Deathmatch. It was point-based deathmatch and the largest portions of points were off of NPC targets at specific locations that re-spawned regularly- which wasn't all that different from Shatter, except if you think of the ICE as capable of fighting back. I still prefer it to Shatter, honestly.

So, here are your list of reasons why not:
- Instancing Guarantees adequate participation in order for the event to occur - Open World does not. (This also prevents the need for a World Timer on events and allows people to do an event when there's enough people available - and not be limited to an arbitrary schedule.)

- Instancing Resets the map regularly so lingering map objectives (think PvP forts) do not become monopolized for long periods of time. - Open World frequently have favorites/dominating groups per player pool.

- Guaranteed participation assures that groups are (for the most part) balanced as far as warm bodies go (not class balance, this is more or less on the player base) This is better enforced in 4v4 in which the parties are actually forced to be balanced - we'll see how balanced something like Rival Wings becomes. Open World does not regulate this by default almost guaranteeing unbalanced participation. The only way to resolve that would to make it single-player queue only to evenly distribute forces,which would not go over well to any PvP community.

- With Open World the likelyhood of one on one combat would necessitate better balancing of classes for 1v1 combat - and SE can't even balance Teamplay here, let's be honest. But at least with focused objective play they have less factors to work against.



There is so much that can and does go wrong with Open World that a development team focused on making PvP accessible, fun and team-centric (Remember, they're looking to MOBAs and other E-Sports for inspiration, which is pointedly not Open World) is not going to look at Open World and think "Yeah, we can handle this workload." This is not including how notorious SE is right now with the breath and depth (or lack thereof) of PvP right now. This isn't as easy as programming an instance. You're asking a major undertaking that is severely divergent in both development and theme.

It doesn't bother me that you want it ,but you generally don't seem to get that the moment you ask for Open World, you're not asking for a compromise, you're asking something extra. The game would still be healthy if PvP did not exist. PvP would still be going on if it was just The Feast or the Fold, and they added decent rewards to that. But they added something large scale with decently large maps with varying objective styles - Frontlines. You're asking them to cross a line and created something constantly open - there is no compromise to that; just debating the rule-set within the thing you would be getting.




Given all of this, this is what I speculate they will do:
They will likely continue to add different types of Frontline content to continue to satisfy the objective desires contained in Open World play, while addressing Open World's faults - one of the key components of that is keeping it instanced. I simply don't see enough of a reason for them to cross the line to Open World PvP, when they have a multitude of readily available alternatives.

But don't feel alone in this frustration and disappointment - there's very little to be said of Open World PvE content either, which is another reason why I feel crossing that line for PvP isn't something they're going to support.

As far as my personal desire - I don't want it because I know they won't do it right. PvP needs to be built well from the ground up with a large development team behind it. While I do enjoy a bit of the PVP we have going now, I don't have the confidence that SE has the capacity, nor the motivation, to make that level of investment and make it right. I'd rather they not do it than to get something potentially more catastrophic than Diadem.

So let me turn the phrase. Look at our track record for PvP and other content in this game right now. Let's set aside the speculation of 'should' or 'will they'. Tell me honestly, in your assessment, can SE, with everything we seen, truly make a satisfactory Open World PvP? I'm sorry to say, I don't think so - and I'd rather them make a separate project (game) from the ground up to support that desire.

Until then, I'll sate myself with the upcoming Dissidia game and Frontlines.

[Squintina]

Having instance based insures activity for anything objective related. Without it, you're talking about roaming an empty zone when objectives cannot be completed if you're playing during in active times.

Just pointing out you can have objectives in an open world map. Just have timed events. Basically one big pvp fate that is scheduled and people can see when the next one is and whoever feels like it shows up.

That doesn't negate any of the other valid points you have made (which you've got some really good ones), but just saying...An open world map does not have to always equate objective-less.

[Hyrist]

Just pointing out you can have objectives in an open world map. Just have timed events. Basically one big pvp fate that is scheduled and people can see when the next one is and whoever feels like it shows up.

That doesn't negate any of the other valid points you have made (which you've got some really good ones), but just saying...An open world map does not have to always equate objective-less.

Note the above edit to clarify what I meant by that point:

- Instancing Guarantees adequate participation in order for the event to occur - Open World does not. (This also prevents the need for a World Timer on events and allows people to do an event when there's enough people available - and not be limited to an arbitrary schedule.)

I'm well aware of objective open world PvP - I was a major participator of Aion's open PvP system when it first came out. I'm also highly aware of the flaws such a system can have even when designed from the ground up.

My issue is that there does not seem to be enough respect from those who are requesting it on just how much of an undertaking this would be to an already beleaguered team - as well as considering the development style of said team that seems to favor slicing aspects of MMO Tropes down to its core components - we don't get specialized or diverse builds because they know players will pressure always for BiS along this same vein.

My observation is that Frontlines is their attempt to distill elements of PvP similarly, and are far more likely to create objective based instance play inspired by favorite Open World activities, then create an Open World for PvP.

[Guesswhat]

.

Well, yes that's all good, I'm not sure why you quote me on this. Perhaps it seems I'm arguing for open world PvP in this game? I guess that's fair; it's the topic after all.

I'm merely commenting in on how (many, not all) people perceive the idea of open world PvP, and how it's naturally assumed to be anarchy in nature. This ties in to the main arguments against OW PvP, as an idea, in any game.
The argument: "I will get ganked", assumes a limit to restrictions.
The argument: "I will be harassed if I don't participate" is ok I guess, but, blacklists.
The only truly good argument, imo, or rather an understandable concern, is that OW PvP could be exploitable/hackable.

Ideally, imo, every game that has a open world with a battle system should have the perfect OW PvP implemented. Ideally being the key word here. That goes for any concept, not just OW PvP (housing, crafting, etc.). It's up to the developers of each game to evaluate if the concept is worth the resources spent, and/or if it fits how the game is designed.

Personally I would design any mmo with a battle system around PvP mechanics, and develop PvE (if any) based on that. I think the game could potentially get a much longer lifespan this way.

Would I like OW PvP in ff14? Ideally yes, but I don't think it's needed and worth the resources considering how low % would participate at this point. I actually agree with most of your post.

On the compromise thing. At least concerning this thread only, yes, the "PvP peeps" realise to what extent they have to compromise, whereas the majority of "PvE peeps" just instantly shuts it the idea down. If either side is reasonable or not is another topic.

[RiyahArp]

I'm merely commenting in on how (many, not all) people perceive the idea of open world PvP, and how it's naturally assumed to be anarchy in nature. This ties in to the main arguments against OW PvP, as an idea, in any game.
The argument: "I will get ganked", assumes a limit to restrictions.
The argument: "I will be harassed if I don't participate" is ok I guess, but, blacklists.
The only truly good argument, imo, or rather an understandable concern, is that OW PvP could be exploitable/hackable.

This isn't assuming. We have a pretty long history of open world, and that's really how its been. You can't really create systems to contain players or organize them like that. I mean, you can't prevent ganking at all, because ganking is just high level people attacking low level people, or groups attacking smaller groups or single people. The harassing thing is human nature. If someone wants to fight you, they are going to try and get you to pit on your flag.

There actually was a brief resurgence in the idea that open world PvP would save MMOs from the staleness of themeparks. This was in the mid 2000s, and games like Darkfall and Mortal Online arose to try and solve this. Short answer was that they didn't, and they failed miserably, although being indie didn't help either. I keep mentioning Aion in this thread because that was Aion's big hook, realm vs realm PvP as the main driver of gamplay. You rifted to fight other players as early as level 20, and endgame literally was just PvP. It also tanked, hard, though it survives still.

As for compromising, it would help if SE could deliver us some decent PvE content first a bit. I don't think people want pve content thrown on the back burner for this, in the same way we're getting tired of fluff like squadrons, perform, or other things. Unfortunately the game feels a little too zero-sum now for yet another piece of side content. And yes, I'd say that about pve stuff too.

[Guesswhat]

.

I think you're missing my point, maybe I'm not being clear. But I guess you're against the idea of open world pvp? You know, like people would be against an idea that could be shown to be hard to work in real life.

As for compromising, it would help if SE could deliver us some decent PvP content first a bit. I don't think people want pvp content thrown on the back burner for any pve, in the same way we're getting tired of fluff like squadrons, perform, or other things. Unfortunately the game feels a little too zero-sum now for yet another piece of side content. And yes, I'd say that about pvp stuff too.

[RiyahArp]

I think you're missing my point, maybe I'm not being clear. But I guess you're against the idea of open world pvp? You know, like people would be against an idea that could be shown to be hard to work in real life..

I'm not against the idea, and at this point anything would be better than "attack mid!" It's just...well, if they do it, it's going to be a nasty mess of a mode. It's not going to "work" in any sense; it's essentially going to be a gankfest and watching the imbalanced jobs solo the gimp jobs, like in every other game that tried it. It's going to end up with people camping home points and zones, and if you are going to be ok with it and that jobs like monk will be virtually useless in it, then ok. If you think SE is somehow magically going to make it work this time, you shouldn't be asking for it.

As for PvE, look...I get PvP content is slim too. But right now, you can log on for one day a week, cap tomes, do the one raid we have for a token, and that's it for a non-raider with a max job. If you raid, you have four raids that by now you either cleared and have farmed for a month, or you have three raids and one you are stuck on. Right now the only long term content we have is eureka, and its a huge gamble it will go well. if it doesn't what then?

[Guesswhat]

I'm not against the idea...

Yes, I was commenting on the perceived idea, not necessarily ow PvP in this game.

Right now the only long term content we have is eureka, and its a huge gamble it will go well. if it doesn't what then?

That's how I feel about shatter and feast personally. They "failed" me in a sense. So not since seal rock have I gotten anything new so to speak.