Open World PvP

[GrimGale]

Another thing:

If you design an opt-in PVP system and then encourage players to participate by giving gear, Tomestones or Gil, you're essentially making this system mandatory since anybody not participating is essentially falling behind people who do. If the rewards for participating in the PVP system extend beyond itself they become indispensable for PVE progression system and therefore you'd be forcing players to participate.

BFA as an example.

[Jojoya]

We can simply say that :
PVP is supposed to be enjoyable for both side, not one sided. As soon it is one sided, people will left.

Unfair fight, one sided PVP as soon as you have no chance to win because of stuff or level it is bullying.

You are not being bullied. You agreed to the risk when you made the choice to put your character on an open world PvP server.

PvP server does not mean a server where players who like fair fights hang out to discuss Twitter trends over tea while waiting for more players to show up so there's an even number on both sides.

PvP server means open world PvP where it is FFA, pretty much anything goes, and you take your chances on what's going to happen.

If you're only looking for a fair fight, you shouldn't be choosing a PvP server. You should be choosing a PvE server then using instanced PvP where the game controls who will be present to offer some semblance of a fair fight (it almost never exists in reality).

As much as i dislike PvP in general and world PvP specifically, I have even more dislike for people who choose a PvP server then whine they're getting bullied if someone else kills them.

Just stay away from PvP servers like I do. Then you don't have a problem.

Another thing:

If you design an opt-in PVP system and then encourage players to participate by giving gear, Tomestones or Gil, you're essentially making this system mandatory since anybody not participating is essentially falling behind people who do. If the rewards for participating in the PVP system extend beyond itself they become indispensable for PVE progression system and therefore you'd be forcing players to participate.

BFA as an example.

As infinitesimal as the chance of world PvP being added to this game is in the first place, it certainly would never be designed as opt-in by any method other than choosing a PvP server. PvP activities would be disruptive to other players who aren't interested in PvP.

I highly doubt there would be any reward structure to it that would influence PvE progression. There may not be any rewards at all. Win-trading is too easy to accomplish with open world PvP.

[van_arn]

You are not being bullied. You agreed to the risk when you made the choice to put your character on an open world PvP server.

PvP server does not mean a server where players who like fair fights hang out to discuss Twitter trends over tea while waiting for more players to show up so there's an even number on both sides.

PvP server means open world PvP where it is FFA, pretty much anything goes, and you take your chances on what's going to happen.

If you're only looking for a fair fight, you shouldn't be choosing a PvP server. You should be choosing a PvE server then using instanced PvP where the game controls who will be present to offer some semblance of a fair fight (it almost never exists in reality).

As much as i dislike PvP in general and world PvP specifically, I have even more dislike for people who choose a PvP server then whine they're getting bullied if someone else kills them.

Just stay away from PvP servers like I do. Then you don't have a problem.

I mean like, what if I want to be bullied? Getting ganked is fun.

I never understood why people pick a pvp ruleset and complain when they get pvpd.

It's literally what you said you wanted.

[Eldevern]

...

I get your point. But I'm not naïve : people who are actually looking for PVP consider GK and Gank as bothering because it's not challenging. And they don't like gankers and GK players since this kind of players always ends by whinning to be killed in real HL fights. Just read some MMO PVP forums. It's uplifting.

The ones who agree with GK are the same to complain when they are killed during HL fights.

Now HL players with "transfo" in Aion enjoy the gank challenge but... they are the target since they are at the highest level. I'm not talking about this kind of gank when the one who stands at the top is challenged.

[Jojoya]

I mean like, what if I want to be bullied? Getting ganked is fun.

I never understood why people pick a pvp ruleset and complain when they get pvpd.

It's literally what you said you wanted.

If you want to be ganked and are putting yourself where it can happen, you're not being bullied if you get ganked. You're getting what you wanted.

If you don't want to be ganked but put yourself in a place where it is reasonable to expect it to happen, you're still not being bullied. You're being stupid. Don't go where it can happen.

If you don't want to be ganked but somehow find yourself in a place by accident where it is reasonable to expect it to happen, you're not being bullied. It's an accident because the other players had a reasonable expectation that anyone in that location had agree to world PvP. Tell the other players you were there by accident, it's not what you wanted and leave the area.

If they start corpse camping you instead of allowing you to leave after you tell them, now you're being bullied.

But yeah, I agree with you. I'll never understand people who choose a PvP server then complain when PvP happens. If you're looking for a fair fight, a PvP server is not the place to go.

I get your point. But I'm not naïve : people who are actually looking for PVP consider GK and Gank as bothering because it's not challenging.

You're assuming everyone defines PvP the same way. They don't. This thread demonstrates that.

PvP is Player Versus Player. That's it. It says nothing about player levels needing to be the same. It says nothing about player gear needing to be reasonably close in power. It says nothing about the number of players on either side needing to be equal.

You are a player. I am a player. Your level 80 character attacking my level 10 character is still Player Versus Player. It may not be the type of Player Versus Player experience either of us were looking for but it's still Player Versus Player.

If you're choosing to play on a PvP server, you should be expecting to face just about every type of PvP encounter possible instead of only expecting those that fit your preferred definition of PvP. Not interested in the ones that don't fit your definition? Then choose a place where only those will happen.

Going to a PvP server and expecting only to be involved in fair fights is like me walking into an In-N-Out and expecting to be served a 16 oz prime rib. It's not going to happen. Prime rib is not the type of beef that In-N-Out serves, just as fair fights are not the type of PvP that PvP servers serve (wish I could think of a less repetitive sounding way to phrase that).

People need to be smart and choose the right venue for the PvP they want in the first place, just like I need to pick a good steakhouse instead of In-N-Out if what I really want is prime rib.

[Anhra]

Another thing:

If you design an opt-in PVP system and then encourage players to participate by giving gear, Tomestones or Gil, you're essentially making this system mandatory since anybody not participating is essentially falling behind people who do. If the rewards for participating in the PVP system extend beyond itself they become indispensable for PVE progression system and therefore you'd be forcing players to participate.

BFA as an example.

It depends on the Setting. There are a bunch of MMOs out there which have PvP and PvE elements mixed together well enough ( Tera Online is a good example on this, at least before Reaper got released there, cant say how the game turned out ever since) that Player who roam arround with PK mode on, could be more or less just considered as "elite type enemies".

Yet another way of fixing the Ganking issue is by doing something similar which Tera Online did: You can only PK Players within a certain level range (for example, a lv70 character could assault only Lv60-Lv80 Characters). That way, even if PvP would be forced on you, all you need to do is change your Job to a low level character and noone can harm you, unless said PKer also has something within that level range.

[Awha]

I don't know where you're getting the P from (Wikipedia gives me a page about network protocols), but ASD is not inherently about a lack of empathy. Just a potential lack of the social skills for expressing whatever degree of empathy they have, whether it's high or low.

Edit: Sorry, got those letters out of order (not usually my issue) and you mean antisocial personality disorder. Not so familiar, I think, and you were using it in the other thread where ASD was raised.

Yeah because I am also on the spectrum. I have both ASD and ASPD diagnoses.

This is the point I am trying to get at people need to stop intersecting their own bias and views into an action just go based off the action itself and how it is presented. PvP player verse player no where does fairness, equality, structured come into play. It is up to the devs or the community to foster such a mindset. Do not want people to "bully" lowbies then get a group and "bully" them. In short on pvp servers you use pvp to get what you want that is the nature of pvp servers.

Edit

That is not the argument I made in that post.

Premise 1: It is not a PvP-based MMO, but an MMO with PvP as a side content.
Premise 2: The devs want to make PvP even more attractive to casual players.
Conclusion: It does not need a PvP server. If the devs want to allow for open world PvP, they can do so with opt-in mode without having to segregate the community into different worlds.

The OP didn't say it should either, and implied that it wouldn't be, and some people would reject it if so.

And now in their own words:



In an RPG, level usually denotes strength. Those who are lower level than you are usually weaker than you.

Generally but not always I tend to go at face value at what people say, or ask for further clarification. Even so just because someone is weaker in terms of level or gear does not mean they are at a disadvantage. Also the rock paper scissors dynamic in MMO's also complicates the weaker statement.

Cause I have beaten people higher level then myself as a mage in classic WoW.

[linayar]

"The game has no meaningful pvp mode because it's not a pvp game" is a circular argument. Maybe let's avoid those?

That is not the argument I made in that post.

Premise 1: It is not a PvP-based MMO, but an MMO with PvP as a side content.
Premise 2: The devs want to make PvP even more attractive to casual players.
Conclusion: It does not need a PvP server. If the devs want to allow for open world PvP in the future, they can do so with opt-in mode without having to segregate the community into different worlds.

The op didn't say that playing in an open world environment where these things would be possible shouldn't be opt-in.

The OP didn't say it should either, and implied that it wouldn't be, and some people would reject it if so.

And now in their own words:

Hello, OP here. I really hadn't thought of opt in or out when I posted. Like I said I wanted discussion on the topic, and not to necessarily attempt to lay out a system.

Wait but you said; "Liking PvP doesn't make someone a bully. Enjoying picking on people weaker than them, does"

From what I could tell you never said anything about level. Though that is fair if you have other factors.

In an RPG, level usually denotes strength. Those who are lower level than you are usually weaker than you.

[Theodric]

I'm disinclined to think that rewards equal something being mandatory. If someone really doesn't want to indulge in PvP, the presence of rewards does not suddenly make it 'mandatory'. Much in the same way as how despite enjoying collecting things, I haven't bothered with Ultimate as I have neither the time, patience or skill to tackle that particular bit of content.

[SniperCT]

From a cursory look it seems the arguments against all boil down to "I wouldn't like it therefore it shouldn't happen".

But I don't think that anyone is saying that open world pvp shouldn't be opt-in (either by having pvp servers, a wow like warmode, or whatever else), so I don't understand those arguments.

I'm sure it's been said before but I'm not reading all these pages lol

To me, the game setting is not really fitting for open world pvp. It barely makes sense for the 3 faction pvp maps we have now. We're all supposed to be heroes for Eorzea first and members of our Grand Companies second, PLUS the GCs are all allies right now and generally would not stand for us all murdering each other.

But that's only half of it for me.

Almost every game I've ever played with pvp in it has messed up pve with attempts to balance pvp. The way pvp is now in ff14 doesn't really effect pve because it's kind of walled off with its own stats and skills. As it should be.

Sure, we could have a pvp server, but any and all changes to the game to make pvp more fair WILL affect the pve servers by virtue of all using the same ... everything. So even if the pvp is opt-in, it will still affect the PvE aspect of the game, and if its like every other game, that will be a negative effect.

TLDR LORE plus nerfing a class in PvP will also nerf it in PvE are why I'm a hard nope to open world pvp in this game. (and I generally enjoy pvp when I feel like opting in)