Jump to content

Fallout 76 official teaser trailer


dalmer

Recommended Posts

  • 4 months later...

The challenge I see with multi-player games is that they often ditch the AI programing in favor of just having players be the challenge. It's lazy programming, but it does make things more challenging with less effort so I understand the justification. That said, I thought the AI for the enemies in fallout 4 was pretty lacking, and that was single player, so perhaps they just need it.

I would hope that multi-player allows non-human character creation. That's been a long desired fallout function they've yet to implement.

All that said, my main hope is that they manage to make a more upbeat game than their previous Bethsoda titles. I feel that fallout 4 was depressing, and wasn't balanced by enough humor as was the case in fallout 1 & 2. I feel that multiplayer would likely bring only cutthroat PVP, which doesn't appeal at all.

I won't write it off yet, but I'm certainly not going to pre-order this one, as I did for fallout 4 (which was a mistake, in hindsight).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each server (or however they will divide/call them) will support like 12 players.  PvP has to be mutually agreed upon.  They want the "oh, another human!" feeling when you encounter another player.

But again... the whole thing is multiplayer.  There is no true single-player option... single-player is just doing your thing and not interacting/etc. with the other players that you might come across.  I'm curious how quest/storyline stuff progresses and/or if some of it MAKES you co-op with others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PvP is not consensual.  A player can grief you whether you like it or not.  Their damage may be minimized if you do not return fire (I am unclear on that) but they can kill you if you don't fight back or run.  You can then put them on your ignore list which will keep them from loading to your server in the future.

I'm not sure I get what they are doing here.  You log out and your settlement logs out with you?  You get a random server draw so maybe you show up and someone else already has a settlement where yours was and so yours packs up and can be deployed elsewhere?  This sounds hideously anti-immersion.

I'm actually ok with the idea that you see different people each time you log in since that kinda fits my personal idea of the wasteland but the mechanics around it seem really silly.  And of course, since free time is really the limiting factor in my gaming I am really against non-consensual PvP or otherwise allowing someone to dictate how I spend my gaming time (by forcing me to flee an area, etc.).

 

I have a really hard time relating this title to Fallout.  I get the impression that the flavor and intent of the game-play is really very different from prior Fallout games (although the setting seems to be very true to Fallout 3).

 

(Gah, I agree with almost everything Pax said above...  I need to have my head checked.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2018 at 8:53 AM, Duckman said:

PvP is not consensual.

Yes and no.

PVP is a game mode that all the players know about prior to playing, so in that respect it's consensual because you could opt to not play. But by the same merit, there are lots of things in real life where the alternative is to stop living, and that's not considered a reasonable alternative. So I think Duckman has the right of it.

I wish these games were designed where you could just play. Video game designers seem to want too much control. I feel that the game should allow me to attack other players if I feel I need to, but there shouldn't be any advantage in attacking players over NPCs. Furthermore, I shouldn't be able to really tell the NPCs apart from the PCs. And if I do attack others, they should have options to subdue me without sinking to my level. Murder should a last resort, not a go-to solution for bypassing perceived enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, you have the option to attack anyone or anything you want to and there seems to be no substantial benefit to attacking another player.  It seems, in fact, to be less beneficial unless you are the sick bastard who gets off on trolling others.  Now, why am I concerned about that?  Because I have been playing MMOs for 20 years and there is not a game in the world that doesn't have that person although some are worse than others.

 

I like the idea of not being able to tell humans from NPCs but that would take better AI than anyone in gaming has written even without the additional interface options.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish it was easier to have MMO games that were semi-private, invite-only affairs.

Social stigma is a fantastic way to prevent anti-social behavior. If there was a way to play Fallout 76 that was only open to, say, Ordo Fanaticus members then you’d probably see a lot less “greifers.” The anonymous nature of open-to-the-world MMOs mean you can act like a feminine hygiene nozzle and get away with it. If you actually had to interact with your fellow players offline in the real world, you’re inventivized to behave. You could still play competitively and even aggressively, but you’d play fairly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can block people but I find that a useless tool.  World of Warcraft thought that was a good plan for LFG/LFR but the problem is that you cannot communicate with every player when someone needs to be banned.  In the old world, you could shout to everyone and everyone actually cared so people got blacklisted for being ninjas and such.  Now with a community of any size there is no way to reach everyone to make someone a pariah if they need to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2018 at 7:57 PM, Duckman said:

To be fair, you have the option to attack anyone or anything you want to and there seems to be no substantial benefit to attacking another player.  It seems, in fact, to be less beneficial unless you are the sick bastard who gets off on trolling others.  Now, why am I concerned about that?  Because I have been playing MMOs for 20 years and there is not a game in the world that doesn't have that person although some are worse than others.

Most MMOs give benefits for attacking other players. They encourage it with rewards and achievements. They aren't "sick bastards" for playing the game the way the designers "clearly" intend it to be played.

Some games merely allow PVP, but don't directly reward it. That said, their are often very legitimate reasons to engage in PVP within the game, despite no official reward. For example, if there's a shared resource that respawns on a timer, with the first player that uses it functionally denies it to the others, then "clearing out" other players can be legitimate PVP for the purpose of gaining the resource. Another example, there's a MMO that grants xp for reviving allies, but doesn't distinguish at why the allies died, so medics in that game are fearsome PVP monsters that attack friendlies, because they uniquely don't need enemies to level up.

Then there's boredom/frustration that arises from being "stuck" in the game. Even perfectly sane people, when they feel backed into a corner, will lash out. And if lashing out alleviates the boredom/frustration, they'll keep doing it, and more so it will eventually become a learned behavior that they use as their first option, rather than a last resort. Real life and games.

Last, there's a common issue where the best counter-PVP option is to troll/spawncamp the other players...Now if they respond in kind, then you have just two groups of trolls just going at eachother and it becomes circular. Either party can break the cycle, but it really requires some willpower, since basically you have to just let it happen - or you can quit, but if new players join mid-cycle and fall victim, then it continues. Culling and revenge tactics.

 

Quote

I like the idea of not being able to tell humans from NPCs but that would take better AI than anyone in gaming has written even without the additional interface options.

Been thinking about how to do the NPCs more lifelike. I'm think the solution, rather than better programing in the AI, is to neuter the PC dialogue options in voice chat.

Basically, on the PC end: The program use a combination of talk to text and autocorrect. Then it would sort through the words used and compare with a list of pre-approved words for the setting, deleting any words that weren't allowed. Then it would read the approved text in the "characters" voice. At that point, the NPCs should be able to converse with the PCs using the same dialogue options and with no ability to distinguish between player and non-player characters.

You could still figured it out, but if it took a few sentences of conversation to figure out who was a player and who was a non-player, I'd call that a success.

I also think NPCs should be given the same appearance/movement options as the PCs. Games often are designed where illogical movement benefits the players so it's easy to distinguish the players from the NPCs based on how they move alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Most MMOs give benefits for attacking other players. They encourage it with rewards and achievements. They aren't "sick bastards" for playing the game the way the designers "clearly" intend it to be played.

Actually, most do not.  Most simply provide a framework and the players decide to PvP all on their own.  Take WoW.  Fight over resource spawns.  Fraction of PvP which involves a resource?  Probably 5%.  DAoC, Shadowbane, DCUO, SWtOR, Star Trek, City of Heroes, Champions Online, Elite Dangerous, The Division, the list goes on and on.  All allowed PvP, some were even built around the concept.  Most of the PvP occurred away from the place where PvP was "intended".  In many cases even if PvP was rewarded the griefers don't bother to collect the rewards (see piracy in Elite or the Dark Zone in The Division as an example).

Quote

Then there's boredom/frustration that arises from being "stuck" in the game. Even perfectly sane people, when they feel backed into a corner, will lash out. And if lashing out alleviates the boredom/frustration, they'll keep doing it, and more so it will eventually become a learned behavior that they use as their first option, rather than a last resort. Real life and games.

Last, there's a common issue where the best counter-PVP option is to troll/spawncamp the other players...Now if they respond in kind, then you have just two groups of trolls just going at eachother and it becomes circular. Either party can break the cycle, but it really requires some willpower, since basically you have to just let it happen - or you can quit, but if new players join mid-cycle and fall victim, then it continues. Culling and revenge tactics.

Boredom/frustration is not an excuse to grief other players.  A system designed to allow players to force other players to give up on their present goals to deal with the griefer is poorly designed.  I'm not here to be content for you because you are bored.  I am busy <pick one or more: leveling, questing, working on rep, harvesting mats, roleplaying> and a system that allows you to force me to do something else is designed to punish me.  That includes making something required for non-PvP activity available only through PvP.  Here's a hint.  If the phrase "PvP is dead in this game" shows up it is because the majority of the players in the game don't want to PvP and designers who are forcing them to are doing a bad job.  (See WoW and making the best pre-raid weapons come from arenas in TBC.)

Quote

I also think NPCs should be given the same appearance/movement options as the PCs. Games often are designed where illogical movement benefits the players so it's easy to distinguish the players from the NPCs based on how they move alone.

Pathing in games is one of the hardest things in the world to code.  Even if you could come up with code that allows NPCs to wander "aimlessly" you would still have a problem with the fact that NPCs can't actually zone or move far from a specific location nor do they move with the purpose that a PC would.  5-10 seconds observation should *always* make it possible to distinguish unless the PC is actively "trying to look like an NPC".  This is exacerbated in open-world where NPCs are few and far between and removing the leash on an NPC would make it impossible to find the NPC (and therefore make the NPC irrelevant) in most cases.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I play games with PvP.  I do it by choice when *I* want to be involved in PvP.  None of the games mentioned above allow you to ignore PvP completely and still achieve everything in the PvE portion of the game.  WoW required PvP for weapons used in PvE.  DCUO requires PvP for skill points used in PvE.  For some reason, all game devs all feel the need to force cannon fodder into PvP so that a minority of the playerbase can be sadistic.  If it was a majority of the playerbase there would be no need to force cannon fodder into the PvP genre...  There would already be plenty of players.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Duckman said:

1) Actually, most do not.  Most simply provide a framework and the players decide to PvP all on their own.  Take WoW.  Fight over resource spawns.  Fraction of PvP which involves a resource?  Probably 5%.  DAoC, Shadowbane, DCUO, SWtOR, Star Trek, City of Heroes, Champions Online, Elite Dangerous, The Division, the list goes on and on.  All allowed PvP, some were even built around the concept.  Most of the PvP occurred away from the place where PvP was "intended".  In many cases even if PvP was rewarded the griefers don't bother to collect the rewards (see piracy in Elite or the Dark Zone in The Division as an example).

2) Boredom/frustration is not an excuse to grief other players.  A system designed to allow players to force other players to give up on their present goals to deal with the griefer is poorly designed.  I'm not here to be content for you because you are bored.  I am busy <pick one or more: leveling, questing, working on rep, harvesting mats, roleplaying> and a system that allows you to force me to do something else is designed to punish me.  That includes making something required for non-PvP activity available only through PvP.  Here's a hint.  If the phrase "PvP is dead in this game" shows up it is because the majority of the players in the game don't want to PvP and designers who are forcing them to are doing a bad job.  (See WoW and making the best pre-raid weapons come from arenas in TBC.)

3) Pathing in games is one of the hardest things in the world to code.  Even if you could come up with code that allows NPCs to wander "aimlessly" you would still have a problem with the fact that NPCs can't actually zone or move far from a specific location nor do they move with the purpose that a PC would.  5-10 seconds observation should *always* make it possible to distinguish unless the PC is actively "trying to look like an NPC".  This is exacerbated in open-world where NPCs are few and far between and removing the leash on an NPC would make it impossible to find the NPC (and therefore make the NPC irrelevant) in most cases.

 

4)Don't get me wrong.  I play games with PvP.  I do it by choice when *I* want to be involved in PvP.  None of the games mentioned above allow you to ignore PvP completely and still achieve everything in the PvE portion of the game.  WoW required PvP for weapons used in PvE.  DCUO requires PvP for skill points used in PvE.  For some reason, all game devs all feel the need to force cannon fodder into PvP so that a minority of the playerbase can be sadistic.  If it was a majority of the playerbase there would be no need to force cannon fodder into the PvP genre...  There would already be plenty of players.
 

Numbers are mine.

1) Wow definitely encourages PVP. There's a whole bunch of stuff that can only be obtained through PVP, plus resources in shared areas, and even special events where you gain a benefit for sneaking into/attacking theoretical safe zones. Not to mention the actual PVP servers and the organized PVP matches. Maybe that's changed over time, but when I used to play, PVP was a big thing. I don't think I played the other mentioned games enough to have a stance on their PVP.

2) I wasn't listing excuses, I was explaining reasons. I'm not saying it's okay, but knowing why something occurs is important. It's basis of forcing change. If you just write them off as "sick bastards" then you leave no room for solution. 

3) My suggestion is to limit the PCs, not make the NPCs more complex. If the PCs have to walk like NPCs, then the distinction between the two becomes harder. As is, in most games you don't exactly move like real person would move. PCs also seem to have better senses than NPCs (like just basic sight for NPCs seems to be a narrower cone than the PC's view. So narrow the PC view). If the NPCs can only register opponents at a certain distance, then give the PCs some sort of fog that limits how far they can see, maybe work the fog into the plot of the game.

4) I'm not sure PVP qualifies as sadism. If the person thinks it's a game, and they think that this is how the game is played, and the game doesn't correct them, then they are just playing it as it's intended to be used. Don't mean to be apathetic to your plight, but I think the emotional connection you are attributing to the game is perhaps beyond what others are. 

I met this guy recently (a younger gentleman) who is using the MMO to play hide and seek with his friend. They aren't leveling or doing anything at all that is really an intended function of the game. Just hide and seek with zero in-game benefit, just players playing in the way that is fun for them. 

I play the game to have fun and to allievate stress. I think most do. If PVP is how you do this, I don't see fault in you. If my game ceases to be fun/stress relieving due to the fun others are having, I'll probably switch games, but that's just me. I don't feel that it's fair to impose my fun over their fun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

Numbers are mine.

1) Wow definitely encourages PVP. There's a whole bunch of stuff that can only be obtained through PVP, plus resources in shared areas, and even special events where you gain a benefit for sneaking into/attacking theoretical safe zones. Not to mention the actual PVP servers and the organized PVP matches. Maybe that's changed over time, but when I used to play, PVP was a big thing. I don't think I played the other mentioned games enough to have a stance on their PVP.

WoW doesn't and didn't encourage PvP.  It supported it.  Comparing PvP to the rest of the content in the game it is a tiny fraction of the content.  And they claimed to support people who didn't want to PvP (see PvE servers) but then they forced people who were in those PvE servers to PvP if they wanted to gear up to do PvE raiding.  In other words, they offered a false choice.  This is bad.  PUBG encourages PvP.  Even Everquest did more to encourage PvP than WoW because at least there you could loot the person you killed thereby gaining something.

Quote

2) I wasn't listing excuses, I was explaining reasons. I'm not saying it's okay, but knowing why something occurs is important. It's basis of forcing change. If you just write them off as "sick bastards" then you leave no room for solution. 

It occurs because the developers force people to PvP whether they want to or not.  They put required resources in PvP-only regions.  They make weapons that are mandatory for non-PvP activity available only through PvP activity.  They create open-world PvP and then say "after you get ganked you can put the person on a block list and he will never come back on a server with you".  These are all false choices.  And the people who use that as an excuse to hunt players who don't want to PvP are being bastards no different from bullies on the playground.  These systems have *zero* penalty for them and they are getting their jollies by frustrating or ruining the experience for someone else.  There are "honorable" PvPers who seek only people who are skilled opponents.  They're just not common in an MMO environment.

Quote

3) My suggestion is to limit the PCs, not make the NPCs more complex. If the PCs have to walk like NPCs, then the distinction between the two becomes harder. As is, in most games you don't exactly move like real person would move. PCs also seem to have better senses than NPCs (like just basic sight for NPCs seems to be a narrower cone than the PC's view. So narrow the PC view).

This is not viable.  Have you ever seen an NPC explore the whole world in an MMO.  If they are in a city do they ever leave the city?  If they are in the wilderness do they ever leave a general area, much less the entire zone?  It takes less than 10 seconds observation to determine whether or not a character is an NPC or a PC.  NPCs don't harvest (imagine the rage if you got ninja'd by an NPC for that rare resource).  NPCs don't stutter-step or turn, pause and turn some more while thinking.  The best you could do is make me pause 30 seconds by adding a bunch of ambiguous behaviors for NPCs and by the end of 30 seconds unless a player is intentionally laying a trap you're going to have a very good idea whether or not something is an NPC or a PC.

Quote

4) I'm not sure PVP qualifies as sadism. If the person thinks it's a game, and they think that this is how the game is played, and the game doesn't correct them, then they are just playing it as it's intended to be used. Don't mean to be apathetic to your plight, but I think the emotional connection you are attributing to the game is perhaps beyond what others are. 

I met this guy recently (a younger gentleman) who is using the MMO to play hide and seek with his friend. They aren't leveling or doing anything at all that is really an intended function of the game. Just hide and seek with zero in-game benefit, just players playing in the way that is fun for them. 

And this summarizes the problem extremely well and you just don't see it because you don't want to.  Someone has an idea how they want to play the game and the game supports it.  Now, the game also supports other ways of playing.  Assume I knew exactly what the kids you cite were doing.  If I were to come along and follow one of the people hiding and point him out all the time would that be nice of me?  I made a specific choice to come along and keep them from doing what they are doing to have fun and the game supports it?  Now replace hide-and-seek with any PvE activity.  Why is PvP different?

Quote

I play the game to have fun and to allievate stress. I think most do. If PVP is how you do this, I don't see fault in you. If my game ceases to be fun/stress relieving due to the fun others are having, I'll probably switch games, but that's just me. I don't feel that it's fair to impose my fun over their fun. 

If we get in a boxing ring and you punch me, no problem.  If you walk up to me on the street and punch me you rapidly come to understand the legal system and the term "assault".  I don't care what you do to relax.  The point is that designers feel the need to cater to people who want PvP and because they know that this is a minority they do everything that they can to coax (or outright force) people who don't want PvP into PvP.  If everyone wanted to PvP it would not be a problem but back to the original topic of this thread, for 20 years this game has been one where you can do whatever you want and people cannot force you to change what you are doing.  There have been no griefers.  Now, because some dev thought it would be cool to try and compete for the Battle Royale crowd (who already played Fallout anyway when they wanted to) everyone is subject to the "well, I wasted an evening tonight because someone came along and made me stop farming my bottle caps and run away all night".  All it takes is a switch that says "I don't want to play online" and this problem is solved.  I'm not looking to change your behavior.  I'm looking to avoid it because I don't like it.  And if the devs cannot offer that then they clearly have an agenda to impose PvP whether they have thought about it or not.

So you want to examine behavior and determine what is behind it?  Ask why it is necessary to offer PvP at all and why, when it is offered, it becomes unavoidable.  Because I don't mind PvP when I can avoid it completely and choose only to PvP when I want to.  I mind PvP when it is forced on me at the whims of some jerk from the internet.  I mind when the inherent assumption is that *I* want to PvP just because I have logged into your game.  There are some games, like PUBG or Battlefield, where you know if I logged in I wanted to PvP.  It is not a valid assumption if I log into any other MMO, not even something like DAoC where it was a core concept.  And remember that DAoC and many of its spiritual successors have specifically advertised the need for non-PvPers to come craft or farm or whatever to be targets for their PvP audiences.  When you can explain why that should be the case, *that's* the behavior I want to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Duckman said:

And this summarizes the problem extremely well and you just don't see it because you don't want to.  Someone has an idea how they want to play the game and the game supports it.  Now, the game also supports other ways of playing.  Assume I knew exactly what the kids you cite were doing.  If I were to come along and follow one of the people hiding and point him out all the time would that be nice of me?  I made a specific choice to come along and keep them from doing what they are doing to have fun and the game supports it?  Now replace hide-and-seek with any PvE activity.  Why is PvP different?

@ the quoted section: 

What you are describing is exactly why I think the option for PVP is important. If we're playing hide and seek, and you just want to mess with us and otherwise ruin our fun, we should have an option to remove you, perhaps by killing your character. If it get's you to stop, seems reasonable. I've played games where PVP is denied, but they don't stop players from being jerks, they just limit our ability to remove jerks from our field of view.

But to answer your question, it isn't different. And, yeah, when you are playing a game a certain way, and players interupt that by playing the same game in another way, it can be annoying. That said, that doesn't make them sadists or Sick bastards just because they disagree on how the game is meant to be played. The developers, ultimately, are the ones that should be "fixing" the game to reflect how it is meant to be played. If the developers continue to allow such a situation to occur, then the game is designed to allow players to play in the way that annoys you. The solution is to find another game.

And that's why multiplayer Fallout 76 really doesn't appeal to me, and why I don't intend to pre-order it.

@the other stuff you said: 

I do think WoW encourages PVP. Any game with a PVP option encourages PVP just by catering to people that want to PVP. I agree they may do it less than others, but I think it's fair to say they encourage it. I just don't like it when the game forces me to do PVP in order to get the equipment/quests/achiements I need to complete a given game. In general, bugs me when I have to play the game a certain way in order to complete it (huge fan of sandbox games).

I also don't see a very visible line between the developers that make a game and the players that support the developers by continuing to fund them. There is a line, but it's faint. If PVP is something you don't want to see in WoW, inform blizzard that you intend to stop playing until they fix it. Then do so. Encourage your friends to do the same. If PVP is truly the minority you say it is, then this will eventually solve your problem. Though if it's just a minor inconvience, you could decide that it's not worth the effort and just keep paying them to make a game that features content you don't enjoy, but you are supporting it then, though action, even if not in words.

And to be clear, PVP refers to any game where the opponent is a fellow player. Chess is PVP when you play against other players. PVP isn't just players being jerks, it just refers to playing against non-ai opponents.  

Jerks playing MMOs is a seperate issue entirely. I would love to see some sort of in-game ettiquette class/tutorial where players learned how to treat other players. Maybe if they get reported enough times, it just sends them there....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm....I think our issue is that you say something I hear as extreme, so I argue that it isn't as extreme as you present it. Then you respond on the assumption that I am defending the extreme stance, which I'm not, but I can see the confusion. And as a result, we get on these long debates.

I'll work on my end. I don't mind the debates, but I'm always looking to improve. I wonder if we could do the same thing with shorter posts....? Though I am pretty long-winded.

Anyway, we both agree that we don't want PVP in fallout 76 because neither of us want the game to be multiplayer, even if we disagree on what about PVP we dislike. I'll take that as our conclusion since I don't think we'll see eye to eye on the other stuff, even with more debating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

Hmm....I think our issue is that you say something I hear as extreme, so I argue that it isn't as extreme as you present it. Then you respond on the assumption that I am defending the extreme stance, which I'm not, but I can see the confusion. And as a result, we get on these long debates.

I'll work on my end. I don't mind the debates, but I'm always looking to improve. I wonder if we could do the same thing with shorter posts....? Though I am pretty long-winded.

Anyway, we both agree that we don't want PVP in fallout 76 because neither of us want the game to be multiplayer, even if we disagree on what about PVP we dislike. I'll take that as our conclusion since I don't think we'll see eye to eye on the other stuff, even with more debating.

Yerp.  20 years it hasn't been in and it shouldn't be in now, at least not without the ability to proactively prevent it.  I don't begrudge people the option to PvP and I even participate.  I just don't want anyone else to have the option to make me participate whether it is random or by design because I need to do it for gear, a buff, a recipe, a component, whatever.

Mostly, I look at the extreme in these cases because whether it is 50% of the time or 1% of the time, eventually you find the extreme case.  Then I wonder why the devs made a decision to make that possible in the first place...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fallout 76 has been in development for at least 3 years.  If they knew what was going on in Fortnight, much less how popular it would be early enough to make it a fundamental part of Fallout 76 I think I would be looking into industrial espionage.

More fundamentally, devs have been making these decisions for years.  My complaints go back to 2007 at least and apply to the devs who made BIS pre-raid items in World of Warcraft come from arenas or the devs for DCUO who made lots of Skill Points depend on PvP achievements.  I don't get why MMO has to mean PvP.  There are plenty of examples of coop-only games and to be honest, they are becoming more and more popular in tabletop gaming as well.

I don't object to PUBG or other games that are what they say on the tin.  Of all the MMOs I can think of, DCUO does the best at preventing non-consensual PvP today but even then the devs have made it a requirement for PvE optimization.  If you can think of an MMO that allows PvP but allows you to completely disable it and not require it for anything at all, I would love to hear it.  The last one I am aware of was Everquest where you could completely avoid it if you wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...