Personally I dont feel that PvP is all that important to me in choosing a MMO to play. If I want to PvP I'll play a game like Counter Strike. But there are those that feel that PvP has to be in a game for it to be successful and so PvP is added to draw in the extra subscriptions that it would generate. But I wish any MMO would make a true PvP type atmosphere that wasn't dependent on having uber gear just to be able to play it.
99% of the PVP that happens in any game requires no skill. Ganking = no skill. 10 vs 1 = no skill. and although I dont have anything against class based / level based games, PVP in those = no skill. Hell PVE in some games is more "skillful" than PVP. Fighting a level 50 mob is harder than ganking a level 15 noob.
If I wanted to do nothing but kill semi-intelligent mobs and run the same scripted battle with said mobs, i'd go play elder scrolls or fable or some other offline RPG. Not that I don't like those types of games (which I love them) but that's not what I pay $15 a month for. And if you're one of those people who say "Well I like those types of games but I just like to play with my friends and a community". Yeah there's plenty of those games too, and almost all of them don't require a subscription fee. I don't understand the point of an online subscription based game where you can't do something beyond what I can do if I run an offline RPG and AIM at the same time. MMO's are pointless without PvP.
I can play many PvP games online for free also. BF1942,CS,Quake,Unreal Tournament, and even Shadowbane.So, why would you want to pay a subscription fee when there are many MORE PvP games online that are free than PvE ones? MMORPG's are pointless without Role Playing and strong , helpful communities.
Woot, I stated my opinion as fact. Did I win the intraweb?
99% of the PVP that happens in any game requires no skill. Ganking = no skill. 10 vs 1 = no skill. and although I dont have anything against class based / level based games, PVP in those = no skill. Hell PVE in some games is more "skillful" than PVP. Fighting a level 50 mob is harder than ganking a level 15 noob.
This is the type of person that will never understand competative computer games.
Depends on the game, most of the time i would say yes, they atleast need some sort of PvP included; It doesn't have to be a major part of the game, but it still needs to be atleast an option. It's a nice break from the monotony of killing monsters endlessly, and you can't find the level of challange anywhere else. Then again, i always liked to use the classes that were a bit harder to use in PvP, i could see a damage dealing class getting bored of PvP too, simply because it really is alot easier for them. Thus far every last MMO i have played, it's always easier to play a damage dealer class, the only thing that changes between games is how much easier it is.
I remember killing an archer in L2 with my prophet, we were around the same levels (didn't know his actually level but we were both doing fine in the same hunting ground). Thats where PvP takes skill, to kill a damage dealer with a buffer/support class; The only thing i never understood is why they have to make Damage dealers so noob friendly in mmo's, i killed the archer but i know i had to put alot more effort into it than he did, and he didn't play all that well either. I had an archer myself too, but i couldn't stand to play it, it was just so easy to kill anything, even players. Point, shoot, run away if your hurt. Just so boring to me when you can tear through people like that, without having to pay much attention.
You guys know that PvP is not necessarily fighting? It only means: Competition. It can be played out with trading, harvesting, crafting and fighting. People trying to get a part of a limited ressource are doing pvp. Players trying to sell their goods on a market against other competitors are doing pvp. So yes I think pvp is an important part of a mmo for me. At the same time I also do think that it is impossible to put up a competitve mmo and get non-pvpers to play the game as they do not care about overcoming boundaries or having to practice or create new strategies to become successfull.
Although a reasonable and well thought out response, you missed the fact that the average gamer interprets PvP as killing each other, proving who's better, e-peen stroking, PK'ing, ganking, etc.. So, if you voted for PvP, that's what you voted for.
Personally, I prefer PvE, a good story, involving content, good crafting/trading, questing, exploring, and a good community. Long as I have a choice to decline PvP, it's fine. Open PvP/ganking? No thanks, I'll pass.
PvP should either be hardcore (full player looting) or non existant.
Too many MMORPGs add PvP just to try to satisfy PvPers.
I would rather most games be PvP free and have a few good PvP games.
Amen to that...
Plus not to mention when they do add the PvP as a side thought, PVE suffers because they try to balance both...
Sorry folks, but there will never be a "fully" balanced game...as soon as some kid dies to someone of equal level, they are instantly blaming the game. A lot of people think balancing means every class should be able to kill every class. That is just stupid. What ever happened to the thought of balancing for group play? A healer should generally die to an assassin...if you're a healer and complain about dying then either re-roll, or pvp with a group.
It should be the CORE of any multiplayer game, especially MMORGPs.
A much higher level of cooperation is necessary for success in games which focus on player competition.
PvP does not need to be merely defined as "PvP combat," in a good multiplayer game, players compete with each other in all aspects of the game, politically and socially (cooperatively), economically, and in direct competition or combat.
Unfortunately, most MMOGs today, try to avoid the most advantageous aspect MMOGs can exploit over single player or offline games, the multiplayer competition! And, what we have now is a bunch of single player games that happen to be played online and contain a chat interface.
I currently play, Roma Victor. No other newer MMOGs based in the time of the sword are interesting enough or multiplayer (PvP) enough for me.
I believe DEVELOPED pvp is required in a good mmorpg...
If you are going to half-ass it, then just leave it out, and spend the time working more on the PvE...
But if you are going to attempt PVP then do it right. Make objectives, player run cities, sieges, etc...one of the things shadowbane got right.
The best thing about a developed pvp system is there is always content...Players make the content. And that's what keeps interests up. If you know one day you might wake up and your city was taken over...that's more of an adrenaline rush than doing the same instance run over and over again.
I totally agree with this^ kind of PvP content. A well designed PvP system creates all kinds of conflict, politics and power struggles which can add story and purpose to a game - not to mention a sense of danger.
The big problem is the kind of immature ganker type players who attack players well below their level - this is the problem the developer has to solve with any PvP in a MMORPG which has any kind of character development system (ie. levels). If the developers do not address this issue, it would be better if they had no PKing at all, or no levelling at all.
It can be possible to make a half decent optional PvP system either for certain events, in certain areas or with an opt-in flag. This at least allows players with less interest in fighting to get on with other aspects of the game, unmollested, but doesn't necessairly solve the level differences issue.
For me, the ideal situation would be to be competing with players of a similar level most of the time. This could be done with separate areas for different levels, but that can make the community pretty disjointed.
A game mechanic which punishes those who attack lower level players can be a pretty affective way of achieving this - either by making them more of a target for everyone else or by some kind of "bully" point system which decreases their stats or makes them unable to attack lower levels at all, and therefore putting themselves in danger from them.
There is just something satisfying about the idea of one of these overblown, highly equipped gankers fleeing for their lives from some newbie with a dagger.
PvP is not needed in every MMORPG, but it is a required element of any MMO that would interest me. Frankly I would prefer to share an MMO environment with only players who are at least accepting of PvP, so would welcome the development of PVE only MMO's for those that can't deal with pvp at all, in any form. The poll doesn't have an option for "I don't care what other people play as long as there's something out there for me," though, so I didn't vote. Not into telling other people what they should enjoy or what is "good" for them.
You guys know that PvP is not necessarily fighting? It only means: Competition. It can be played out with trading, harvesting, crafting and fighting. People trying to get a part of a limited ressource are doing pvp. Players trying to sell their goods on a market against other competitors are doing pvp. So yes I think pvp is an important part of a mmo for me. At the same time I also do think that it is impossible to put up a competitve mmo and get non-pvpers to play the game as they do not care about overcoming boundaries or having to practice or create new strategies to become successfull.
Although a reasonable and well thought out response, you missed the fact that the average gamer interprets PvP as killing each other, proving who's better, e-peen stroking, PK'ing, ganking, etc.. So, if you voted for PvP, that's what you voted for.
I don't think he really missed anything. He is just clarifying that PvP can be interpreted more broadly. IMO too many people assume that PvP means ganking when it should be looked upon as any form of direct player competition.
As far as my preference goes, I think PvP is really the best potential feature of an MMO. You cannot have massive PvP in a single player game game though you can have massive PvE.
That said I understand that some prefer the PvE model, in which case I think the implementation of PvP is really a waste of resources. They would be better off adding additional PvE content instead of being saddled with implementing and balancing PvP. Same goes for PvP ruleset servers, either the game is purpose built for it or it is not.
It's almost not even a question worth asking now days. Devs figured out years ago that PVP has to be in a game but it should be 100% optional. Unless of course the devs are shooting for a specific, PVP-centric, market.
Looking at the poll results thus far (all responses are currently at 20%-30%) from a marketing standpoint the decision for devs should be quite easy to make. In order to obtain the largest player base possible and maximize profitability a game must include some form of PVP ~period~
Now here's the rub as I see it...
IT BEHOOVES A DEVELOPER TO DEVELOPE AN INTERESTING, FUN AND ADDICTIVE PVP SYSTEM FOR IT'S MMORPG
because it is the main reason a certain percentage of players even play mmorpgs. Moreover it is maybe the best way to passify players while they are waiting for the next expansion packs to be realeased. Long after players have ground / grinded their ways up to level ~insert level cap here~ and raided the handful of end game dungeons / zones / instances 'til their eyes bleed, PVP is a way to keep players logging in, making sure those subscriptions stay active.
I must confess that 10 years ago I was an anti-PVP nazi... scratch that. I was a vehement anti-PVP nazi. Most of the mmorpgs I've subscribed to or beta tested in the last 6-7 years have made great strides in creating balanced and interesting PVP systems. This has shifted a lot of players' opinions. I don't see nearly as many anti-PVP posts on forums. These individuals seem to have migrated into the "I don't have any interest in PVP" category.
If you haven't tried PVP just because you don't think it's fun I recommend giving it another try. You may find it more interesting now than when you first started playing mmorpgs.
PVP is a way to keep players logging in, making sure those subscriptions stay active.
Totally agree with you on that, theres endless challenges with players constantly thinking of new tactics, play styles and builds it would be hard to stay on top of the game for long thats why i'm still playing a few games with that aspect.
There's more than one kind of PvP, really. In my experience, there is (1) combat PvP and (2) non-combat PvP. The non-combat PvP can be any kind of in-game competition between players, be it financial, industrial, technological, tradeskills, what have you.
On the combat side, I've noticed that there are two kinds of PvPers: (1) PKers who want to gank people and have full corpse looting and (2) PvPers who want more structure, be it stated objectives, realm-v-realm play, level bands to prevent ganking and the like.
Trying to design a game that matches all of this is pretty much impossible other than having different rulesets on different servers -- which is the approach that a lot of developers have taken in an effort to please all of these different kinds of PvPers, as well as accomodate the non-PvP crowd (which is larger, in my experience in games, than the PvP crowd).
In my own experience, more people would like PvP if it weren't for the FFA, gankathon-type PvP they've experienced in games that support PK-style play. That is, I think more players would like PvP in the context of a structured setting with set goals and so forth. Alas, that is much harder to make, and relatively few games have pulled that off succesfully. DAoC comes to mind (WAR will also follow on this model), with its model of both level banded BGs and an open FFA RvR area with capturable castles and so forth. It's much more common that you see a more or less PvE-designed game simply get dumped into a FFA PvP ruleset server, which leads to massive problems, as can be seen on WoW's "PvP" servers.
So I guess in response to the question, I would say that I think some form of competitive play is a great feature to have in an MMO. The key issue is how to design it so as to minimize grief play and maximize truly epic competition between players.
Mass PvP: You are really sure you want this? Imagine those 30 archers targeting you alone (coordination via voice tool) and killing you with one volley. You will not have a chance to heal or shoot back. You simply die. In mass fights it is all about organisation and focus fire. It is never about playing your toon well to win the fight.
This is true. But in your example the problem isn't mass PVP; the problem is how developers handle focus fire.
sempiternal and AZAlex86 said it well
PVP must be a core game mechanic. Politics and large scale PVP should be planned for from the very beginning. The game should encourage player conflict by putting players in conflicting situations. They then can choose to make friends or make enemies. Players should have to adapt to social, political, and economic changes both locally and on a server/shard-wide level. There must be tangible consequences for griefing, PK-ing, etc., and i'm not talking about GM ban-hammers.
If you don't plan for these things ahead of time then PVP will be nothing but duels, instanced, and faction-only. Which is nice for people who want to pay $15/month for a glorified version of team deathmatch, but such restrictions are arbitrary, immersion-breaking, and outdated. Role players and griefers alike, anyone who appreciates realism and immersion, will all turn their nose at games like that.
The age of EQ and WOW clones can't end soon enough.
The answer is no, it is not necessary to have Player vrs Player in a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.
The key words there are Role Playing Game.
Now if you asked is PVP necessary for a MOG then that would depend, games like CS, COD, BF(all), Tribes, MW4, Starsiege, SG, or any other (and yes they are) Multiplayer Online Games (though classified as FPS) must have PVP and in reality are the only ones that actually do have PVP action.
On the other hand MOGs such as D2, GW, etc… (are classified as RPG) really do not need PVP at all. Actually in these games PVP are a distraction and add nothing to the actual game play. I want to take a min here and follow this path. Those of you that played P&P games I want you to think back to any game you played be it ShadowRUN, MechWarrior, D&D, or any other campaign based RPG. Now other than the few times one of your buds did something to PO you and you have to say “Roll for initiative monkey boy” can you remember any time where the game play could be enhanced by PVP?
Lets look at the games that brought a lot of us into MOGs; Doom and Duke Nukem, now while duke matches were a fun part and the introduction to PVP for most gamers, the lure and what made these games fun was that you could play the games COOP which in reality was just an electronic extension to the P&P games we were playing. Now look at Diablo 2, the game was fun and realistically blizzard could have left the ability to go hostile out and it would not have affected the game play one bit.
That’s because of two reasons, 1. While dueling can be fun it does not add or affect the goals or the RPG of the game. 2. Very quickly you could not get PVP in D2 (for the same reason there is no PVP in EVE) because no matter how much they like to tie the banner of PVP onto themselves, a LVL60+ barby going hostile to a group of lvl12 in not PVP but simple slaughter. Plus if you brought an avatar within 10 lvls of the PKer/griefer they typically ran as they were never interested in true PVP only easy kills. And these people added to the game how? They don’t, so again the answer to your question is no, not all RPGs (of this type) need PVP to be a great game.
Now are there MMO’s and some RPGs that may need PVP then the answer is yes if the RPG allows the players to play the different factions in the game.
It’s really that simple;
A: If the players play different warring factions then yes, PVP actually means something. However the fighting needs to be balanced, starsiege was a perfect example of this.
B: If the players are in the same faction fighting a common NPC enemy then no PVP is not necessary and only diverts and distracts from the game play.
Realistically if you want PVP there are 100s of free to play MOGs available there is no reason to delude a good RPG to add it.
asking if pvp is need in a mmorpg is like asking if XXX colors is more beatifull htan YYY one oO
some like some dont. i personally cant play a mmorpg if there isnt pvp on it.. i dont have fun elaborating complicated pve plans.
with that in mind i do beleive that a good mmorpg with pvp ( or rvr for that matter) must be designed arround pvp features with pve content and not the opposite, simply put every freacking mmorpg that added it to the game because players asked for failed miserbly... EQ, FFXI and WOW with BG are the perfect exemple while games designed arround that feature usually did well (DAOC, L2) but often failed with the pve content.
PvP is important. As another person said, it doesn't have to be competition through combat. I also think it's important that the game be RvR, else you get lots of people that just wander around ganking whoever. To be honest, I think ganking is one of the most annoying parts about PvP. RPGs as a whole are generally about getting higher stats and better loot such that one can overpower a challenge, and gankers take this approach to PvP.
But I find PvP much more interesting than PvE. PvP is challenging and not because the opponent has hugely greater stats like a "challenging" PvE mob would. The focus of PvP is that one does have to change and adapt their strategy to win.
I've been thinking, PvP is what attracts me to a game, pvp is unpredictable and has an endless range of skill bringing new challenges to a game. Games which Brings actual skill into pvp such as Guild Wars and Wow have the correct idea around pvp as its really down to that players skill and not so much items and or level. Games like Lineage 2 does have great pvp although its heavly level based, its too dependant on the time you have put into the game and not so much the skill that is involved, if any. I'm not currently playing any game, apart from a few hours of Counterstrike: Source. But i'm looking for a really hard hitting Pvp game that will hopefully knock my socks off. Just some of my oppinions, would like to hear yours.
PVP in wow is Item based....if i threw my hunter into a pvp battleground right now he'd get pwned.
I dont' think PVP is necessary to make a game popular, though if done right and it fits with in the game like how they're talking about implementing pvp for Warhammer sounds awsome to me.
In the end I think its just dependant on the game if the pvp actually means something to the game's world then to me its important. I guess thats just me though I don't really care to kill people at random and get nothing for it. Look at Wow's pvp was an after thought and not even necessary at all to the game. Infact WOW is popular without pvp just as much as it is with pvp.
Please Refer to Doom Cat with all conspiracies & evil corporation complaints. He'll give you the simple explination of..WE"RE ALL DOOMED!
an mmo is basically a game without end. What non online games are without end? All I can think of is the sims and some other maxis (or EA maxis or whatever they're called now) games. As much as you'd want to just play warcraft 2 (cause warcraft 3 sucks) and just amass a force for no reason and build up your city you can't cause you'll run out of gold mines and lumber. I think a lot of people like games without ends and at the same time they can also like to play solo and not have any interest in PvP. Most offline games where you're an elf or fly a spaceship end at some point, and it's usually a linear path. An MMO is a different genre of games atm it doesn't matter much that it's on or offline, that's because of the lack of offline seemingly endless games available.
PvP can be the carrot on a stick though for some games, but so can other things, like making your character all purple. Or simply watching your amount of gold go up.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You? if I were to kill a titan tomorrow and no CCP employees showed up to say grats I would petition it. Waiting for: the next MMO that lets me make this macro if hp < 30 then CastSpell("heal") SpellTargetUnit("player") else CastSpell("smite") end
PvP is the reason I even play MMORPG's.... or wait, I don't... anymore that is.... damn hurry up WAR and AoC!!!
$OE lies list http://www.rlmmo.com/viewtopic.php?t=424&start=0 " And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because *I* don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what *I* saw is ******* vampires! "
It doesn't matter if "original RPGs" didn't have PvP or weren't enhanced by it. Times change, and I think that today's online gamers are more or less evenly split between those who love PvP and those who don't, and then there's those who don't give a damn. Considering that what MMORPGs are all about is the size of the world (in all terms), and their objective is to attract as many players as possible, then yeah, PvP is needed in the game. Having decent PvP in a game doesn't exclude decent PvE and viceversa, which is what some people here seem to think (same thing with RP and PvP). New MMOGs are showing this outlook at things, like Age of Conan and Warhammer: Age of Reckoning. A balance between both types of play is the goal in order to get the most people to like the game; if both aspects are done right, then PvE lovers will get a chance to experience some PvP they might like, and they could become regular PvP'ers as well as continuing their PvE "career". Same thing with a PvP lover. And the people who don't give a damn get a chance to like everything. I don't think it's too far-fetched to say that these systems will actually bring each game's community closer, and in the end, it's the community which becomes better and better thanks to these types of close-ups between players and game types.
Comments
99% of the PVP that happens in any game requires no skill. Ganking = no skill. 10 vs 1 = no skill. and although I dont have anything against class based / level based games, PVP in those = no skill. Hell PVE in some games is more "skillful" than PVP. Fighting a level 50 mob is harder than ganking a level 15 noob.
I can play many PvP games online for free also. BF1942,CS,Quake,Unreal Tournament, and even Shadowbane.So, why would you want to pay a subscription fee when there are many MORE PvP games online that are free than PvE ones? MMORPG's are pointless without Role Playing and strong , helpful communities.
Woot, I stated my opinion as fact. Did I win the intraweb?
Too many MMORPGs add PvP just to try to satisfy PvPers.
I would rather most games be PvP free and have a few good PvP games.
I remember killing an archer in L2 with my prophet, we were around the same levels (didn't know his actually level but we were both doing fine in the same hunting ground). Thats where PvP takes skill, to kill a damage dealer with a buffer/support class; The only thing i never understood is why they have to make Damage dealers so noob friendly in mmo's, i killed the archer but i know i had to put alot more effort into it than he did, and he didn't play all that well either. I had an archer myself too, but i couldn't stand to play it, it was just so easy to kill anything, even players. Point, shoot, run away if your hurt. Just so boring to me when you can tear through people like that, without having to pay much attention.
Although a reasonable and well thought out response, you missed the fact that the average gamer interprets PvP as killing each other, proving who's better, e-peen stroking, PK'ing, ganking, etc.. So, if you voted for PvP, that's what you voted for.
Personally, I prefer PvE, a good story, involving content, good crafting/trading, questing, exploring, and a good community. Long as I have a choice to decline PvP, it's fine. Open PvP/ganking? No thanks, I'll pass.
Plus not to mention when they do add the PvP as a side thought, PVE suffers because they try to balance both...
Sorry folks, but there will never be a "fully" balanced game...as soon as some kid dies to someone of equal level, they are instantly blaming the game. A lot of people think balancing means every class should be able to kill every class. That is just stupid. What ever happened to the thought of balancing for group play? A healer should generally die to an assassin...if you're a healer and complain about dying then either re-roll, or pvp with a group.
PvP litterally means Player versus Player.
It should be the CORE of any multiplayer game, especially MMORGPs.
A much higher level of cooperation is necessary for success in games which focus on player competition.
PvP does not need to be merely defined as "PvP combat," in a good multiplayer game, players compete with each other in all aspects of the game, politically and socially (cooperatively), economically, and in direct competition or combat.
Unfortunately, most MMOGs today, try to avoid the most advantageous aspect MMOGs can exploit over single player or offline games, the multiplayer competition! And, what we have now is a bunch of single player games that happen to be played online and contain a chat interface.
I currently play, Roma Victor. No other newer MMOGs based in the time of the sword are interesting enough or multiplayer (PvP) enough for me.
I totally agree with this^ kind of PvP content. A well designed PvP system creates all kinds of conflict, politics and power struggles which can add story and purpose to a game - not to mention a sense of danger.
The big problem is the kind of immature ganker type players who attack players well below their level - this is the problem the developer has to solve with any PvP in a MMORPG which has any kind of character development system (ie. levels). If the developers do not address this issue, it would be better if they had no PKing at all, or no levelling at all.
It can be possible to make a half decent optional PvP system either for certain events, in certain areas or with an opt-in flag. This at least allows players with less interest in fighting to get on with other aspects of the game, unmollested, but doesn't necessairly solve the level differences issue.
For me, the ideal situation would be to be competing with players of a similar level most of the time. This could be done with separate areas for different levels, but that can make the community pretty disjointed.
A game mechanic which punishes those who attack lower level players can be a pretty affective way of achieving this - either by making them more of a target for everyone else or by some kind of "bully" point system which decreases their stats or makes them unable to attack lower levels at all, and therefore putting themselves in danger from them.
There is just something satisfying about the idea of one of these overblown, highly equipped gankers fleeing for their lives from some newbie with a dagger.
PvP is not needed in every MMORPG, but it is a required element of any MMO that would interest me. Frankly I would prefer to share an MMO environment with only players who are at least accepting of PvP, so would welcome the development of PVE only MMO's for those that can't deal with pvp at all, in any form. The poll doesn't have an option for "I don't care what other people play as long as there's something out there for me," though, so I didn't vote. Not into telling other people what they should enjoy or what is "good" for them.
I don't think he really missed anything. He is just clarifying that PvP can be interpreted more broadly. IMO too many people assume that PvP means ganking when it should be looked upon as any form of direct player competition.Although a reasonable and well thought out response, you missed the fact that the average gamer interprets PvP as killing each other, proving who's better, e-peen stroking, PK'ing, ganking, etc.. So, if you voted for PvP, that's what you voted for.
As far as my preference goes, I think PvP is really the best potential feature of an MMO. You cannot have massive PvP in a single player game game though you can have massive PvE.
That said I understand that some prefer the PvE model, in which case I think the implementation of PvP is really a waste of resources. They would be better off adding additional PvE content instead of being saddled with implementing and balancing PvP. Same goes for PvP ruleset servers, either the game is purpose built for it or it is not.
ouch.. How important is PVP in MMORPGs?
It's almost not even a question worth asking now days. Devs figured out years ago that PVP has to be in a game but it should be 100% optional. Unless of course the devs are shooting for a specific, PVP-centric, market.
Looking at the poll results thus far (all responses are currently at 20%-30%) from a marketing standpoint the decision for devs should be quite easy to make. In order to obtain the largest player base possible and maximize profitability a game must include some form of PVP ~period~
Now here's the rub as I see it...
IT BEHOOVES A DEVELOPER TO DEVELOPE AN INTERESTING, FUN AND ADDICTIVE PVP SYSTEM FOR IT'S MMORPG
because it is the main reason a certain percentage of players even play mmorpgs. Moreover it is maybe the best way to passify players while they are waiting for the next expansion packs to be realeased. Long after players have ground / grinded their ways up to level ~insert level cap here~ and raided the handful of end game dungeons / zones / instances 'til their eyes bleed, PVP is a way to keep players logging in, making sure those subscriptions stay active.
I must confess that 10 years ago I was an anti-PVP nazi... scratch that. I was a vehement anti-PVP nazi. Most of the mmorpgs I've subscribed to or beta tested in the last 6-7 years have made great strides in creating balanced and interesting PVP systems. This has shifted a lot of players' opinions. I don't see nearly as many anti-PVP posts on forums. These individuals seem to have migrated into the "I don't have any interest in PVP" category.
If you haven't tried PVP just because you don't think it's fun I recommend giving it another try. You may find it more interesting now than when you first started playing mmorpgs.
On the combat side, I've noticed that there are two kinds of PvPers: (1) PKers who want to gank people and have full corpse looting and (2) PvPers who want more structure, be it stated objectives, realm-v-realm play, level bands to prevent ganking and the like.
Trying to design a game that matches all of this is pretty much impossible other than having different rulesets on different servers -- which is the approach that a lot of developers have taken in an effort to please all of these different kinds of PvPers, as well as accomodate the non-PvP crowd (which is larger, in my experience in games, than the PvP crowd).
In my own experience, more people would like PvP if it weren't for the FFA, gankathon-type PvP they've experienced in games that support PK-style play. That is, I think more players would like PvP in the context of a structured setting with set goals and so forth. Alas, that is much harder to make, and relatively few games have pulled that off succesfully. DAoC comes to mind (WAR will also follow on this model), with its model of both level banded BGs and an open FFA RvR area with capturable castles and so forth. It's much more common that you see a more or less PvE-designed game simply get dumped into a FFA PvP ruleset server, which leads to massive problems, as can be seen on WoW's "PvP" servers.
So I guess in response to the question, I would say that I think some form of competitive play is a great feature to have in an MMO. The key issue is how to design it so as to minimize grief play and maximize truly epic competition between players.
sempiternal and AZAlex86 said it well
PVP must be a core game mechanic. Politics and large scale PVP should be planned for from the very beginning. The game should encourage player conflict by putting players in conflicting situations. They then can choose to make friends or make enemies. Players should have to adapt to social, political, and economic changes both locally and on a server/shard-wide level. There must be tangible consequences for griefing, PK-ing, etc., and i'm not talking about GM ban-hammers.
If you don't plan for these things ahead of time then PVP will be nothing but duels, instanced, and faction-only. Which is nice for people who want to pay $15/month for a glorified version of team deathmatch, but such restrictions are arbitrary, immersion-breaking, and outdated. Role players and griefers alike, anyone who appreciates realism and immersion, will all turn their nose at games like that.
The age of EQ and WOW clones can't end soon enough.
OP your question: Is PVP a need in a MMORPG?
The answer is no, it is not necessary to have Player vrs Player in a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.
The key words there are Role Playing Game.
Now if you asked is PVP necessary for a MOG then that would depend, games like CS, COD, BF(all), Tribes, MW4, Starsiege, SG, or any other (and yes they are) Multiplayer Online Games (though classified as FPS) must have PVP and in reality are the only ones that actually do have PVP action.
On the other hand MOGs such as D2, GW, etc… (are classified as RPG) really do not need PVP at all. Actually in these games PVP are a distraction and add nothing to the actual game play. I want to take a min here and follow this path. Those of you that played P&P games I want you to think back to any game you played be it ShadowRUN, MechWarrior, D&D, or any other campaign based RPG. Now other than the few times one of your buds did something to PO you and you have to say “Roll for initiative monkey boy” can you remember any time where the game play could be enhanced by PVP?
Lets look at the games that brought a lot of us into MOGs; Doom and Duke Nukem, now while duke matches were a fun part and the introduction to PVP for most gamers, the lure and what made these games fun was that you could play the games COOP which in reality was just an electronic extension to the P&P games we were playing. Now look at Diablo 2, the game was fun and realistically blizzard could have left the ability to go hostile out and it would not have affected the game play one bit.
That’s because of two reasons, 1. While dueling can be fun it does not add or affect the goals or the RPG of the game. 2. Very quickly you could not get PVP in D2 (for the same reason there is no PVP in EVE) because no matter how much they like to tie the banner of PVP onto themselves, a LVL60+ barby going hostile to a group of lvl12 in not PVP but simple slaughter. Plus if you brought an avatar within 10 lvls of the PKer/griefer they typically ran as they were never interested in true PVP only easy kills. And these people added to the game how? They don’t, so again the answer to your question is no, not all RPGs (of this type) need PVP to be a great game.
Now are there MMO’s and some RPGs that may need PVP then the answer is yes if the RPG allows the players to play the different factions in the game.
It’s really that simple;
A: If the players play different warring factions then yes, PVP actually means something. However the fighting needs to be balanced, starsiege was a perfect example of this.
B: If the players are in the same faction fighting a common NPC enemy then no PVP is not necessary and only diverts and distracts from the game play.
Realistically if you want PVP there are 100s of free to play MOGs available there is no reason to delude a good RPG to add it.
An so it begins
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.[/CENTER]
some like some dont. i personally cant play a mmorpg if there isnt pvp on it.. i dont have fun elaborating complicated pve plans.
with that in mind i do beleive that a good mmorpg with pvp ( or rvr for that matter) must be designed arround pvp features with pve content and not the opposite, simply put every freacking mmorpg that added it to the game because players asked for failed miserbly... EQ, FFXI and WOW with BG are the perfect exemple while games designed arround that feature usually did well (DAOC, L2) but often failed with the pve content.
But I find PvP much more interesting than PvE. PvP is challenging and not because the opponent has hugely greater stats like a "challenging" PvE mob would. The focus of PvP is that one does have to change and adapt their strategy to win.
I've never understood.
WHY WOULD SOMEONE PLAY AN MMO JUST TO KILL DUMB NPC'S? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of playing an MMO?
they could do that in morrowind or neverwinternights.
They can have their friends log into a game, and kill some dumb npc's on a quest.
Killing dumb NPC's over and over to level up is not my thing.
PVP in wow is Item based....if i threw my hunter into a pvp battleground right now he'd get pwned.
I dont' think PVP is necessary to make a game popular, though if done right and it fits with in the game like how they're talking about implementing pvp for Warhammer sounds awsome to me.
In the end I think its just dependant on the game if the pvp actually means something to the game's world then to me its important. I guess thats just me though I don't really care to kill people at random and get nothing for it. Look at Wow's pvp was an after thought and not even necessary at all to the game. Infact WOW is popular without pvp just as much as it is with pvp.
Please Refer to Doom Cat with all conspiracies & evil corporation complaints. He'll give you the simple explination of..WE"RE ALL DOOMED!
PvP can be the carrot on a stick though for some games, but so can other things, like making your character all purple. Or simply watching your amount of gold go up.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
if I were to kill a titan tomorrow and no CCP employees showed up to say grats I would petition it.
Waiting for: the next MMO that lets me make this macro
if hp < 30 then CastSpell("heal") SpellTargetUnit("player") else CastSpell("smite") end
PvP is the reason I even play MMORPG's.... or wait, I don't... anymore that is.... damn hurry up WAR and AoC!!!
$OE lies list
http://www.rlmmo.com/viewtopic.php?t=424&start=0
"
And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because *I* don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what *I* saw is ******* vampires! "
I will play a full out open PVP game when my skill matters more than gear and time. Until then I will only play PVP when its on my terms (like DAOC).
I don't think MMOs need PVP to be successful, its a nice addition but not a need.