Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Anyone else sick of "objective" pvp?
nyquil
Member Posts: 97
I don't know about you guys but i'm sick of guarding nodes or trying to capture flags. I want gameplay focused on group versus group--team deathmatch style--overall based on competition and skill not "fun."
Is this the right game for me? I have read up on Kingdom vs Kingdom and it sounds like old daoc frontiers. That is exactly what i'm looking for but in a new game 
Anyways just wondering if anyone shares a pvp point of view with me, lata.
[edit] Please, don't bring up WAR, i'm sure that game wont be out till end year knowing the devs. And i'd just like to add that im not anti-pve either, i like a mix of both, but i tend to catter to PvP endgame.
Comments
Guild vs guild warfare and castle sieges are one of the main attractions, apart from the FFA combat on PvP servers that is.
There will be Capture the Flag in AoC, but also Team Deathmatches, if I am correct. And more I think. And then theres the Siege and Guild vs Guild raiding each others Guild Cities. Cant wait to have or raid a Guild City. The City gives you and your guild a buff wich increases in time, and also gives you better crafting options. Which is good enouth for me to protect the city with my life. ^^
And ofcourse open PvP on PvP servers. I´m going to play on a RP-PvP server, cant wait. ^^
I play games to have "fun". If I want to show off my skills, I can do that while having "fun" in games, or I can do that at work programming applications. But games are about "fun", not showing off skills for the most part for me.
Team based PvP combat is merely one subset of a much larger game design where people who want to do the various flavors can if they choose, or not, if they don't. "Team Based" non-objective PvP combat sounds like just a deathmatch kind of thing, and that'd get old quick to me. That's why they added CTF and the other forms of team based PvP because team deathmatch is the simplest and least "stimulating" of the team based PvP formats. The only objective is to kill the other side. The other modes include that object AND other tasks to make it more "team" oriented.
yeah, but to me team death match style, say grp vs grp of even 2grps vs 2gps is more fun for me because it is more competition based. The skill is more based on organization, but when you fight another group such as yours the fights are so much funner and challenging, imo.
When i say "fun" pvp versus competitive pvp, a good example is WoWs BG's... and how stupid they are. AB for example, you respawn in 15 seconds just to dps people off the flag before you die again. .... WSG is all about the druid running the flag because he cant be CC'd, Now EoTS is a little better but still the same as above. A lot of people consider these BGs a grind for gear...... everyone i talk to just wants to get their bg grind over with so they can participate and compete in the 5v5 arenas, which is objectiveless.
i understand a lot of casual players enjoy the battlegrounds because they can log in and play 2-3 games and be done with it. But you must look at it from a hardcore PvPers prospective, we (just like PvE raiders) want to immerse oursleves into an end game-- in depth-- system. That is why i hope BK will be like old daoc frontiers
I feel like the problem with objective based pvp is not that it does not require skill or teamwork (because the well organized team will usually win) but that it forces players to do something that they are really not interested in doing. If there is a part of AoC where you have objective based pvp i would not be opposed to it but I think that players really need to have a choice in how they do their pvp. i.e. there may be a capture and hold portion to a seige, or a "slaughter everyone you are fighting" classic pvp, but the players/guild are/is in control of what they do.
go tj crew
Do you mean you pefer something like WoW's Arena system? where you throw in 5 vs 5 players to see how is the best?
Do you mean you pefer something like WoW's Arena system? where you throw in 5 vs 5 players to see how is the best?
and who can exploit the system the best... *cough*anyway you can't really get people to do PvP battles "just for the fun of it" look at how big wow is, and how few videos there are of large groups of people doing anything "fun" in PvP.
So you have to create artifcial objectives for people to PvP in groups for. Otherwise its what you call ganking, which to be really honest is never fun to be on the reciving side. (unless your a sadist or something) I dont know doesn't bother me for capture the flag type stuff. Its a "game" why not have things like that in it. And what makes you think capture teh flag isn't a primitve sport. Btw as long as i can use such flagpole as a lance or spear, then I'm game, notihng like using the the flag to beat someone to death with it....
Do you mean you pefer something like WoW's Arena system? where you throw in 5 vs 5 players to see how is the best?"
[/end quote]
This is the exact reason DEVS should impliment a reward system for PvPing. If you recall DAOC they had realm ranks (think of it as a lvling system almost like EQ's AA) but only through PvP.
Rewards have to be good, and not uber item based. Daoc used this-- if a team had control of all the keeps you got access to a epic dungeon, EQ2 had alternative advancement points, kind of like WoWs talent tree. You have to give people a reason to PvP, so it doesnt become a mindless gankfest, but rather a competitive atmosphere within a guild versus guild scenario.
Do you mean you pefer something like WoW's Arena system? where you throw in 5 vs 5 players to see how is the best?"
[/end quote]
This is the exact reason DEVS should impliment a reward system for PvPing. If you recall DAOC they had realm ranks (think of it as a lvling system almost like EQ's AA) but only through PvP.
Rewards have to be good, and not uber item based. Daoc used this-- if a team had control of all the keeps you got access to a epic dungeon, EQ2 had alternative advancement points, kind of like WoWs talent tree. You have to give people a reason to PvP, so it doesnt become a mindless gankfest, but rather a competitive atmosphere within a guild versus guild scenario.
So what your saying is you want the objective to be more meaningful than "Watch This Rock"?You want something where the controlling side gets something that the others have to fight to get (access to dungeons, special NPCs, etc) Just something that makes the victory seem all that much more sweeter.
If thats the point your trying to make, then yeah, it would be nice.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Do you mean you pefer something like WoW's Arena system? where you throw in 5 vs 5 players to see how is the best?"
[/end quote]
This is the exact reason DEVS should impliment a reward system for PvPing. If you recall DAOC they had realm ranks (think of it as a lvling system almost like EQ's AA) but only through PvP.
Rewards have to be good, and not uber item based. Daoc used this-- if a team had control of all the keeps you got access to a epic dungeon, EQ2 had alternative advancement points, kind of like WoWs talent tree. You have to give people a reason to PvP, so it doesnt become a mindless gankfest, but rather a competitive atmosphere within a guild versus guild scenario.
So what your saying is you want the objective to be more meaningful than "Watch This Rock"?You want something where the controlling side gets something that the others have to fight to get (access to dungeons, special NPCs, etc) Just something that makes the victory seem all that much more sweeter.
If thats the point your trying to make, then yeah, it would be nice.
i think that's what battle keeps are for. only 9 in the whole server. they give buffs and access to recipies only avalible when you own a battle keep. along with pvp feats that you can get through pvp.. i think
Well rather then giving people gear I would think allowing people access to better crafting materials and special dungeons with nice drops would be a good incentive.
Though I agree with some here that there is nothing lamer then CTF, DM, HK farming styles in a MMO. PvP in a MMO should come about organically due to natural competition for resources, territory and name recognition amongst the player population. Outright Dev forced pvp is just plain lame! Putting in mechanics that give players reasons to look for a fight is great but don't force them to look for a fight in a controlled arena style scenario based on a carrot and stick point system. There are only a few MMO's that have done PvP correctly -> DAOC and EVE.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Game(s) I Am Currently Playing:
GW2 (+LoL and BF3)
You know I think they could do a "King of the Hill" and have it meaningful, pretty much a prize for being the last on standing. Or the first one alive to the top. The prize would be the selling or breaking point of the minigame tho.