PvPer, he has a motive behind his kill, for his pirate faction (corp) and as far as i am concerned a miner in 0.0 space is aware of the dangers of pirate corps in that territory and will usually be found with some sort of protection like mercenaries or corpmates
That is how the pirates in EvE make a living. therefore falls in the category of faction interest of ressources therefore PvP
I see. Then we agree that killing innocents is ok as long as there's an underlying reason behind it; such as needing to protect ones territory/interests and that the innocent killed was aware that they were entering a position of vulnerability whereby they might be attacked and killed by another player. I would term this PK on the basis that the innocent did not want to engage in the content, but there's no sense in quibbling over semantics.
Not every game needs PK and for some good reasons. Two come to mind. First, not every game is designed with PVP of any sort in mind or at least not in the same sense that it would be for an RTS with multiplayer ladders or an FPS with death-match or team-play options. In particular, MMOs are not framed in such a way that allows for unbridled, consequence free player killing what-so-ever that you find in the other genres I listed previously. That doesn't mean an MMO could not have PK, but it would have to have it in such a manner that there is some real consequence for being a griefer or an exploiter of any kind. And it has to be made in such a manner that it's not one-sided (where the one who ambushes always and I mean *always* wins).
Second, PK as most games have it would never work in an MMO or other genres or titles of the same or similar genre(s). One example of two radically different MMOs with regard to PK that comes to mind are SB and DDO, where in each pretty much show where PK sometimes works and in some cases makes no sense. In the case of SB, PVP makes great sense in regards to Guild v Guild or Nation v Nation, but here's the kicker: it doesn't work at all in regards to one-on-one PVP. What's my evidence for this: the fact that no new player (nor myself) can fend off any other attacking player in the majority of cases when soloing. Now, one could argue that SB wasn't designed with the soloer in mind. That is partly true, but the fact you run as a single character and not as a squad pretty much levels that argument to the ground in that even games like SB (such as EVE) have made it possible to solo both in its PVE and in its PVP elements with varying degrees of success. That being said, SB shows that PVP works great in groups, but not in single player encounters (at least in the way it's been designed in SB so far). DDO, by comparison, shows how pointless PVP can be for a game in that the addition of PVP to DDO did not fundamentally change the nature of the game; it's a diversion rather than a fundamental feature necessary for character progression. And that is a problem only in the fact that it wasted the time of developers who could have focused on the main features and themes of DDO over the diversion of PVP that was added in the first place. Ultimately, if a game isn't designed from the beginning to support PK/PVP properly it never will at any stage of its deployment cycle, unless the developers make a significantly and potentially 'fatal (as in to produce a deathmarch situation)' architectural redesign of the game.
Sometimes, PVP doesn't make a lick of sense, especially in the form of PK in most games, especially MMOs. This isn't a death sentence to the whole idea of PK/PVP, but it should be seen as a warning to developers (and players) who wish to utilize PK/PVP as part of their game(s). Especially, if the game is already deployed on the market as altering the nature of the game after the fact may alienate the existing customer base. And the core formulas used to compute the game mechanics themselves may never be able to properly handle all the cases of PK/PVP to the degree of general satisfaction of the customer base, thus tweaking these formulas isn't possible since logically they were designed with a different set of goals in mind. In the end, PK/PVP is not a panacea, it is simply another possible feature for MMOs.
IN Order for there to be PvP/PK in any game that game must have balance. It is the balancing aspect that is the limiting factor. Without it, youll find everyone basically playing the same class the same specs and the same weapons/armor setup
..which I suppose is a balance of sorts, but not one I would want to take part in
yeah you're right there should be a balance and also there should have a division each class and each lvl so they wouldn't abuse pk to some low level players
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the reason why the old Ultima Online PK system was even remotely semi-successful was that, at the time, there was not too many alternative MMOs for the so-called "carebears" to play. Even if the PK victim didn't enjoy being a victim, he couldn't just choose a different game. As more game became available the PVE players left.
Whats all this PK crap? Why not just call it PVP. PvP and PK are fundamentally different. PvP can be considered any activity whereby players compete, so for example.. two crafters undercutting one another is economic PvP and two people trying to get to the rank of guild-leader is political PvP. It's more commonly known for it's combat based connotations; two players trying to kill one another. PK by comparison is "player killing", or the act of one player trying to kill another one who doesn't want to fight but has put themselves in a vulnerable position by, for example, entering a free-for-all zone.
PvP is suppose to be (in the fighting sense) an HONORABLE duel between two fighters. PK is when cowards kill anyone for fun (and use exploits; cheats; and game design flaws) to even do so. PvP is encouraged in most MMOs; PK isn't. You show your bias here; PKs are not exploiting cowardly evil scumbags whose only joy comes from attempting to kill you and ruin your day. If you'd ever met a GUL member in old UO, you'd understand how PK's can be a great addition to an MMO.
i got booted from that clan for challenging the leader! good times!
PvP is suppose to be (in the fighting sense) an HONORABLE duel between two fighters. PK is when cowards kill anyone for fun (and use exploits; cheats; and game design flaws) to even do so. PvP is encouraged in most MMOs; PK isn't.
To me that's the same thing though.... tbh the people who call it PK are just whiners who can't take being killed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the reason why the old Ultima Online PK system was even remotely semi-successful was that, at the time, there was not too many alternative MMOs for the so-called "carebears" to play. Even if the PK victim didn't enjoy being a victim, he couldn't just choose a different game. As more game became available the PVE players left.
thats partly true. there was a war between anti PK and PK neither won. and PK justt became an unknown thing in the new gaming world. now the carebears own the servers and i want to put an end to this and kill them all. i am trying to get people to see it as a nescisity
Therefore, the online gaming world is made up of three different kinds of people: The Wolf, Carebear, and the Hero. The wolf is the PK, and he kills the carebears. The carebears are those who spam, whine, bitch, and beg. Carebears go and ask the Hero to save them by killing the Wolves. The Hero is the Anti-PK. They then go and kill the Wolves and are praised for it or they die trying. That is why PK is needed for online gaming.
You missed the biggest category: Gamers With Jobs. These are people who like PVP, but have better things to do than be corpse camped by some twit 20 levels higher who apparently has nothing better to do that irritate people with brains.
____________________________________________ im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
That means that pking is a huge part of it missing from current games. The fallacy with everyone who says that pking is jsut a feature based on sales is thinking that sales dictate the definition of a game. This specific game is a roleplaying game. Because one can roleplay a murderer, then logically pking, player killing (murdering) is a feature set but also an integral component because its ruleset is almost 1/3 the size of the game's total rules.
PK/Raiding/RvR/PvP are NOT needed. In facts, any game where they are really optional is a LOT better. Optional = you can avoid it with no consequences to your stats/progression whatsoever.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
MMORPG - massive multiplayer online roleplaying game. That means that pking is a huge part of it missing from current games. The fallacy with everyone who says that pking is jsut a feature based on sales is thinking that sales dictate the definition of a game. This specific game is a roleplaying game. Because one can roleplay a murderer, then logically pking, player killing (murdering) is a feature set but also an integral component because its ruleset is almost 1/3 the size of the game's total rules.
When I played RPGs all the way back before 1988, RP didn't proclaim PKing. That's a new definition due to PvP, which is new invention since MP.
Being a murderer also needs consequences. In PvP now, there's little or no consequences, especially when these biggest mouthy PvPers can only be fallen by those at level or higher (why they prey on lower levels, as they know the price of picking on the higher levels). When they're reached the cap, only a very few of the same high capped players could take them down -- meaning they only playing equals.
Zero skilled warriors.
Now I hate what VCO has done with Hurricane Island (Item mall Spam Island), it at least makes it even a challenge for the highest leveled and armored fighter. No single player could take down the T-Rex, and even a whole team or guild fighting with the highest epics, will face SEVERE damages (they still have to spam IM team effect potions).
If PvPers want to be the baaaaaaaad PvPers they claim, they need to fight the truly baaaaaaaaad [b]PvE[/b] content! lololololol
While I don't tend to PK myself, nor PvP much at all, I think it is a good addition in most MMOs. However, any PvP mechanism in a game needs to be implemented well, or else the whole system is worthless.
This is one of the biggest downfalls of completely open PvP. Having an extremely high level character running around low-level zones for hours on end killing players is generally not considered a good implementation of PvP: being one- or two-shotted repeatedly, especially when it happens multiple times a day/week, is not fun for most players, and usually is a major cause of players leaving a game, especially in systems where there are no or very little consequences for killing people much lower level than the PKer.
At the same time, however, implementing an open PvP system that has enormous consequences for ganking people, or even for PKing in general, is also a bad implementation - then no one wants to PvP whatsoever, or those that do are few and far between.
Class balance also plays a big part in any PvP system. Tank-class characters who have enough HP to survive 2-3 spells from a caster, but in turn can kill a caster of the same level in a few combat rounds is not balanced. The same is also true, a caster who can complete a spell and one-shot another player of similar level before they can reach the caster is also unfair, especially if the caster has some type of invisibility. The main problem that lies here, however, deals with the main aspect of the vast majority of MMOs - PvE content.
While it might be easy to balance classes for either PvE or PvP, it is entirely different to do so for both at the same time. Magic resistance and HP needed for tanks to survive PvE combat can often make them nearly invincible to PC spells. Endgame nukes meant for raid-situation DD by casters can be completely unfair to PCs in a PvP environment, whether it be unfair to the caster itself, or to other players - being able to one-shot other casters/rogues/light-armor characters, but needing multiple extremely-long-cast-time spell to finish a tank isn't balanced, especially when things like spell interruption are taken into account.
While completely open PvP elements do sometimes have a positive impact on gameplay - being able to freely kill spammers in towns comes to mind - griefers usually end up killing this aspect of the game via spawn camping, or things like ganking a player who has spent 10+ hours camping a spawn for an item, only to have the monster spawn 2 minutes after the player was killed.
One good (IMO) PvP implementation that I would like to see in games would be like this: open PvP in towns, with exceptionally strong, wandering guards with overlapping patrols throughout the town - i.e. guards being able to fight evenly with a decently-armored max-level PC. When a player commits initiates any form of PvP in a town (including dueling, outside of pre-defined arenas), all types of invisibility for that PC are disabled for a short period of time. Any NPCs in the area of the PvP will have a "memory" of the event (i.e. soandso ganked soandso2), and will "call" for guards to come, who will then be notified of the event. If the event is within the line of sight of a guard, said guard will immediately give chase to the offender, and will trigger the notification system. Once notified, all guards in the city would be alerted to attempt to stop (read: kill) the offending player if seen while on their normal patrol routes - this is where the invisibility-deactivation is useful, so that the player can gank someone and get away scot free. Once the guards are notified of the PKer, an internal timer will start to deactivate the guard-search, allowing the player to enter the town safely at a later time. This does not stop the player from "hiding out" from the guards till their invisibility functions can be activated, but makes it very hard for them to do so.
This implementation would allow for a player to go on a PK spree if he/she wished, but each additional kill would increase the timer for safe reentry into the town geometrically (i.e. 1 kill = 1 hour, but 5 kills = 10 hours). This would also enable players to create alternate, lower-level PK characters to kill spammers in the town - once the spammer is dead (and after the guards most likely kill the low-level PKer in this case), the player respawns and logs back onto their normal character, allowing the timer to run down and be ready for another spammer-PK run. At the same time, the strength of the guards would make it so that even max-level characters would be stalled long enough for other guards to arrive. This would prevent most players from indiscriminant killing within towns (especially within sight of guards). It would also help reduce the amount of RMTing in the game, as spammers wouldn't be able to spam their site address as easily.
Well, enough for my rant. Hope I made sense through all that~
While PvP is not for everyone, whats the point of playing a multiplayer game if you aren't going to compete with other players?
If the PvE content is good, you don't even need PvP.
Level up to phase 3 in Voyage Century, and go after that T-Rex. IF you can manage to get your ship through the blockade to get on the island, and past the pools of poisonious crocs, before even getting close to the dinosaur.
Make sure you have a team of about a dozen of more of the highest weaponed and armored guys to even try. As T-Rex will kill even a Black armored player with the best stat weapon AND armor with about 2 hits.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the reason why the old Ultima Online PK system was even remotely semi-successful was that, at the time, there was not too many alternative MMOs for the so-called "carebears" to play. Even if the PK victim didn't enjoy being a victim, he couldn't just choose a different game. As more game became available the PVE players left.
thats partly true. there was a war between anti PK and PK neither won. and PK justt became an unknown thing in the new gaming world. now the carebears own the servers and i want to put an end to this and kill them all. i am trying to get people to see it as a nescisity
If the "carebears" own the servers, then indeed there was a winner. And it wasn't the PKers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the reason why the old Ultima Online PK system was even remotely semi-successful was that, at the time, there was not too many alternative MMOs for the so-called "carebears" to play. Even if the PK victim didn't enjoy being a victim, he couldn't just choose a different game. As more game became available the PVE players left.
thats partly true. there was a war between anti PK and PK neither won. and PK justt became an unknown thing in the new gaming world. now the carebears own the servers and i want to put an end to this and kill them all. i am trying to get people to see it as a nescisity
If the "carebears" own the servers, then indeed there was a winner. And it wasn't the PKers.
Once again my misguided friends, you allude to previous days, but in previous days pking was a part of roleplaying, even in classical roleplaying, in which one uses boards and rulesets. The dungeon master vs. the players in ad&d. Furthermore in muds, there was pvp. Most muds, allowed player killing. Look at a long list of all the old popular muds and you will see the majority allowed player killing, and even a few offered permadeath. Mmorpgs have evolved from muds. Anyone can see that clear as day.
But this is all banter. Years ago the word roleplaying was invented, and that word means to play in some sort of fantasy role. Murderers, criminals, scallywags, carpetbaggers, and flappers are all roles to people, and therefore constitute a part of that list considered to meet the criteria as a fantasy role.
Now if this were an action game, the argument would be different. Keyword - roleplaying. Now true, you can have a pve game and call this an mmorpg if you'd like, but the fact is a game that offers both pvp - pking, and pve, is more true to the definition of an mmorpg.
Comments
Not every game needs PK and for some good reasons. Two come to mind. First, not every game is designed with PVP of any sort in mind or at least not in the same sense that it would be for an RTS with multiplayer ladders or an FPS with death-match or team-play options. In particular, MMOs are not framed in such a way that allows for unbridled, consequence free player killing what-so-ever that you find in the other genres I listed previously. That doesn't mean an MMO could not have PK, but it would have to have it in such a manner that there is some real consequence for being a griefer or an exploiter of any kind. And it has to be made in such a manner that it's not one-sided (where the one who ambushes always and I mean *always* wins).
Second, PK as most games have it would never work in an MMO or other genres or titles of the same or similar genre(s). One example of two radically different MMOs with regard to PK that comes to mind are SB and DDO, where in each pretty much show where PK sometimes works and in some cases makes no sense. In the case of SB, PVP makes great sense in regards to Guild v Guild or Nation v Nation, but here's the kicker: it doesn't work at all in regards to one-on-one PVP. What's my evidence for this: the fact that no new player (nor myself) can fend off any other attacking player in the majority of cases when soloing. Now, one could argue that SB wasn't designed with the soloer in mind. That is partly true, but the fact you run as a single character and not as a squad pretty much levels that argument to the ground in that even games like SB (such as EVE) have made it possible to solo both in its PVE and in its PVP elements with varying degrees of success. That being said, SB shows that PVP works great in groups, but not in single player encounters (at least in the way it's been designed in SB so far). DDO, by comparison, shows how pointless PVP can be for a game in that the addition of PVP to DDO did not fundamentally change the nature of the game; it's a diversion rather than a fundamental feature necessary for character progression. And that is a problem only in the fact that it wasted the time of developers who could have focused on the main features and themes of DDO over the diversion of PVP that was added in the first place. Ultimately, if a game isn't designed from the beginning to support PK/PVP properly it never will at any stage of its deployment cycle, unless the developers make a significantly and potentially 'fatal (as in to produce a deathmarch situation)' architectural redesign of the game.
Sometimes, PVP doesn't make a lick of sense, especially in the form of PK in most games, especially MMOs. This isn't a death sentence to the whole idea of PK/PVP, but it should be seen as a warning to developers (and players) who wish to utilize PK/PVP as part of their game(s). Especially, if the game is already deployed on the market as altering the nature of the game after the fact may alienate the existing customer base. And the core formulas used to compute the game mechanics themselves may never be able to properly handle all the cases of PK/PVP to the degree of general satisfaction of the customer base, thus tweaking these formulas isn't possible since logically they were designed with a different set of goals in mind. In the end, PK/PVP is not a panacea, it is simply another possible feature for MMOs.
-- Brede
IN Order for there to be PvP/PK in any game that game must have balance. It is the balancing aspect that is the limiting factor. Without it, youll find everyone basically playing the same class the same specs and the same weapons/armor setup
..which I suppose is a balance of sorts, but not one I would want to take part in
Torrential
Torrential: DAOC (Pendragon)
Awned: World of Warcraft (Lothar)
Torren: Warhammer Online (Praag)
yeah you're right there should be a balance and also there should have a division each class and each lvl so they wouldn't abuse pk to some low level players
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the reason why the old Ultima Online PK system was even remotely semi-successful was that, at the time, there was not too many alternative MMOs for the so-called "carebears" to play. Even if the PK victim didn't enjoy being a victim, he couldn't just choose a different game. As more game became available the PVE players left.
good discription
Let Them HATE, so long as they FEAR
PvP is suppose to be (in the fighting sense) an HONORABLE duel between two fighters.
PK is when cowards kill anyone for fun (and use exploits; cheats; and game design flaws) to even do so.
PvP is encouraged in most MMOs; PK isn't.
not all PK hack, not all are cowards. Some go after anyone who venture near regardless of level.
Let Them HATE, so long as they FEAR
i got booted from that clan for challenging the leader! good times!
and nice statement
Let Them HATE, so long as they FEAR
To me that's the same thing though.... tbh the people who call it PK are just whiners who can't take being killed.
except for the ones who do the PK like me.
Let Them HATE, so long as they FEAR
thats partly true. there was a war between anti PK and PK neither won. and PK justt became an unknown thing in the new gaming world. now the carebears own the servers and i want to put an end to this and kill them all. i am trying to get people to see it as a nescisity
Let Them HATE, so long as they FEAR
You missed the biggest category: Gamers With Jobs. These are people who like PVP, but have better things to do than be corpse camped by some twit 20 levels higher who apparently has nothing better to do that irritate people with brains.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
MMORPG - massive multiplayer online roleplaying game.
That means that pking is a huge part of it missing from current games. The fallacy with everyone who says that pking is jsut a feature based on sales is thinking that sales dictate the definition of a game. This specific game is a roleplaying game. Because one can roleplay a murderer, then logically pking, player killing (murdering) is a feature set but also an integral component because its ruleset is almost 1/3 the size of the game's total rules.
in essence this means that mmorpgs are not true roleplaying games unless they do offer some sort of player killing.
LOL
PK/Raiding/RvR/PvP are NOT needed. In facts, any game where they are really optional is a LOT better. Optional = you can avoid it with no consequences to your stats/progression whatsoever.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
well said
Let Them HATE, so long as they FEAR
"now the carebears own the servers and i want to put an end to this and kill them all. i am trying to get people to see it as a nescisity"
While I love PvP this is one of the reasons I don't miss open PvP in games...
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
then its not roleplaying. Its an immitation of roleplaying.
glad to see that you see it my way now i hope you will join in the taking back of the servers
Let Them HATE, so long as they FEAR
When I played RPGs all the way back before 1988, RP didn't proclaim PKing. That's a new definition due to PvP, which is new invention since MP.
Being a murderer also needs consequences. In PvP now, there's little or no consequences, especially when these biggest mouthy PvPers can only be fallen by those at level or higher (why they prey on lower levels, as they know the price of picking on the higher levels). When they're reached the cap, only a very few of the same high capped players could take them down -- meaning they only playing equals.
Zero skilled warriors.
Now I hate what VCO has done with Hurricane Island (Item mall Spam Island), it at least makes it even a challenge for the highest leveled and armored fighter. No single player could take down the T-Rex, and even a whole team or guild fighting with the highest epics, will face SEVERE damages (they still have to spam IM team effect potions).
If PvPers want to be the baaaaaaaad PvPers they claim, they need to fight the truly baaaaaaaaad [b]PvE[/b] content! lololololol
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
While I don't tend to PK myself, nor PvP much at all, I think it is a good addition in most MMOs. However, any PvP mechanism in a game needs to be implemented well, or else the whole system is worthless.
This is one of the biggest downfalls of completely open PvP. Having an extremely high level character running around low-level zones for hours on end killing players is generally not considered a good implementation of PvP: being one- or two-shotted repeatedly, especially when it happens multiple times a day/week, is not fun for most players, and usually is a major cause of players leaving a game, especially in systems where there are no or very little consequences for killing people much lower level than the PKer.
At the same time, however, implementing an open PvP system that has enormous consequences for ganking people, or even for PKing in general, is also a bad implementation - then no one wants to PvP whatsoever, or those that do are few and far between.
Class balance also plays a big part in any PvP system. Tank-class characters who have enough HP to survive 2-3 spells from a caster, but in turn can kill a caster of the same level in a few combat rounds is not balanced. The same is also true, a caster who can complete a spell and one-shot another player of similar level before they can reach the caster is also unfair, especially if the caster has some type of invisibility. The main problem that lies here, however, deals with the main aspect of the vast majority of MMOs - PvE content.
While it might be easy to balance classes for either PvE or PvP, it is entirely different to do so for both at the same time. Magic resistance and HP needed for tanks to survive PvE combat can often make them nearly invincible to PC spells. Endgame nukes meant for raid-situation DD by casters can be completely unfair to PCs in a PvP environment, whether it be unfair to the caster itself, or to other players - being able to one-shot other casters/rogues/light-armor characters, but needing multiple extremely-long-cast-time spell to finish a tank isn't balanced, especially when things like spell interruption are taken into account.
While completely open PvP elements do sometimes have a positive impact on gameplay - being able to freely kill spammers in towns comes to mind - griefers usually end up killing this aspect of the game via spawn camping, or things like ganking a player who has spent 10+ hours camping a spawn for an item, only to have the monster spawn 2 minutes after the player was killed.
One good (IMO) PvP implementation that I would like to see in games would be like this: open PvP in towns, with exceptionally strong, wandering guards with overlapping patrols throughout the town - i.e. guards being able to fight evenly with a decently-armored max-level PC. When a player commits initiates any form of PvP in a town (including dueling, outside of pre-defined arenas), all types of invisibility for that PC are disabled for a short period of time. Any NPCs in the area of the PvP will have a "memory" of the event (i.e. soandso ganked soandso2), and will "call" for guards to come, who will then be notified of the event. If the event is within the line of sight of a guard, said guard will immediately give chase to the offender, and will trigger the notification system. Once notified, all guards in the city would be alerted to attempt to stop (read: kill) the offending player if seen while on their normal patrol routes - this is where the invisibility-deactivation is useful, so that the player can gank someone and get away scot free. Once the guards are notified of the PKer, an internal timer will start to deactivate the guard-search, allowing the player to enter the town safely at a later time. This does not stop the player from "hiding out" from the guards till their invisibility functions can be activated, but makes it very hard for them to do so.
This implementation would allow for a player to go on a PK spree if he/she wished, but each additional kill would increase the timer for safe reentry into the town geometrically (i.e. 1 kill = 1 hour, but 5 kills = 10 hours). This would also enable players to create alternate, lower-level PK characters to kill spammers in the town - once the spammer is dead (and after the guards most likely kill the low-level PKer in this case), the player respawns and logs back onto their normal character, allowing the timer to run down and be ready for another spammer-PK run. At the same time, the strength of the guards would make it so that even max-level characters would be stalled long enough for other guards to arrive. This would prevent most players from indiscriminant killing within towns (especially within sight of guards). It would also help reduce the amount of RMTing in the game, as spammers wouldn't be able to spam their site address as easily.
Well, enough for my rant. Hope I made sense through all that~
While PvP is not for everyone, whats the point of playing a multiplayer game if you aren't going to compete with other players?
If the PvE content is good, you don't even need PvP.
Level up to phase 3 in Voyage Century, and go after that T-Rex. IF you can manage to get your ship through the blockade to get on the island, and past the pools of poisonious crocs, before even getting close to the dinosaur.
Make sure you have a team of about a dozen of more of the highest weaponed and armored guys to even try. As T-Rex will kill even a Black armored player with the best stat weapon AND armor with about 2 hits.
PvP is for wimps.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
thats partly true. there was a war between anti PK and PK neither won. and PK justt became an unknown thing in the new gaming world. now the carebears own the servers and i want to put an end to this and kill them all. i am trying to get people to see it as a nescisity
If the "carebears" own the servers, then indeed there was a winner. And it wasn't the PKers.
thats partly true. there was a war between anti PK and PK neither won. and PK justt became an unknown thing in the new gaming world. now the carebears own the servers and i want to put an end to this and kill them all. i am trying to get people to see it as a nescisity
If the "carebears" own the servers, then indeed there was a winner. And it wasn't the PKers.
QFT
Once again my misguided friends, you allude to previous days, but in previous days pking was a part of roleplaying, even in classical roleplaying, in which one uses boards and rulesets. The dungeon master vs. the players in ad&d. Furthermore in muds, there was pvp. Most muds, allowed player killing. Look at a long list of all the old popular muds and you will see the majority allowed player killing, and even a few offered permadeath. Mmorpgs have evolved from muds. Anyone can see that clear as day.
But this is all banter. Years ago the word roleplaying was invented, and that word means to play in some sort of fantasy role. Murderers, criminals, scallywags, carpetbaggers, and flappers are all roles to people, and therefore constitute a part of that list considered to meet the criteria as a fantasy role.
Now if this were an action game, the argument would be different. Keyword - roleplaying. Now true, you can have a pve game and call this an mmorpg if you'd like, but the fact is a game that offers both pvp - pking, and pve, is more true to the definition of an mmorpg.